Protoevangelium of James

Standing Up · Mar 28, 2012

Montalban said:
I believe there's a passage in the OT about the gates of the temple remaining shut

Yeah, that was in the Birth of Jesus that was closed.

The east gate was shut. The gnostic interpretation was this refers not to a normal birth (from the south), but as a birth from the side of Mary. LIke Eve/Adam. The light recedes and the young child appears and it goes to the breast (PoJ).

This is the junk that Clement of Alexandria (this gnostic birth leaves her in the purperal state, but she was not) and Tertullian (Christ born normally) were battling. That John warned about.

SolomonVII · Mar 28, 2012

Standing Up said:
That is definitely the other piece. How was it put? There's a bridge with teachings passing back and forth. Not only do you have to show the spurious ones, but you have to show from where the spurious ones originated.

The PoJ is spurious, and the notions are gnostic, from paganism, from roman vestal virgins. As mentioned, odds are Marcion or a disciple of his wrote it. We know he flourished in Rome under/with Anicetus c150ad.

Anyway, perhaps a different thread.

This thread has enough to chew on for some time before biting off another piece of the POJ for sure.

Montalban · Mar 28, 2012

SolomonVII said:
And you are welcome to restate your position too.

Are you saying you

a) don't understand it
or
b) can only re-state your position if I re-state mine?

Standing Up · Mar 28, 2012

Kepha said:
-snip-

You've proved nothing on here so that's an irrelevant statement. Remember, you need the entire historical writings from the early Church like the ones from Polycarp, St. Irenaeus etc I mentioned earlier, to prove all the 1st Century Church believed so. The few you have here only show, as we already knew before this thread started, the EV Doctrine wasn't Universal.

It's a start.

But please, I've looked a little and found the EV doctrine beginning with Eusebius c350. Have you anything from earlier (besides the gnostic, worthless PoJ)? Because again. I know of only two early traditions.

1) Sons of Joseph/previous marriage (gnostic PoJ)
2) Sons of Joseph/Mary (scripture, the other tradition)

Start a new thread on it. Barring that, we are left with #2 (until 400ad when Jerome invents the cousin theory = catholicanswers.com).

Standing Up · Mar 29, 2012

I'm going to bump this. Please read these things in mind from authors we know. Keep in mind the PoJ is rejected; it contradicts scripture. But its aftermath were these battles:

Standing Up said:
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.]
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 (not normal) shown in the PoJ that left Mary in the pueperal state (full of afterbirth). Though she was not (because she did in fact give birth normally). IOW, her 'virginity' was left intact is what PoJ says. (Then this is picked up in the gnostic east gate is shut. Not south gate, but east gate with the implication Christ was born from her side, leaving the hymen intact). No normal birth, but rather, a light recedes and a YOUNG CHILD APPEARS (not a baby). It takes the breast says the PoJ, rather than as expected, the mother lifts him to her. Clement like myself and others rejects that spurious, gnostic nonsense.

A short 20 years 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.

The gnostic PoJ is saying the birth was not normal. The truth is it was.

Standing Up · Mar 29, 2012

I'll try to be delicate.

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.

That is exactly what Clement was arguing against.

The PoJ says the light recedes, the young child appears, it takes the breast. The midwife comes in and finds the hymen intact (still a virgin). So, Mary shows no signs of having given birth.

This leaves the placenta still in Mary; this is the purpereal state (uterine infection, etc). When someone says Mary showed no signs of giving birth, that is the spurious PoJ talking.

Clement, however, says she was not in that state. This means necessarily she gave birth normally (water, baby, placenta).

20 years later, Tertullian comes against the same lingering gnostic nonsense from Marcion/PoJ that Christ appears without being born.

Folks may disagree, but use something besides the PoJ by which to do so.

Fireinfolding · Mar 29, 2012

Standing Up said:
I was just trying to provide context from 1800 years ago. The gnostic PoJ existed. Believers knew of it. Used it. Promoted it. Other Christians then had to battle against its notions. Even from 1 John we know of these things with some saying Christ didn't come in the flesh. PoJ is Marcion stuff. He flourished in Rome. His disiciples went to Alexandria. The teachings from it are obvioius (no normal birth, made of light, of stardust, just appears). And the push back, Christ was born of flesh normally, like you and I.

