Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

given that the PoJ is used as supporting documentation for the EV... you'll find it inescapably linked.

I think the PoJ is tripe, myself. It's basically been proven Pseudopigraphical. That in itself is a good indication of falsehood, when you're claiming to be someone you are not when you are writing it. But I understand why others don't view it that way.[/quote]

Really? I don't.

 

[Uphill Battle]

given that the PoJ is used as supporting documentation for the EV... you'll find it inescapably linked.

I think the PoJ is tripe, myself. It's basically been proven Pseudopigraphical. That in itself is a good indication of falsehood, when you're claiming to be someone you are not when you are writing it. But I understand why others don't view it that way.[/quote]

Really? I don't.

It's very simple... it lines up with their beliefs. Scholars will say it's a fake... other scholars will say that it's genuine. there will never be 100% proof one way or another... so what paradigm do you think someone who supports EV is going to take? And what paradigm one that doesn't?

I understand it, and don't blame for it.

 

[SolomonVII]

Bad debate tactic #23.

You don't understand what I'm saying, therefore you are wrong.

followed with Bad debate tactic #24

I have already determined that you are wrong because you don't get it. Therefore I win, and will no longer discourse with you.

Not about winning or losing. It goes to credibility.
And to the definition of insanity where you go around and around the same merry-go-round and expect to end up someplace else.

There is only a debate, dialogue or argument when two people are actually discussing each other's ideas. And to discuss each other's ideas, they have to first be able to read with understanding.

Thekla claims that we are misreading, to which I would respond, how would she even know? She didn't even know how many times in this very thread the documentation she requests in this thread alone has been posted.
She is either not reading, not understanding, or a lot of both.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Not about winning or losing. It goes to credibility.
And to the definition of insanity where you go around and around the same merry-go-round and expect to end up someplace else.

There is only a debate, dialogue or argument when two people are actually discussing each other's ideas. And to discuss each other's ideas, they have to first be able to read with understanding.

Thekla claims that we are misreading, to which I would respond, how would she even know? She didn't even know how many times in this very thread the documentation she requests in this thread alone has been posted.
She is either not reading, not understanding, or a lot of both.

of course it's about winning or losing. Don't kid yourself. I'm not naive.

I won't address your issue with Thekla, other than to say that she is intelligent, kind, and more deserving of respect than you showed her.

And it's not beyond the realm of reason that yes, you in fact, had no idea what SHE was talking about.

Good day.

 

[SolomonVII]

It's very simple... it lines up with their beliefs. Scholars will say it's a fake... other scholars will say that it's genuine. there will never be 100% proof one way or another... so what paradigm do you think someone who supports EV is going to take? And what paradigm one that doesn't?

I understand it, and don't blame for it.

No scholars all agree that it is an early non-apostolic writing. There is no one that claims otherwise.
The Church as a whole has never acknowledged it as anything other than apocrypha. Even EO does not quote it per se, but only the ideas that are found within. RCC doesn't refer to it at all, but doesn't outright declare it heretical, for too do so would be to declare that their eastern-rite Catholic brethren would be heretics, so it is simply referred to as pious as it is non-authoritative.

It is an a-historic, non-authorative writing with pseudoepigrahical claims to apostolic authority.

It is also the earliest documentation that exists for EO claims of old Joseph, previous marriage.

None of this is contentious. It is not a controversy for the scholars of early Christianity.

 

[SolomonVII]

of course it's about winning or losing. Don't kid yourself. I'm not naive.

Aaah so you have greater insight about me than I have of myself.
I bow down to the Great Guru, who knows all and sees all in the heart of this fallen man.

I won't address your issue with Thekla, other than to say that she is intelligent, kind, and more deserving of respect than you showed her.

Of course you won't address it, for to do so would actually take work of going through all the long tedious posts to see if what I am saying is true or not.
And that is the problem. They have become tedious for me too, when I go point for point, and find that she is addressing exactly the opposite of what I actually said.

So, you are so sweet— to her.

So you chose your side and rescued the damsel in distress, gallant Knight that you are.

And it's not beyond the realm of reason that yes, you in fact, had no idea what SHE was talking about.

I know what she is talking about, because I have listened to her and I have read the text. I have heard the story of the great and brilliant light appearing and as it recedes a babe appears on the bosom of Mary, her hymen still intact. I have heard the ecfs discuss this very text. Standing Up has posted that over and over again.
It has Gnostic overtones, in my opinion. Thekla maintains that this is all within the range of normal birth.

Fine that we disagree on these points, but then there is nothing really left to talk about, do we?

