Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

I think I already gave my viewpoint on that matter earlier.

Since the PoJ is completely useless, the next source seems to be Eusebius of Rome for the EV idea. Probably associated with vestal virgins.

But again, this is not about that.

 

[Standing Up]

I said it's possible the truths got mixed with the untruths. The book gets gradually accepted because they perhaps already knew of some truths it contained (example: step brothers) and it just stuck around for awhile thereafter. And though He used the Proto as an example, He may have not had enough info on the subject as well to name other sources.
Or, you could be right, it could have been picked up, mingled with the proper cousin story taught by Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, etc. as per Jerome, and found a life of it's own till Jerome decided to go agasint Helvidius that in turn brought attention back to the proper theory. Or maybe they both missed the boat and there's another lingering around somethere. Who knows. All I know is we don't hear much of a 'Mary had children' theory either unless one decides to again force their own language and culture onto the text. So excluding that, I believe you brought up only Tertullian there.

Let's see, there is Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Helvidius, Africanus, and Hegesipius. VS the gnostic PoJ.

Well no. Sacred Tradtion works by way of weeding out the little ts since they obviously have mingled their way in over time like the Canon itself for example.

Sacred Tradition didn't appear to work in the PoJ example.

 

[SolomonVII]

I dont understand calling someone constantly by their sexual status all the time, Like Virgin Nelly, or Virgin Joe.

Maybe, hey, theres Nelly, (psst... you know she's still a virgin?)

Well, if you were meddling into her matters maybe

Some questions would get me my face slapped for sure.

By the way, when you were Catholic, did you ever believe the stories about a child passing through an intact hymen?

Would you consider that to be a normal birth for something like that to happen back then when you were a part of that faith community?

I am just wondering about some of the answers and whether people are trying to pull my leg or not or if this is something that people actually believe?

I'd feel silly admitting to believing in stuff like that. Do you think people are really being serious saying that this is what they believe?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Some questions would get me my face slapped for sure.

By the way, when you were Catholic, did you ever believe the stories about a child passing through an intact hymen?

Would you consider that to be a normal birth for something like that to happen back then when you were a part of that faith community?

I am just wondering about some of the answers and whether people are trying to pull my leg or not or if this is something that people actually believe?

I'd feel silly admitting to believing in stuff like that. Do you think people are really being serious saying that this is what they believe?

I didnt hear many stories, I am the wrong person to ask there Solomon, My parents werent quite so open to talk about "the details". As you said, could get me slapped just asking

But honestly, I had always believed she conceived as a virgin (thats it) and I dont recall any bigger deal was made of intact hymen's and all of that. Not that I cared either, it was enough (and very simply) for me to believe she was not all this stuff I see on this board. But I understand why it might have come about, probrobly because of all this overthetop Mary stuff is going on (to me anyway).

My family was sorta like pew sitters though, you know the kind that stand at the right time, say what you say at the right time, sit, kneel, cross yourself, beyond that they were never into the scriptures, so there really wasnt theology talk, save with my aunt, who was a nun, but that come after she left the convent not before.

I wasnt much help was I?

 

[Montalban]

Some questions would get me my face slapped for sure.

Are you asking for volunteers?

I'd feel silly admitting to believing in stuff like that. Do you think people are really being serious saying that this is what they believe?

People will say "You believe someone walked on water...? How silly!"

 

[Kepha]

Let's see, there is Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Helvidius, Africanus, and Hegesipius. VS the gnostic PoJ.

Origen - I need the quote

Clement- defended Her perpetual virginity which was explained to you 10 times yesterday.

Cyril- we can exclude since it's your forced and bias interpretation into the text.

Helvidius - ripped apart by Jerome and appeared quite ignorant when it came to the writings of others. Why you included a nobody I've no idea.

Africanus - Need to know who this was and his quote.

Hegesipius- Your interpretation again.

Sacred Tradition didn't appear to work in the PoJ example.

Of course it didn't since the actual Sacred Tradition is the preseving of Her Virginity, not the identity of His Brothers.

 

[Montalban]

Of course it didn't since the actual Sacred Tradition is the preseving of Her Virginity, not the identity of His Brothers.

The error of "This is the first written account therefore this is the first time it existed" doesn't help either

 

[SolomonVII]

Are you asking for volunteers?

Your virginity, or lack thereof, is of absolutely no interest to me.
I assure you, you would be the last person I would ask about the state of your hymen.

People will say "You believe someone walked on water...? How silly!"

At least it is scriptural. It is not like we have to go fishing outside of scripture to believe everything that any Tom Dick and Harry says.

 

[Montalban]

Your virginity, or lack thereof, is of absolutely no interest to me.
I assure you, you would be the last person I would ask about the state of your hymen.

That's no small relief

At least it is scriptural. It is not like we have to go fishing outside of scripture to believe everything that any Tom Dick and Harry says.

Which Tom, Dick or, Harry came up with the idea that Mary wasn't a virgin?

 

[SolomonVII]

I didnt hear many stories, I am the wrong person to ask there Solomon, My parents werent quite so open to talk about "the details". As you said, could get me slapped just asking

But honestly, I had always believed she conceived as a virgin (thats it) and I dont recall any bigger deal was made of intact hymen's and all of that. Not that I cared either, it was enough (and very simply) for me to believe she was not all this stuff I see on this board. But I understand why it might have come about, probrobly because of all this overthetop Mary stuff is going on (to me anyway).

My family was sorta like pew sitters though, you know the kind that stand at the right time, say what you say at the right time, sit, kneel, cross yourself, beyond that they were never into the scriptures, so there really wasnt theology talk, save with my aunt, who was a nun, but that come after she left the convent not before.

I wasnt much help was I?