So in this thread, it's been shown. The connections. Some folks get it. Some folks disagree. I get it. But to ask for the same information as if it hasn't been presented is to avoid the obvious. The PoJ is rejected by the church. It is spurious. It is gnostic. It contradicts scripture. To use any of what it says to base a belief on, is as Pope Gelasius opined, outside the church.

BTW, does anyone understand the implication of the water of jealousy the PoJ says took place with Mary VERSUS scripture saying God gave Joseph a dream of confirmation?

It doesnt seem Joseph even had it in his mind to make her a public example from the start, but was minded to put her away secretly (rather then to make it known).

For example it expresses his intention here

Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

It says Joseph did what the angel had bidden him, but even from the first thought Joseph had, it shows he wasnt minded to make her a public example (just put her away secretly).

Good point because doing the other isnt mentioned at all but contrarywise seems to be expressed (from his intent) to his obedience to what was shown him of the angel (in respects to her conception)

Standing Up · Mar 29, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
It doesnt seem Joseph even had it in his mind to make her a public example from the start, but was minded to put her away secretly (rather then to make it known).

For example it expresses his intention here

Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

It says Joseph did what the angel had bidden him, but even from the first thought Joseph had, it shows he wasnt minded to make her a public example (just put her away secretly).

Good point because doing the other isnt mentioned at all but contrarywise seems to be expressed (from his intent) to his obedience to what was shown him of the angel (in respects to her conception)

Another good point, showing another contradiction between PoJ tradition and scripture.

PoJ
Put her away publicly
Priest uses water of jealousy (Num 5)

Scripture
Put her away privately

Standing Up · Mar 29, 2012

Christos Anesti said:
This seems to be the basic argument.

1. A Church teaches that Mary is ever virgin.
2. A book of questionable orthodoxy also teaches the same thing.
3. Therefore the Church in question that teaches the continued virgin status of Mary is wrong.

You've presupposed the conclusion. Here's the basic argument.

1. A book teachs Mary remained a virgin after birth.
2. The church has rejected that book and its teachings as gnostic, deceptive, and contradictory to scripture.
3. Therefore the church rejects all of its teachings.

You can, however, find support from Jerome in 400ad who invented the cousin theory to try to maintain Mary's status. But as far as this thread is concerned, it has been shown not only that PoJ's teachings are gnostic, deceptive, and contradicotry to scripture, but also there was the scriptural tradition that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Mary/Joseph.

Uphill Battle · Mar 29, 2012

Standing Up said:
You've presupposed the conclusion. Here's the basic argument.

1. A book teachs Mary remained a virgin after birth.
2. The church has rejected that book and its teachings as gnostic, deceptive, and contradictory to scripture.
3. Therefore the church rejects all of its teachings.

You can, however, find support from Jerome in 400ad who invented the cousin theory to try to maintain Mary's status. But as far as this thread is concerned, it has been shown not only that PoJ's teachings are gnostic, deceptive, and contradicotry to scripture, but also there was the scriptural tradition that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Mary/Joseph.

I think the first example was far more accurate.

Standing Up · Mar 29, 2012

bump

Standing Up said:
List of contradictions.

PoJ
Put Mary away publicly
Priest gave water of jealousy (Num. 5) as confirmation
Born in the country of Bethlehem
Born in the desert
Born in a cave
Young child appears
Young child goes to the breast by itself
Gnostic birth from Mary's side (later defined as east gate)
Sons present
Midwife present

Scripture
Put Mary away privately
God gave Joseph a dream as confirmation
Born in the "country" of Judea.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea
Born in Bethlehem
Born where a manger was
Born normally as an infant
No one present but Joseph

Standing Up · Mar 29, 2012

Uphill Battle said:
I think the first example was far more accurate.

Well, certain groups today teach EV, but I'm talking about the church of 100-200ad. The basis for that EV idea is the gnostic PoJ.

IOW, there's no other support for EV at that stage. The alternative is CLement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Africanus, Hegesipius, Helvidius, and CYril of Jerusalem.