If people really want to refute the gnosticism charge, then the way to do so in an argument/discussion/dialogue would be to acknowledge what is being said rather than first accuse the others of misreading. Then once acknowledged, a dialogue would establish the difference between PofJ and what Gnostic texts have to say.

That is what happens in dialogues.

That is not what was going to happen in any discussion where the one side starts out by accusing the other of misreading the text, and sniveling about how in proper intellectual discourse, it is really important to provide the sources and proper documentation.

Yea right.



And hey, I would be open to that. I am interested in the subject much more than I am interested in being right. Of course I have pride and don't like losing arguments, just like anybody else.
But I lose arguments all the time, and that is okay, because I am more interested in discussing things I don't know, than pontificating about what I already know to well.
But your great insights into who I am obviously know me better than I know myself, so I guess that is all about self-deception on my part.
If people knew me at all, they would know that I am open to change. suffice it to say, I have been in these forums for many years. If people had read me at all instead of just picking sides against me, that would be pretty easy to find out.


I am not open to people who accuse me of hostility simply because I disagree with them.

Good day.[/QUOTE]

 

[SolomonVII]

I don't think she's mentioned enough within the Canon after that point to make an argument one way or the other.

You know what is absolutely hilarious and inane about what you just did here?

Here you make the contention that there is not enough mentioned in canon about Mary for later exlcusions of her virginity title to be significant.

Curious that I am, I posted a little link that lists all scriptural references of Mary in Scripture. I thought it might be helpful.

To which you respond, "TOO LONG DIDN'T READ!!!"

That is absolutely hilarious. Not enough mention of her in later scripture to be statistically significant, but way, way too long to bother reading the actual text in the list.


Personally, it didn't seem to me like there was an overwhelming number of mentions to her either. It is significant, I think, that the Bible refers to the virginity of Mary only in terms of Christ's birth, but that in itself would not a refutation of EV Dogma.

 

[Montalban]

Not exactly; many of the claims for what the text says are not in fact said in the text I read.

As it is customary to correlate claim with quotations from the text, why not just provide them ? This allows the reader to see precisely from where the writer of the claim is drawing his/her information .

You have to provide not only counter-argument, but now you have to provide research that proves what ever extra-biblical traditions sola scripturists present!

 

[Uphill Battle]

Aaah so you have greater insight about me than I have of myself.
I bow down to the Great Guru, who knows all and sees all in the heart of this fallen man.

oh great. NOW you start showing respect!

Of course you won't address it, for to do so would actually take work of going through all the long tedious posts to see if what I am saying is true or not.
And that is the problem. They have become tedious for me too, when I go point for point, and find that she is addressing exactly the opposite of what I actually said.

no... because I think you're wrong, but unwilling to fathom that thought. I won't address it, because, to use your term, it would be endlessly tedious.

So, you are so sweet— to her.

yeah. I like nice people. Her and I can disagree on umpteen things, and still be civil and nice... and most of the patience comes from her.

So you chose your side and rescued the damsel in distress, gallant Knight that you are.

Just call me Sir smartaleck.

I know what she is talking about, because I have listened to her and I have read the text. I have heard the story of the great and brilliant light appearing and as it recedes a babe appears on the bosom of Mary, her hymen still intact. I have heard the ecfs discuss this very text. Standing Up has posted that over and over again.
It has Gnostic overtones, in my opinion.

ah.... listening or reading=understanding. Shoot.... why can't we all agree then?

Thekla maintains that this is all within the range of normal birth.

nope. That's not what she said, really... but it's what you think she did.

Fine that we disagree on these points, but then there is nothing really left to talk about, do we?

yet talk we do... endlessly and without pause.

If people really want to refute the gnosticism charge, then the way to do so in an argument/discussion/dialogue would be to acknowledge what is being said rather than first accuse the others of misreading. Then once acknowledged, a dialogue would establish the difference between PofJ and what Gnostic texts have to say.

That is what happens in dialogues.

That is not what was going to happen in any discussion where the one side starts out by accusing the other of misreading the text, and sniveling about how in proper intellectual discourse, it is really important to provide the sources and proper documentation.

except that.... I think you misread. Fancy that. you're right though, it's not a dialogue. It's polemics.

And hey, I would be open to that. I am interested in the subject much more than I am interested in being right. Of course I have pride and don't like losing arguments, just like anybody else.
But I lose arguments all the time, and that is okay, because I am more interested in discussing things I don't know, than pontificating about what I already know to well.

jIt's a shame this is on the computer. I can't tell if you managed to type that with a straight face.

But your great insights into who I am obviously know me better than I know myself, so I guess that is all about self-deception on my part.
If people knew me at all, they would know that I am open to change. suffice it to say, I have been in these forums for many years. If people had read me at all instead of just picking sides against me, that would be pretty easy to find out.


I am not open to people who accuse me of hostility simply because I disagree with them.

Good day.

I don't think I said hostile. I think I said disrespectful.

But be a good egg and read back through the posts and check.

You know what is absolutely hilarious and inane about what you just did here?

Here you make the contention that there is not enough mentioned in canon about Mary for later exlcusions of her virginity title to be significant.

Curious that I am, I posted a little link that lists all scriptural references of Mary in Scripture. I thought it might be helpful.

To which you respond, "TOO LONG DIDN'T READ!!!"

That is absolutely hilarious. Not enough mention of her in later scripture to be statistically significant, but way, way too long to bother reading the actual text in the list.


Personally, it didn't seem to me like there was an overwhelming number of mentions to her either. It is significant, I think, that the Bible refers to the virginity of Mary only in terms of Christ's birth, but that in itself would not a refutation of EV Dogma.

how do you feel that your reposting of scripture is relevant? My "too long didn't read" is in relation to people just posting endless passages as if that in itself proves..... anything in and of itself.

 

[SolomonVII]

nope. That's not what she said, really... but it's what you think she did.

Whatever Uphill. Have it your way.
Talking out of both sides of the mouth does not pass as a dialogue, as far as I am concerned.

As for hostility, that has been Theklas contention about me. This is what she considers a rep.

Thekla Just in case your apparent animosity is based on the other thread - I did not report you or anyone in that thread. Otherwise, I don't understand why the seeming hostility.

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?


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.

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.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

St. Basil the Great 375ad

"Of the dogmas and kerygmas [preaching or proclaiming the Good News] preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles [2 Thes 2: 15; 2 Tim 2: 2; 1 Jn 2: 24] handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both our of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matter ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather we would reduce kerygma to a mere term. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East in prayer? Which of the saints left us in writing the words of the epiclesis at the consecration [prayer the priest prays at every Mass that the Holy Spirit will change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ] of the Bread of the Eucharist and of the cup of Benediction? For we are not content with those words the Apostle or the gospel has recorded, but we say other things also, both before and after; and we regard these other words, which we have received from unwritten teaching, as being of great importance to the mystery."

 

[Uphill Battle]

Whatever Uphill. Have it your way.
Talking out of both sides of the mouth does not pass as a dialogue, as far as I am concerned.

As for hostility, that has been Theklas contention about me. This is what she considers a rep.


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?


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.

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.

I find nothing objectionable in what Thekla said. The stuff that she said, could also be consistent with a normal birth.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

"Where is it written that we are to bless the baptismal water, the oil of anointing, and even the one who is being baptized? Is it not from silent and mystical tradition? Indeed, in what written word is even the anointing with oil taught? Where does it say that in baptizing there is to be a triple immersion? And the rest of the things done in baptism,--where is it written that we are to renounce Satan and his angels? Does this not come from that secret and arcane teaching which are Fathers guarded in a silence not too curiously meddled with and not idly investigated, when they had learned well that reverence for the mysteries is best preserved by silence . . . . In the same way the Apostles and Fathers who, in the beginning, prescribed the Church's rites, guarded in secrecy and silence the dignity of the mysteries; for that which is blabbed at random and in the public ear is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our handing on of unwritten precepts and practices: that the knowledge of our dogmas may not be neglected and held in contempt by the multitude through too great a familiarity. Dogma and kerygma are two distinct things. Dogma is observed in silence; kerygma is proclaimed to all the world."

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-It has Gnostic overtones, in my opinion. Thekla maintains that this is all within the range of normal birth.

Fine that we disagree on these points, but then there is nothing really left to talk about, do we?

If people really want to refute the gnosticism charge, then the way to do so in an argument/discussion/dialogue would be to acknowledge what is being said rather than first accuse the others of misreading. Then once acknowledged, a dialogue would establish the difference between PofJ and what Gnostic texts have to say.

That is what happens in dialogues.-snip-

As well, numerous invitations have been made for anyone to offer anything besides the PoJ at that time.

There's nothing. Nothing but, could you repost what you've already reposted so I can disagree again.

At this stage there is still only 2 theories about who the brothers are (the cousin theory was c400 invented by Jerome -catholicanswers.com); Two theories:

1) Sons of Joseph/previous wife (PoJ)
2) Sons of Joseph/Mary

The PoJ is gnostic to the core. Plus it contradicts scripture in numerous ways. THe church, including EO/RC, rejected it.

But please, if someone doesn't like choice #2, then come up with something besides the PoJ to support your doctrine.

In the meantime, scripture/tradition of #2 works.

 

[Standing Up]

St. Basil the Great 375ad -snip-

Nothing wrong with things that don't contradict scripture, nor are gnostic.

But if they do contradict scripture, or if they are gnostic, the church has already rejected the PoJ.

 

[SolomonVII]

I find nothing objectionable in what Thekla said. The stuff that she said, could also be consistent with a normal birth.

Could be. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Just like the PofJ.
Marcion and gnostics could not stomach the idea of God in stinking flesh.

It was spark of Divine light of the Supreme God, and not the creator god of this world that was incarnated.

How does PofJ support, or refute this?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Could be. It depends.
Perhaps, we just cannot say for sure. What is normal anyways?

But was Mary left in the puerperal(sp) state or not?

: a virgin has brought forth -- a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

Well the hymen was still there, according to the evidence of that indelicate finger.
Is that not what it is saying? What other 'parts' would she be searching for?

If intact hymen is proof of virginity in the Semitic world, how much more so proof of 'not a normal' birth could there be?

A normal flesh and blood baby born of a woman...
How does PofJ support this central fact of orthodoxy Christianity?

What does the light suggest to you?
And what would it suggest to Marcion and the Gnostics?

Some of the quotes by ecf's Standing Up provides report that they don't like that kind of thing much, especially in their efforts against the burgeoning Marcion heresy that denies the 'born of a woman' part.

A blinding presence of light dimming to the appearance of a baby miraculously at the breast of the women who just gave <birth?>, hymen intact, in the puerperal state, as if a child had not passed through her body at all.

Normal birth or not then?

Well amniotic fluid varies...

<snip>

 

[Standing Up]

I find nothing objectionable in what Thekla said. The stuff that she said, could also be consistent with a normal birth.

We live so far from the events that we often look at things in a vacuum.

Perhaps you missed how Clement of Alexandria refuted the PoJ's notion of Christ's birth?

Clement of Alexandria, c175

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,


Clement was refuting the type of birth shown in the PoJ that left Mary in the pueperal state. Though she was not (because she gave birth normally). IOW, her 'virginity' was left intact is what PoJ says. No normal birth, but rather, a light recedes and a YOUNG CHILD APPEARS. He rejects that. Instead, it's not Mary who remained a virgin, but the scrptures which gave birth to truth and continue virgin.

Later, Tertullian will battle against the same gnostic idea proposed by the PoJ.

This man having first fallen from the principles of Marcion into (intercourse with) a woman, in the flesh, and afterwards shipwrecked himself, in the spirit, on the virgin Philumene,70247024 See Tertullian, de Præscr. Hæret. c. xxx. proceeded from that time70257025 Ab eo: or, “from that event of the carnal contact.” A good reading, found in most of the old books, is ab ea, that is, Philumene. to preach that the body of Christ was of solid flesh, but without having been born.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vi.html


So, while we may try to read PoJ after 2000 years, they knew what was at stake.

 

[Uphill Battle]

We live so far from the events that we often look at things in a vacuum.

Perhaps you missed how Clement of Alexandria refuted the PoJ's notion of Christ's birth?

Clement of Alexandria, c175

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,


Clement was refuting the type of birth shown in the PoJ that left Mary in the pueperal state. Though she was not (because she gave birth normally). IOW, her 'virginity' was left intact is what PoJ says. No normal birth, but rather, a light recedes and a YOUNG CHILD APPEARS. He rejects that. Instead, it's not Mary who remained a virgin, but the scrptures which gave birth to truth and continue virgin.

Later, Tertullian will battle against the same gnostic idea proposed by the PoJ.

This man having first fallen from the principles of Marcion into (intercourse with) a woman, in the flesh, and afterwards shipwrecked himself, in the spirit, on the virgin Philumene,70247024 See Tertullian, de Præscr. Hæret. c. xxx. proceeded from that time70257025 Ab eo: or, “from that event of the carnal contact.” A good reading, found in most of the old books, is ab ea, that is, Philumene. to preach that the body of Christ was of solid flesh, but without having been born.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vi.html


So, while we may try to read PoJ after 2000 years, they knew what was at stake.

you DO realize that I do not support the PoJ or EV at all, right?

 

[Christos Anesti]

Re: the other thread on this topic that was closed I did see the part that seems to imply non-broken hymen. It doesn't say exactly what test she performed with her finger but that would be a logical choice.

 

[Montalban]

There are several problems with the quote regarding Clement of Alexandria - not least the interpolation into the text of the translators own opinion - which itself is flawed given that the Ever-Virginity is not 'modern' Mariology

Clement says elsewhere that there is only one Virgin Mary and that is the Church. He associates Mary with the Church &#8211; both of which will not 'fail'.