Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

I'm a virgin. Does that prove that I'm a PERPETUAL virgin, that at the second of my death (or undeath), I WILL be a virgin? While 100% of human beings are a virgin at some point, the percentage of PERPETUAL virgins is considerably smaller, it is a situation that typically changes.





.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.

Clement of Alexandria picks up that thought. The virgin who is pure in doctrine from scripture.

Anyway, this isn't about EV. But about the debunked PoJ.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Where there is a change in status, an appellation indicating a former condition would be inaccurate. For example, I am not known as "the Infant Thekla", as I am now 50 years old. Infancy is a stage of physical development, a "temporary" condition if you will. Child is another matter - one is always the child of someone - in that sense it can, I suppose, be used as an appellation, but not in the sense of a physical condition of being a child (unless one has died in childhood).

I'm not certain how your specific comments relate to the discussion; virginity may or may not be a permanent condition.

Additionally, appelations are not always accurate, for good or ill.

As an example, they called Queen Elizabeth "the Virgin queen." It's been historically demonstrated that she actually wasn't a life long virgin, she took lovers.

But the appelation stuck, in relation to her steadfast refusal to marry at the time.

She is still referred to as "The Virgin queen" despite it's inaccuracy... because they are pointing to the attribute that defined her... not that it was endlessly true.

 

[Kepha]

I do set that criteria for myself.

Then answer my question. Talk is cheap.

Uncharitable to the core that you make this about me, instead of the ideas we are disagreeing with.

Ahh I see how this goes. You attack calling the Virgin Mary a pagan idea and defend your position to do so using a criteria you can't use yourself regarding the most important tool your faith is founded upon. But I'm the one uncharitable to the core because I throw it back at you so you can see the hypocrisy of such a statement. Then you play the victim.

I read and respect the Deuterocanons, even though they were disputed, even by Jerome.

I was only talking about your current 66 Book canon, not the other Books included. See, I was even making it easier for you.

My debate has never been that the proto be used to create doctrine. So everything else you said there was more of a waste of time than anything.

 

[Standing Up]

Once you start meeting the same criteria for your faith that you expect of mine we can talk.
So as I asked you in the other thread, would love to see you use Scripture and sub-Apostolic writings (those which you want from us) to prove they agreed with your 66 Book Canon idea. After all, your entire faith is built on that yes? So the importance of this is crucial.


The Ever Virgin Mary contradicts the human nature of Jesus?


Mm-hmm. I've said that a few times already somewhere on here.

Not the later defined EV idea, but the birth of Jesus from the PoJ. It's been quoted.

The young child appears.

Not a baby, not from normal birth. This is what the pagans thought. This is what Clement of Alexandria argued against. Some 25 years later Tertullian was arguing against Marcion and others about Jesus' birth. They thought as the PoJ said, Jesus just appeared, formed out of stardust, came to earth. Tertullian said, no, He had brothers. Same flesh as yours and mine. To argue for Mary's retained virginity was to argue against the humanity of Jesus.

 

[Standing Up]

I do set that criteria for myself.
It is only the dark filter that you view me with that makes it appear that I don't.
Uncharitable to the core that you make this about me, instead of the ideas we are disagreeing with.



I read and respect the Deuterocanons, even though they were disputed, even by Jerome.
Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.
Maybe it yet another example of that dark lens in action.


I was trying to stay on topic. I wasn't talking about the Ever-Virgin myth, but the related PofJ, which is fairly Gnostic in its description of a birth of the divine spark.
The Divine nature of Christ overwhelms any idea that this is an actual human birth, which would defeat the whole purpose of the Incarnation, which stresses fully human fully equally with fully divine.
Son of Man.



PofJ has always been considered false and contradictory to Scripture by the catholic church or apostolic orthodoxy. In usual parlance, rejecting a book means rejecting the ideas within, and not so much the papyrus or sheep skin that it was written on.