So, the argument is about 1800 years ago.

PoJ says EV.
PoJ is gnostic, spurious, contradictory.
Therefore ...

Uphill Battle · Mar 29, 2012

Standing Up said:
Well, certain groups today teach EV, but I'm talking about the church of 100-200ad. The basis for that EV idea is the gnostic PoJ.

IOW, there's no other support for EV at that stage. The alternative is CLement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Africanus, Hegesipius, Helvidius, and CYril of Jerusalem.

So, the argument is about 1800 years ago.

PoJ says EV.
PoJ is gnostic, spurious, contradictory.
Therefore ...

meaning... that the first example didn't include polemics.

Kristos · Mar 29, 2012

Standing Up said:
Well, certain groups today teach EV, but I'm talking about the church of 100-200ad. The basis for that EV idea is the gnostic PoJ.

IOW, there's no other support for EV at that stage. The alternative is CLement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Africanus, Hegesipius, Helvidius, and CYril of Jerusalem.

So, the argument is about 1800 years ago.

PoJ says EV.
PoJ is gnostic, spurious, contradictory.
Therefore ...

I think you have the cart before the horse. Those who believe the EV of Mary would say that it is part of the apostolic, catholic teaching from the beginning. The PoJ is a testament to this teaching - not the cause of it. Big difference. There are other testaments to this teaching - statements in the Ecumenical councils, the hymns of the church (especially the hymn of Justinian), the common teaching among churches in different geographies - Greek, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Syria, Rome, Gaul, etc.

So claiming that the PoJ is spurious has absolutely no bearing on the teaching of the EV.

Standing Up · Mar 29, 2012

Kristos said:
I think you have the cart before the horse. Those who believe the EV of Mary would say that it is part of the apostolic, catholic teaching from the beginning. The PoJ is a testament to this teaching - not the cause of it. Big difference. There are other testaments to this teaching - statements in the Ecumenical councils, the hymns of the church (especially the hymn of Justinian), the common teaching among churches in different geographies - Greek, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Syria, Rome, Gaul, etc.

So claiming that the PoJ is spurious has absolutely no bearing on the teaching of the EV.

I've asked numerous times for quotes from that time (c100-200ad) about this. Because the only other alternative I see is scripture, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc, providing only the other conclusion. Mary/Joseph had sons. IOW, besides PoJ, there is no one else claiming anything else or anything remotely EV.

Jerome's another 200 years later for the cousin theory.

So, at that very early time some 1800 years ago, there is only the gnostic PoJ. Or the alternative.

Fireinfolding · Mar 29, 2012

Standing Up said:
I've asked numerous times for quotes from that time (c100-200ad) about this. Because the only other alternative I see is scripture, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc, providing only the other conclusion. Mary/Joseph had sons. IOW, besides PoJ, there is no one else claiming anything else or anything remotely EV.

Jerome's another 200 years later for the cousin theory.

So, at that very early time some 1800 years ago, there is only the gnostic PoJ. Or the alternative.

I'd be interested in the same.

One more thing I am interested in (and after all these years here I have to ask this SU, what does IOW mean? I keep reading it over and over on various folks post and I dont know what it means, and finally its buggin me. I had to ask since its on your post

Standing Up · Mar 29, 2012

in other words

Fireinfolding · Mar 29, 2012

Standing Up said:
in other words

Thanks, after all this time, it was something so simple

Sophrosyne · Mar 29, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
Thanks, after all this time, it was something so simple

https://www.google.com/search?q=IOW...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
You could have just typed in IOW in any search engine
What does IOW mean? - IOW Definition - Meaning of IOW - InternetSlang.com

Fireinfolding · Mar 29, 2012

Sophrosyne said:
https://www.google.com/search?q=IOW...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
You could have just typed in IOW in any search engine
What does IOW mean? - IOW Definition - Meaning of IOW - InternetSlang.com

Hey thanks, you can google stuff like that, good to know, I google words but not non words, so thanks

Protoevangelium of James

On and on

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On and on

On and on

On and on

Well-Known Member

On and on

On and on

Well-Known Member

On and on

On and on

Well-Known Member

Servant

On and on

Well-Known Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency