Protoevangelium of James

[Fireinfolding]

Mary is likened to the burning bush in our liturgical texts, as she contained God himself and was not consumed.

Never heard of it, but gather fruit from good trees or bramble bushes is spoken of, some good fruit must of come out of such a bush, given without him (whom our fruitfulness comes from) eating from it wouldnt be altogether wrong (if we are to look at it that way).

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Never heard of it, but gather fruit from good trees or bramble bushes is spoken of, some good fruit must of come out of such a bush, given without him (whom our fruitfulness comes from) eating from it wouldnt be altogether wrong (if we are to look at it that way).

The idea of approaching a bush that is on fire to gather fruit from it would be unheard of, that is my point.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The idea of approaching a bush that is on fire to gather fruit from it would be unheard of, that is my point.

Mary was on fire?

Maybe Im not getting it, Moses approached it and noticed the fire didnt consume the bush, be it in your case a person.

Unless you are reasoning my word is a fire and she give birth to Jesus Christ, thus she was a bush who brought forth fire and she is still burning with fire after delivery or something?

 

[Uphill Battle]

There is no need to be rude Uphill. You are not that much of an intellectual superior to me. If I missed your point, show me how

you have no way of knowing that. It's actually possible.

It's also possible I'm a cretin in intelligence compared to your illuminous brain power.

either way, it's not about intelligence anyways. Missing the point can happen to anyone.

the point will be further on in the post.

Meaning that we believe in the one, catholic church, and have all signed onto that in order to join this forum. I am not pointing fingers at this point, for the gnostic elements of PoJare beginning to be acknowledged by people on all sides now. This gnostic encroachment and battle against the flesh is not exclusive to any one form of Christianity either.

meh... no we don't. "We" all belive in "our" church... whatever it is.

I'm all for normal birth---water, baby, placenta. It's this gnostic teaching I'm against.

And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.
-PoJ-

This young child who's able to take the breast, this abnormal birth left Mary intact. It's the later east gate metaphor (birth from out her side as the new Eve.) Christ didn't open the womb. It remained shut.

In turn this false teaching is found here.

"But certain disciples [Marcion's Apelles?] compelled to be wiser than their teacher, concede to Christ real flesh, without effect, however, on their denial of His nativity. He might have had, they say, a flesh which was not at all born. ..."

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

IOW, the most likely author of PoJ is Apelles who supposedly agrees Christ had flesh, but denied the normal birth. That's the PoJ as shown.

From the recently closed thread, there are people who agree with the abnormal birth, but I'd guess they don't really know its gnostic source, rather than the scriptural normal birth.

here's the part that I'm talking about. I dont' care a fig for the PoJ. Not a bit. But threads like this are a diaphonous cover to the real agenda. Pretend if you want that it's about textual criticism. It's really not though, is it? It's a chance to make subterranian jabs at other beliefs. A chance to spit at other creeds than the one you've chosen for yourself.

It's really not a coincidence that you are mentioning PoJ, EV, Gnosticism, and anti-Christ in a thread where your main opponents to the idea are of Orthodox or Catholic beliefs.

hold your hands up in protest and shake your head... it doesn't matter. I've been on here long enough to know different. I know because I was one of them.

(BTW, Solomon... that was the point.)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Ortho_Cat The idea of approaching a bush that is on fire to gather fruit from it would be unheard of, that is my point.

Mary was on fire?

Maybe Im not getting it, Moses approached it and noticed the fire didnt consume the bush, be it in your case a person.

Unless you are reasoning my word is a fire and she give birth to Jesus Christ, thus she was a bush who brought forth fire and she is still burning with fire after delivery or something?

Eh?

.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The idea of approaching a bush that is on fire to gather fruit from it would be unheard of, that is my point.

Mary was on fire?

Maybe Im not getting it, Moses approached it and noticed the fire didnt consume the bush, be it in your case a person.

Unless you are reasoning my word is a fire and she give birth to Jesus Christ, thus she was a bush who brought forth fire and she is still burning with fire after delivery or something?

Let me explain it because Ortho is being delicate given his reverence on the matter.

Trees produce fruit. You wouldn't go to a tree burning with holy fire to get fruit.... despite Fruit being it's primary purpose... it became something more.

they are likening Mary in the manner that her womb is being treated in the same way. (an ordinary woman's reproductive organs are meant for sex and birth. But you wouldn't approach something "on fire" with holiness for mundane purpose... when it has become something more.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Mary was on fire?