One would think

There were a vast array of heterodox responses that arose out of the Resurrection, that rocked the world at that time. Everybody interpreted it according to their understanding of the world, and few were in the position of the twelve where they actually had intimate knowledge of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension.
False teaching abounded, and many teaching that were not apostolic had to be rejected. That was what deciding which books were a part of Scripture, and which were not, was so crucial.
Confirmed apostolic teaching alone were fit for Scripture. Unfortunately, so called Sacred Scripture circumvents the process, by making the assumption that some among us have a special knowledge and a special relationship with God where they can understand things that lie beyond Scripture and the confirmed apostolic teaching.

The ideas of rejected works and ahistoric theories thereby corrupt the process with a myriad of non-apostolic works that derive from non-apostolic traditions.

PofJ is the case in point. The ideas are non-apostolic, and cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise, except by a blind faith in the special charism of people with special knowledge who have infallibly decided that they know better.

Show me different.

I can't believe folks keep arguing for the PoJ, or as you noted, for its ideas.

 

[Standing Up]

Wow, I can still be a virgin, this is great news

Kidding wit cha's

Actually, we try to be.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.

Keep to apostolic doctrine birthed from scripture (Clement of A). We're the virgins as such. Not some myth.

 

[Thekla]

Not the later defined EV idea, but the birth of Jesus from the PoJ. It's been quoted.

The young child appears.

Not a baby, not from normal birth. This is what the pagans thought. This is what Clement of Alexandria argued against. Some 25 years later Tertullian was arguing against Marcion and others about Jesus' birth. They thought as the PoJ said, Jesus just appeared, formed out of stardust, came to earth. Tertullian said, no, He had brothers. Same flesh as yours and mine. To argue for Mary's retained virginity was to argue against the humanity of Jesus.

Per the text itself, the ability to view the actual event of the birth is obscured due to the light. The child is visible only as the light recedes. This is not the same as being born from the presence of the light.

 

[Standing Up]

there is a major distinction though. When addressing the issue of Mary, it is always in relation to her giving birth to the Christ child.

to call her "Mary the Virgin" in regards to that, would be accurate, even 40 years later, and after a possible birth of many other children, because it is in relation to what she was for the incarnation, that is being addressed.

the rest, is mundane and unnoteworthy, by comparison.

Thank you. You have outlined the exact thought. Born of a virgin. It's never born of an ever-virgin.

But back to PoJ.

 

[Standing Up]

Per the text itself, the ability to view the actual event of the birth is obscured due to the light. The child is visible only as the light recedes. This is not the same as being born from the presence of the light.

Have you decided it was a normal birth? Good we agree.

With that in mind, reread Clement of A and Tertullian again. Then reread PoJ. You'll have to do thiis on your own.

 

[Thekla]

Additionally, appelations are not always accurate, for good or ill.

As an example, they called Queen Elizabeth "the Virgin queen." It's been historically demonstrated that she actually wasn't a life long virgin, she took lovers.

But the appelation stuck, in relation to her steadfast refusal to marry at the time.

She is still referred to as "The Virgin queen" despite it's inaccuracy... because they are pointing to the attribute that defined her... not that it was endlessly true.

That is true in this case, I agree.
It also seems that in her case, the term "virgin" refers to her disposition, her independence as it were.

But in the case of Mary, there seems (at least per Scripture), a different level of spiritual maturity. Elizabeth, in her pursuits and dalliances, did not show a strong "moral" character.

 

[Thekla]

Have you decided it was a normal birth? Good we agree.

With that in mind, reread Clement of A and Tertullian again. Then reread PoJ. You'll have to do thiis on your own.

Per the discussion re: the Protoevangelion, there is not enough information given to make any determination on the event of the birth (its normalcy or not). But I have also not stated that Christ's birth was "abnormal"; every birth is a particular event, unlike any other particular birth. The person of the child, and the person of the mother (as wholes - physical and spiritual) both inform the event of birth. Thus the particularity of each event of a birth.

I have read Clement of Alexandria; I have found no support for your claims in the text authored by him.

 

[Standing Up]

Per the discussion re: the Protoevangelion, there is not enough information given to make any determination on the event of the birth (its normalcy or not). But I have also not stated that Christ's birth was "abnormal"; every birth is a particular event, unlike any other particular birth. The person of the child, and the person of the mother (as wholes - physical and spiritual) both inform the event of birth. Thus the particularity of each event of a birth.

It's either a normal (vaginal-water, birth, placenta) delivery or not. Which was it? PoJ says it wasn't. Clement of A says it was. I agree with Clement. Who do you agree with?

 

[Thekla]

It's either a normal (vaginal-water, birth, placenta) delivery or not. Which was it? PoJ says it wasn't. Clement of A says it was. I agree with Clement. Who do you agree with?

On the first point, the presence of amniotic fluid during the birth (and the quantity in the amniotic sac before birth) varies based on the particular physical circumstances. No statement is made in any text that I know of on the actual physical conditions of Christ's birth. Where there is no information, no specific comment can be made.

I have posted the description of the events at the time of the birth in the Protoevangelion of James; the text does not state at all what you claim it says. It makes no comment on the actual description of the birth; the text describes that the actual event was not seen.

Clement makes no comments that would support what you claim he said; I have stated that before, and have described the meaning of his terminology as well as linking to the definition/s of the terminology he uses. In fact, he states that Mary showed no indication of the physical condition of having recently given birth. For you to agree with Clement would be to agree that at least some aspects of the birth were not normal or typical.

 

[Standing Up]

On the first point-snip-

The first point is whether you agree Christ was born normally, rather than as the spurious PoJ says.

Barring a straight answer Thekla, we share no common ground. I am sure He was born normally. It's up to you at this point to check out Marcion and the other gnostics about these things. Then look at Tertullian. Then return to Clement of Alexandria. All I can do is suggest these things.

Please don't bother responding to my posts. We can't agree that Jesus was born normally. We surely have nothing in common.

 

[Thekla]

The first point is whether you agree Christ was born normally, rather than as the spurious PoJ says.

Barring a straight answer Thekla, we share no common ground. I am sure He was born normally. It's up to you at this point to check out Marcion and the other gnostics about these things. Then look at Tertullian. Then return to Clement of Alexandria. All I can do is suggest these things.

Please don't bother responding to my posts. We can't agree that Jesus was born normally. We surely have nothing in common.

You seem to ask me to make statements of knowledge I do not have.
I do not know the specifics of Christ's birth, so I cannot comment on the specifics of Christ's birth. That would mean I am "agnostic/don't know" on the matter", not "gnostic/know".

The description of the birth in the Protoevangelion does not match the description"gnostic" either; it does not claim that Christ was born "from the light" per se, but that the light obscured the visibility of the event of the birth.

I am not a Gnostic, and have no interest in reading Marcion. I have read Clement, and I'm not sure what you want me to "see" in his writings. He comments not on the birth, but the condition of Mary after the birth. Tertullian is of some importance in the west, but not the east. There are authors I'd prefer to read. If you have some comment of his you think may be of interest here, I'll take a look.

 

[SolomonVII]

Then answer my question. Talk is cheap.

I went back to the post in question, and for the life I me, I can't see where I never answered anything that had your question mark behind it to the best of my ability.

Ahh I see how this goes. You attack calling the Virgin Mary a pagan idea and defend your position to do so using a criteria you can't use yourself regarding the most important tool your faith is founded upon.

I think that the belief of PofJ that Jesus passed as a brilliance of light from pregnancy to a child is a Gnostic idea rather.
There is no tying Perpetual Virginity back to any apostolic teaching that I am aware of. On the other hand, this is a practice from paganism.
Either way, even pseudo-epigraphia don't affirm the idea, so my criticism-not my attack, but my criticism- of Sacred Tradition is that it is circumventing known apostolic teaching.
Given the plethora of heterodox ideas that abounded at this time (which in itself is a intutive testimony to the idea that something as extraordinary as a Resurrection historically occurred), this idea of making dogma out of ideas that cannot be tied to apostolic teaching is dangerous.
Sure the idea of spiritual virginity, and the semi-divine Queen of Heaven that grew out of this ideal, was very popular among early Christians. It was popular in the cults of virginity that preceded Christianity. I don't know if Judaism of the time had its own Temple Virgins too. Maybe they did. Usually though, such nazarite vows would not be associated with betrothals to older gentlemen, I don't think.

But I'm the one uncharitable

Yes.

to the core

Not to the core. Redemption is still a possibility, I think.
Like I say, beyond the snarkiness, I hear the sound of idols crashing to the ground. A faith based on historic claims of truth intrinsically requires historic evidence for those claims.
The claim is that ours is an apostolic church. I honestly see that the evidence is lacking for making some of the claims made by Catholic Dogma and EO liturgy.
I am not saying that the EV claim was not a very popular and even early in Christian history. I am simply saying that without evidence, it cannot be called apostolic.
And since it is that claim that is driving the interpretation of Scripture toward either the cousin or step-brother theories of Jerome and PofJ, the more natural reading of Scripture would seem to apply here, just as it does in the case of Moses and Miriam and Aaron, for example.
The Scriptural word used for the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth for example is never adelphi, but a word that is commonly translated as relative or cousin.
That word is available to scripture too then, if some degrees of separation are desired for texts where some additional details would not be obvious.

I have no dogma either way, but a variety of Protestants have made the better arguments here for me, that's all. My own personal bias is not towards Protestantism actually. But my integrity tells me to acknowledge that theirs are the better arguments being put forth in this case

...because I throw it back at you so you can see the hypocrisy of such a statement. Then you play the victim.

I am not playing the victim. I simply try to restrain myself so that the moderators don't have to keep on reminding me that posting is a privilege, and not a right for me here.

And does disagreeing with certain Catholic teachings from Sacred Tradition automatically make everyone else a hypocrite?!!!

I was only talking about your current 66 Book canon, not the other Books included. See, I was even making it easier for you.

I have no problem with the 66 or even more. I think that the decision was a proper one for the church to make. It was a reasoned decision, based on prayer of course, but also the universality of use of these books throughout Christianity, and historic associations with the apostolic traditions.
Like I say, I don't see why that is a problem for anyone.

My debate has never been that the proto be used to create doctrine. So everything else you said there was more of a waste of time than anything.

Well, in a sense, there has been time wasted. But ultimately anything that helps firm my faith and my understanding of the parameters of that faith is not time wasted for me, at least.
PofJ has ideas shared more by the EO than the RCC, for sure.
Like Standing Up already told you, he is helping you to make your case for the Jerome theory here, by so thoroughly debunking the PofJ ideas as false and contradictory to Scripture.
And like CJ repeatedly say, there is nothing in this PofJ that would support the tangentially related Dogma of Mary anyway. It is at best damage control against the idea that neither the birth of Jesus nor the birth of any subsequent brothers did anything to destroy the pristine maidenhead of Mary.
Its ideas did not make it in the RCC liturgy anyways.

So are you willing to move on to Jerome then finally?

 

[Kepha]

I went back to the post in question, and for the life I me, I can't see where I never answered anything that had your question mark behind it to the best of my ability.

Which post are you referring?

There is no tying Perpetual Virginity back to any apostolic teaching that I am aware of.

St. Jerome named a bunch as I said before. Making a claim that He is wrong without the evidence is ridiculous and conclude there was never any Written documentation regarding His stance is ignorant.

On the other hand, this is a practice from paganism.

Can you verify one ECF quote showing the rise of this pagan belief and equating Her Perpetual Virginity to it?
The Virgin Birth is said to have it's roots in paganism too btw.

Either way, even pseudo-epigraphia don't affirm the idea, so my criticism-not my attack, but my criticism- of Sacred Tradition is that it is circumventing known apostolic teaching.

Who decides what's Apostolic teaching?

this idea of making dogma out of ideas that cannot be tied to apostolic teaching is dangerous.

It can be if you're open to it. However, accepting a Cannon not verified by the Apostles is dangerous. Fallible men interpretating dogma for themselves is dangerous. Pretending you've read 'every' piece of writing from the ECFs that has been put on paper is dangerous.

A faith based on historic claims of truth intrinsically requires historic evidence for those claims.

So all truths MUST be verified in written documentation or they cease to become true?

I am not saying that the EV claim was not a very popular and even early in Christian history. I am simply saying that without evidence, it cannot be called apostolic.

I know what you're saying. It's why I in turn asked you use this on yourself for the basis of your entire faith. Your Canon. But you're simply avoiding this request or saying you can't 'see' it in my post.

I am not playing the victim. I simply try to restrain myself so that the moderators don't have to keep on reminding me that posting is a privilege, and not a right for me here.

No, you definitely turned the drama on there.

And does disagreeing with certain Catholic teachings from Sacred Tradition automatically make everyone else a hypocrite?!!!

When you expect proof you can't give yourself regarding your own doctrines then yes, it does.

I have no problem with the 66 or even more. I think that the decision was a proper one for the church to make. It was a reasoned decision, based on prayer of course, but also the universality of use of these books throughout Christianity, and historic associations with the apostolic traditions.
Like I say, I don't see why that is a problem for anyone.

The Books were never all universally accepted. You need to prove this from the very early CFs as you demand of us.

Like Standing Up already told you, he is helping you to make your case for the Jerome theory here, by so thoroughly debunking the PofJ ideas as false and contradictory to Scripture.

Standing up will never help me even in the simplest things regarding my faith. He snips texts out of their proper context and throws his own interpretation on it and you swallow everything up along the way. Your bias won't allow you to see the reality behind the situation. Im not saying this to be mean. I'm only trying to help you here.

So are you willing to move on to Jerome then finally?

Why would I?

A) You still have to prove that brothers in question were not St. Joseph's sons and originated ONLY because of the readings from it's text and not passed by word of mouth beforehand. The proto also has it's accuracies we can agree upon correct? Would you say they were just made up fables and written into it at the time that miraculously were on par with the truth or that this truth was also passed on to the author and written into it?

B) You've yet to prove that any CF maintaining Mary had sons was carried on from the sub Apostolic age.

You or your buddy SU have done neither.

 

[Standing Up]

More contradictions between the spurious, useless PoJ and Scripture.

PoJ

8 And they came to the midst of the way, and Mary said unto him: Take me down from the ass, for that which is within me presseth me, to come forth. And he took her down from the ass and said unto her: Whither shall I take thee to hide thy shame ? for the place is desert. XVIII. I And he found a cave there and brought her into it, and set his sons by her: and he went forth and sought for a midwife of the Hebrews in the country of Bethlehem.

PoJ
Born in the country of Bethlehem
Born in the desert
Born in in the cave
Sons present
Midwife present

Scripture
Born in the area of Judea.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea
Born in Bethlehem (inn was full)
Born in the stable
No one present but Joseph

 

[Standing Up]

You seem to ask me to make statements of knowledge I do not have.
I do not know the specifics of Christ's birth, so I cannot comment on the specifics of Christ's birth. That would mean I am "agnostic/don't know" on the matter", not "gnostic/know".

The description of the birth in the Protoevangelion does not match the description"gnostic" either; it does not claim that Christ was born "from the light" per se, but that the light obscured the visibility of the event of the birth.

You just said you don't know. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Standing Up]

Jerome never quotes anyone. And IF they had written about the issue, he wouldn't have had to invent the cousin theory to try to explain things.