Oh no. I think that is more like a normal Catholic experience. A big part of the experience is just being there, showing up and being a part of the group.

No talk about hymens giving birth to rays of light, and all the mythology. No talk about infallibility of the pope and church either, but all about being a part of the community as a Catholic, throw a few coins at the latest cause from the pulpit, and what not. Respect the priesthood of course, but no real talk about the priest being the sacrifice of Christ at the Mass, but just finding comfort and assurance in the ritual and the repetition, stuff like that.

Not for everybody for sure, but just, well, normal kind of stuff.

There seems to be some kind of timewarp here, where people actually are considering that this is something we ought to take seriously, and consider that maybe it happened that way too.

I just wanted to assure myself that this is not the normal Catholic experience at least, but rather the abnormal one, where people would feel compelled to defend a rejected book, lest they feel that they did express the proper amount of faith in any crazy story that comes their way.

 

[Kepha]

At least it is scriptural. It is not like we have to go fishing outside of scripture to believe everything that any Tom Dick and Harry says.

You've already done that to get Scripture. Don't kid yourself.

 

[SolomonVII]

That's no small relief

....Namaste......

Which Tom, Dick or, Harry came up with the idea that Mary wasn't a virgin?

I have no absolutely idea either.

 

[Montalban]

I have no absolutely idea either.

I glad am that of

 

[Uphill Battle]

Why not?

She's referred to as "The Virgin" by them, not "She of the Virgin Birth"

So when she explained the events and said she was a virgin they decided to call her 'the virgin' even though it relates to something that happened earlier?

yes. I don't know why that's a bad thing. Like in my previous example, Elizabeth was, and is, still called "the Virgin queen" even though she was not.

And yet that's how they referred to her - even if one believes she isn't ever a virgin, she's still referred to as 'the virgin' so regardless of which case is correct that's what she's called.

true. I don't believe in the EV, but I still call her "the Virgin Mary" when talking about her in relation to the incarnation.

Since the PoJ is completely useless, the next source seems to be Eusebius of Rome for the EV idea. Probably associated with vestal virgins.

But again, this is not about that.

If you bring up a document that's puported to be written to support EV, you'll be talking about EV... That's inescapable.

Are you asking for volunteers?


People will say "You believe someone walked on water...? How silly!"

Raised a man from the dead? Pshaw.

I agree with you on this... castigation of someone based on their beliefs that differ from your own, isn't very polite. (And I've been awfully impolite at times.)

we all find each others beliefs foolish at times.

 

[SolomonVII]

I glad am that of

I don't proclaim as Dogma and articles of Faith, things that are unknowable.

I am not of a church of the Little Birdie Told Me, so it must be true" variety.

Zero apostolic authenticity, bad theology to boot.

Look elsewhere than Christianity for its source. because it just ain't a Christian idea.

 

[Standing Up]

Origen - I need the quote

Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.31483148 Cf. Gal. i. 19.

You know, that's a tough one, eh? Scripture/tradition agreeing.

Clement- defended Her perpetual virginity which was explained to you 10 times yesterday.

Clement argued against the debunked PoJ view of a light birth, leaving Mary in the puerperal state (sick). Scripture was the true and continuing virgin.

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.3666
3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin,

Cyril- we can exclude since it's your forced and bias interpretation into the text.

Cyril is a perfect example of apostolic succession, receiving the same truth as his bishop. James brother of the Lord, first bishop of the same see.

Clearly, he thought Mary/Joseph had children.

For like as Mary was called the mother of John, because of her parental affection, not from having given him birth, so Joseph also was called the father of Christ, not from having begotten Him (for he knew her not, as the Gospel says, until she had brought forth her first-born Son Matthew 1:25), but because of the care bestowed on His nurture.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310107.htm

Helvidius - ripped apart by Jerome and appeared quite ignorant when it came to the writings of others. Why you included a nobody I've no idea.

Ad hominems should be beneath you.

Africanus - Need to know who this was and his quote.

For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account

Hegesipius- Your interpretation again.

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother.

Of course it didn't since the actual Sacred Tradition is the preseving of Her Virginity, not the identity of His Brothers.

Except one doesn't follow, given the truth of the other.

And I neglected Tertullian:

But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favour of the reality of Christ’s flesh, wilfully deny that God Himself was born, on the ground that He asked, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” …

First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,—who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vii.html


Against scripture/tradition, why do people still want to cling to the gnostic contradictory PoJ?

Or go with Jerome's invented cousin theory of 400ad far after apostolic times?

1) Sons are from Joseph/previous marriage (gnostic PoJ)
2) Sons are cousins (Jerome)
3) Sons are from Joseph/Mary

 

[Yab Yum]

Not about EV folks.

Of course it is.

 

[Thekla]

How is the Protoevangelion "Gnostic" ?

There is a persistent use of frank and repeated misreading of texts in this argument.

 

[SolomonVII]

Of course it is.

Where in the PofJ does it say that Mary was ever virgin, even that she did not have other children?

 

[Kristos]

That's your takeaway?

Okay, born in a place where there's a manger. Maybe a stable. But where in a desert would a cave be? Underground?

Anyway, the PoJ tradition contradicts scripture.

No - it doesn't say that either! You are reading into the text according to your extra biblical tradition. There are three statements:

- He was born (it does not say where)
- He was wrapped in swaddling cloths
- He was laid in a manger (it does not say this was in the same place as he was born)

It doesn't say who, if anyone, was present.

It doesn't say there was no room in the inn until AFTER Jesus was born - and in fact this is the reason given why He was laid in the manger after he was born, but this has no bearing on where He was born.

So it would seem that your accusations of contradicting scripture are not actually based on scripture, but rather on your extra-biblical tradition.