Maybe Im not getting it, Moses approached it and noticed the fire didnt consume the bush, be it in your case a person.

Unless you are reasoning my word is a fire and she give birth to Jesus Christ, thus she was a bush who brought forth fire and she is still burning with fire after delivery or something?

After birth, she was a consecrated vessel, who had carried God the Word himself inside of her (and was not consumed). Much like the ark of the covenant (she is referred to as the living ark of the covenant). How did people treat the ark of the covenant in the OT? How much more respect and awe should be shown toward the one who carried God the Word inside of her, rather than the created prefigurements of Him (Moses' tablets, rod of Aaron, manna)?

The idea that Joseph and Mary would carry on with "business as usual" after such an awesome thing had occurred, I consider to be absurd. Joseph protected and cherished her from the beginning, and did so until his last breath. After bearing the holy child as such, she was completely satisfied and had no desire to have any more children, (nor did Joseph) and they continued in awe to praise God the rest of their lives of what a miracle had happened through her and the great and superabundant gift that she was bestowed with.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Let me explain it because Ortho is being delicate given his reverence on the matter.

Trees produce fruit. You wouldn't go to a tree burning with holy fire to get fruit.... despite Fruit being it's primary purpose... it became something more.

they are likening Mary in the manner that her womb is being treated in the same way. (an ordinary woman's reproductive organs are meant for sex and birth. But you wouldn't approach something "on fire" with holiness for mundane purpose... when it has become something more.

quite well stated, thanks.

 

[Uphill Battle]

quite well stated, thanks.

no problem. Sorry if I jumped in when you were going to explain yourself. I know given your beleifs it's hard sometimes to cut to the chase when you feel like you may be saying something indelicate about a sacred belief.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Let me explain it because Ortho is being delicate given his reverence on the matter.

Trees produce fruit. You wouldn't go to a tree burning with holy fire to get fruit.... despite Fruit being it's primary purpose... it became something more.

they are likening Mary in the manner that her womb is being treated in the same way. (an ordinary woman's reproductive organs are meant for sex and birth. But you wouldn't approach something "on fire" with holiness for mundane purpose... when it has become something more.

Thanks for clarifying Uphill, I just cant get the concept of intimacy being mundane between husband and wife if the marraige bed can be kept undefiled, how much moreso maybe (I suppose one might reason). Dumb reasoning on my part probrobly but I wouldnt think it unholiness to come together as ordained by His Holiness. But I can understand how some might regard it that way and therefore might gaurd against the possibility that any other brothers of Jesus couldnt possibly have been born of Mary. ANd in respects to this alone. However, I might question the bush comparison and that east gate comparison because they dont make any sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Thanks for clarifying Uphill, I just cant get the concept of intimacy being mundane between husband and wife if the marraige bed can be kept undefiled, how much moreso maybe (I suppose one might reason). Dumb reasoning on my part probrobly but I wouldnt think it unholiness to come together as ordained by His Holiness. But I can understand how some might regard it that way and therefore might gaurd against the possibility that any other brothers of Jesus couldnt possibly have been born of Mary. ANd in respects to this alone. However, I might question the bush comparison and that east gate comparison because they dont make any sense to me whatsoever.

The theory is sound though, in some respects.

let's look at a far less signifigant example. So many people collect things. And they put them on a shelf, or in a case, or behind glass. They'd never DREAM about using it for it's ordinary purpose... because it means more than that to them.

and that's for mundane objects.

I don't believe marital sex is defiling either... and neither do the Orthodox or Roman Catholics. From their perspective, it's about being set apart, not defiled. that it's purpose was for something more than "ordinary" purposes.

I don't agree with it... I have no reason to believe it myself, but I certainly don't fault the thought... since we do it for perishable things.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Thanks for clarifying Uphill, I just cant get the concept of intimacy being mundane between husband and wife if the marraige bed can be kept undefiled, how much moreso maybe (I suppose one might reason). Dumb reasoning on my part probrobly but I wouldnt think it unholiness to come together as ordained by His Holiness. But I can understand how some might regard it that way and therefore might gaurd against the possibility that any other brothers of Jesus couldnt possibly have been born of Mary. ANd in respects to this alone. However, I might question the bush comparison and that east gate comparison because they dont make any sense to me whatsoever.

We will never be able to fully rationalize or understand the mysteries of God. "His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts..."

 

[Standing Up]

Are you accusing some of us here of denying that he did? If not, why are you bringing it up?

It's (Christ born in the flesh) brought up to confirm the idea Christianity has doctrine.

(Folks, please try to read for context.)

 

[Fireinfolding]

After birth, she was a consecrated vessel, who had carried God the Word himself inside of her (and was not consumed). Much like the ark of the covenant (she is referred to as the living ark of the covenant). How did people treat the ark of the covenant in the OT? How much more respect and awe should be shown toward the one who carried God the Word inside of her, rather than the created prefigurements of Him (Moses' tablets, rod of Aaron, manna)?

The idea that Joseph and Mary would carry on with "business as usual" after such an awesome thing had occurred, I consider to be absurd. Joseph protected and cherished her from the beginning, and did so until his last breath. After bearing the holy child as such, she was completely satisfied and had no desire to have any more children, (nor did Joseph) and they continued in awe to praise God the rest of their lives of what a miracle had happened through her and the great and superabundant gift that she was bestowed with.

Why wouldnt the whole idea of the Spirit of Christ in our own bodies (and business as usual) be treated with equal reverance? Or does this just has to do with her womb being holy? Because it does speak of the first one to be born (opening the womb) to be called holy to the LORD. However in her case I dont see anything added to imply more then the fruit of her womb would be, as the fruit of any tree (in otherwords) if we go back to the bush comparison. Only because of how Jesus answers back the woman who said, blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck, why didnt he said amen, you are right, not BUT yea rather. A But preceeded the expressed thought however likewise as equally blessed those who hear the word of God and do it. So we see Mary say, from "henceforth" generations would call me blessed, and we see (right there) "it came to pass" a certain woman lifted up her voice and made a particular reference to Mary's womb and paps (in respects to him). Why does he seem to correct this woman. Though I do realize that yea rather can be shown elsewhere as yea truly and the lexicon speaks of it being used thrice to correct a previous statement and the word "but Jesus said" preceeds it and a "they" is equally followed by it. Verses "and Jesus said"

See what I mean?

 

[Standing Up]

After birth, she was a consecrated vessel, who had carried God the Word himself inside of her (and was not consumed). Much like the ark of the covenant (she is referred to as the living ark of the covenant). How did people treat the ark of the covenant in the OT? How much more respect and awe should be shown toward the one who carried God the Word inside of her, rather than the created prefigurements of Him (Moses' tablets, rod of Aaron, manna)?

The idea that Joseph and Mary would carry on with "business as usual" after such an awesome thing had occurred, I consider to be absurd. Joseph protected and cherished her from the beginning, and did so until his last breath. After bearing the holy child as such, she was completely satisfied and had no desire to have any more children, (nor did Joseph) and they continued in awe to praise God the rest of their lives of what a miracle had happened through her and the great and superabundant gift that she was bestowed with.

You join with Aquinas/Jerome (RC really) who thought it absurd the idea holy Joseph had sex with a former wife. Blasphemy! Thus, the cousin theory was born to replace the PoJ idea (the brothers of Christ were sons of Joseph from a previous wife).

 

[Fireinfolding]

The theory is sound though, in some respects.

let's look at a far less signifigant example. So many people collect things. And they put them on a shelf, or in a case, or behind glass. They'd never DREAM about using it for it's ordinary purpose... because it means more than that to them.

and that's for mundane objects.

I don't believe marital sex is defiling either... and neither do the Orthodox or Roman Catholics. From their perspective, it's about being set apart, not defiled. that it's purpose was for something more than "ordinary" purposes.

I don't agree with it... I have no reason to believe it myself, but I certainly don't fault the thought... since we do it for perishable things.

Like good china then? But this particular kind is not that which is pulled out (even on special occassions) but sits on the shelf (continually) for decorative purposes.

I can indeed understand that concept, given an alternative use of another vessel, whether that be every day stoneware and paper plates (made available) in order to eat. But in relationship to a marraige (which seemed to indicate having the intention between the two to become one flesh) through consumation of a marraige that might be a tad harder to find alternative uses (to ones decoritive piece) in respects to the duties of ones marraige.

However, I must head out, Im late, I will catch cha's all later

 

[Uphill Battle]

Like good china then? But this particular kind is not that which is pulled out (even on special occassions) but sits on the shelf (continually) for decorative purposes.

I can indeed understand that concept, given an alternative use of another vessel, whether that be every day stoneware and paper plates (made available) in order to eat. But in relationship to a marraige (which seemed to indicate having the intention between the two to become one flesh) through consumation of a marraige that might be a tad harder to find alternative uses (to ones decoritive piece) in respects to the duties of ones marraige.

However, I must head out, Im late, I will catch cha's all later

and that is where the real difference of opinion lies. I am in agreement with what you've said... however I can give respect to the fact that those who support the EV don't see it the same way.

(Given that the the incarnation is greater than the covenant of Marriage. Even if we dont' believe it, it is at least in my mind not a hard concept to accept.)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Why wouldnt the whole idea of the Spirit of Christ in our own bodies (and business as usual) be treated with equal reverance? Or does this just has to do with her womb being holy? Because it does speak of the first one to be born (opening the womb) to be called holy to the LORD. However in her case I dont see anything added to imply more then the fruit of her womb would be, as the fruit of any tree (in otherwords) if we go back to the bush comparison. Only because of how Jesus answers back the woman who said, blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck, why didnt he said amen, you are right, not BUT yea rather. A But preceeded the expressed thought however likewise as equally blessed those who hear the word of God and do it. So we see Mary say, from "henceforth" generations would call me blessed, and we see (right there) "it came to pass" a certain woman lifted up her voice and made a particular reference to Mary's womb and paps (in respects to him). Why does he seem to correct this woman. Though I do realize that yea rather can be shown elsewhere as yea truly and the lexicon speaks of it being used thrice to correct a previous statement and the word "but Jesus said" preceeds it and a "they" is equally followed by it. Verses "and Jesus said"

See what I mean?

Similarly, Orthodox fast for a certain period of time (including fasting from sexual relations) before receiving the eucharist and abstain from food a certain period of time after that. Because we are not receiving mere food and Drink, but Christ himself, so our bodies are consecrated "set aside" for that purpose the next day. So this can be compared in a sort of way to the reception of the Word made flesh in the womb of the Virgin.

We assert that Mary received God the Word in her womb and He took His flesh from her. This was a one time, unique event. God is not made flesh everyday through all of us, but at one time in history. We don't really speculate to say how this is different than our receiving of the Spirit at baptism, or Christ in the eucharist, but it was an entirely unique occurrence in time, and was something to be marvelled at with fear and awe. Indeed though, it is a pre-figurement of what is to be done in all of us through Christ and God's Spirit. So in a mysterious way, when we receive Christ, he sustains us (bodily and spiritually). Yet when she received Christ (although he continued to sustain her as God) she also physically sustained him, and continued to do so after birth! What a marvel of how God has humbled himself to be born of a creature.

It can be commonly understood that Jesus was saying "more than that" after addressing the woman in the crowd. She was blessed (and chosen) primarily because she heard the word of God and kept it, and affirmed it by her "yes" at the annunciation. This was a great example, par excellence, of how we should all respond to God and receive Him. This was the message that the crowd needed to hear at the time. The church however carries in her bosom the truth and fullness of the gospel message as it has been now fully revealed to us. So we are now able to look back and contemplate on how God has worked through his creation and fully appreciate all the aspects of it, seeing how Christ humbled himself as a lowest of human beings during his time on earth, and was raised up and glorified. This is how we now view the incarnation (and Mary's role), in light of the rest of the aspects of God's saving plan for creation, not as an isolated event.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

You join with Aquinas/Jerome (RC really) who thought it absurd the idea holy Joseph had sex with a former wife. Blasphemy! Thus, the cousin theory was born to replace the PoJ idea (the brothers of Christ were sons of Joseph from a previous wife).

I do not think it is absure that Joseph had sex with a former wife. Orthodox hold to this idea that Joseph was a widower, had children from a previous marriage, and was advanced in age when he betrothed Mary (see my avatar). Similiarly, some of the "brothers" of Christ mentioned in scripture could also be cousins. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. Those distinctions simply were not made in that era, cousins or step brothers were all considered to be brothers.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Like good china then? But this particular kind is not that which is pulled out (even on special occassions) but sits on the shelf (continually) for decorative purposes.

I can indeed understand that concept, given an alternative use of another vessel, whether that be every day stoneware and paper plates (made available) in order to eat. But in relationship to a marraige (which seemed to indicate having the intention between the two to become one flesh) through consumation of a marraige that might be a tad harder to find alternative uses (to ones decoritive piece) in respects to the duties of ones marraige.

However, I must head out, Im late, I will catch cha's all later

It is not explicitly through the act of "sex" that husband and wife become one flesh. It is through the sacrament (mystery) of marriage itself, the union of the married couple in Christ.

If that were the case, then one could make the argument that two people who married yet were unable to have sexual relations for whatever reason did not become one flesh through their union in Christ through holy marriage. I reject that notion.