Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

First off, he wouldn't mention Clement since He believed in the EV and you continuing to say the opposite will never change that fact.

I'll go through Clement one more time.

Then He only mentioned two other names. Why, because those were obviously the only two Helvidius mentioned. IOW, Jerome was rebutting Helvidus point by point.


This is a perfect example of wishful thinking. The entire reading was ONLY about one thing. Defending the Ever Virgin belief. St. Jerome said NOTHING about those other things under each and every one of His steps while defending a corrupt stance regarding those brothers of Christ. Arianism was never brought up once. Here's what St. Jerome said early to show His true intent of His writings.

I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse [NOTE: Jerome uses the ancient method of counting parts of months as whole months, hence a pregnancy of a little more than nine months is called ten months long; he later, chapter 20, shows that he knows pregnancy normally lasts nine months]. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a virgin after her son was born.

There is NOTHING about Arianism there or even hints it.

Also, lets just accuse St. Jerome of lying because He doesn't produce actual quotes instead of just names. We all could just say "maybe" He did have that info available to him which you'd never do or every post of yours on here would admittedly be in question since they end with absolutes of your line of thinking.

And St. Jerome never thought it important enough to make longer His 'Against Helvidus' teaching and said this. He didn't think it necessary at the time to write volumes on it.

Except that is what those men were known for; they were predecessors of Arianism. As far as I know, none of them wrote anything specifically about EV. They wrote about Jesus being baptized and adopted as Christ at baptism.

So, perhaps Jerome has simply made an associative error. IOW, if one says, Mary had other children, this is not to say she wasn't a virgin when she had Christ Jesus. But that is his arguement. No ever virginity, then you promote anti-Christ (denying Christ came in the flesh, like Arius, like those three predecessors). It's quite effective. Erroneous, but quite effective on the surface.

PS. It's also very ironic because Tertullian, who Jerome dismisses with an ad hominem, had said the exact opposite. To promote EV is to deny the humanity of Christ. No slouch, that Jerome, eh?

 

[Standing Up]

I have a question for those who think that declaring Mary as ever-virgin is tantamount to promoting gnosticism and virgin cults.

Do you also think that because of the fact Paul was unmarried (and also a virgin, I would presume) he is endorsing gnosticism and virgin cults?

Does the fact that he wrote this:



in which he clearly gives preference to chastity over any other lifestyle, mean that he is endorsing gnosticism and virgin cults?

This makes us think about Jesus as well. If we are to follow someone's lifestyle, it would be Jesus. Yet, we know he was unmarried and a virgin. In fact, he said "those who do not follow after me cannot be my disciple." So someone could logically deduce, by some of the opinions expressed regarding Mary's virginity in this thread, that the same conclusions can be drawn from Jesus' and Paul's lifestyle as well.

So then, I think one should be very careful not to stretch this "theory" connecting chastity and gnosticism too far, for obvious reasons, unless they are ready to declare that all of Christianity promotes gnosticism and virgin cults.

And they say we make wild associations. Anyway, the thread's not about EV. It's about the PoJ. Is it gnostic? Does it contradict scripture? Did the church reject it in 500ad? Yes, yes, yes.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And they say we make wild associations. Anyway, the thread's not about EV. It's about the PoJ. Is it gnostic? Does it contradict scripture? Did the church reject it in 500ad? Yes, yes, yes.

what are the gnostic passages again?>

 

[Standing Up]

The intricacy of the dance of rhetorical association (without saying it outright) of Orthodoxy/Catholicism with the heresy of Gnosticism is breathtaking.

Hmmm, we've all distanced ourselves from that. We all agree Christ was born normally from the virgin. Down the birth canal, the water, the baby, the placenta. Right? Or is the east gate teaching still around?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Hmmm, we've all distanced ourselves from that. We all agree Christ was born normally from the virgin. Down the birth canal, the water, the baby, the placenta. Right? Or is the east gate teaching still around?

why not a miraculous c-section?

 

[SolomonVII]

i will have a gander then

Please do. If you are interested in the subject, I certainly am. What I am not interested in is getting into another snarky exchange that is sure to draw all those who dislike me here out of the woodwork like flies to cow pies.

I should point out though, to qualify and place limits on what I had said previously, that virginity is in itself not gnostic.
And even as there is absolutely no historical basis for believing so, even if Mary decided on a chaste, sexless marriage, this too is not gnostic per se.
Christianity is not Judaism after all, and both Christ and Paul were chaste, with Paul speaking of chasteness as a higher virtue for those who are not interested in sex anyway is a perfectly valid point for Christianity. It is not a common Jewish point of view, but, again , Christianity is not Judaism. It is Scriptural, and demonstrably apostolic.

What I do object to though, on theological grounds, is the common Christian conception that Mary would somehow be holier on account of marital chasteness, and less pure on account of marital sex.
EO and Catholics have maintained a very strong sense of sacraments, which in effect sanctify life in the flesh and in the physical world as being of the Kingdom of God, which is at hand here and now, through the water of baptism, through the oil of sanctification, through the bread and wine, and human touch, and full marital bliss.
I am not critical of the article of faith that holds Mary as virgin. It is not a historical belief, but if that is someone's faith then that is that.
The objection I raise is when people say that Mary is Virgin because sexual relations would make her less than holy. The sacrament of marriage sanctifies our sexual relationships and assures us of the purity of marital bliss. This to me is an anti-sacramental attitude then.
And if not sacramental. then not apostolic Christian. So then, where might have that attitude, prevalent throughout Christian history, come from?
PofJ gives us clues, I think.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Please do. If you are interested in the subject, I certainly am. What I am not interested in is getting into another snarky exchange that is sure to draw all those who dislike me here out of the woodwork like flies to cow pies.

I should point out though, to qualify and place limits on what I had said previously, that virginity is in itself not gnostic.
And even as there is absolutely no historical basis for believing so, even if Mary decided on a chaste, sexless marriage, this too is not gnostic per se.
Christianity is not Judaism after all, and both Christ and Paul were chaste, with Paul speaking of chasteness as a higher virtue for those who are not interested in sex anyway is a perfectly valid point for Christianity. It is not a common Jewish point of view, but, again , Christianity is not Judaism. It is Scriptural, and demonstrably apostolic.

What I do object to though, on theological grounds, is the common Christian conception that Mary would somehow be holier on account of marital chasteness, and less pure on account of marital sex.
EO and Catholics have maintained a very strong sense of sacraments, which in effect sanctify life in the flesh and in the physical world as being of the Kingdom of God, which is at hand here and now, through the water of baptism, through the oil of sanctification, through the bread and wine, and human touch, and full marital bliss.
I am not critical of the article of faith that holds Mary as virgin. It is not a historical belief, but if that is someone's faith then that is that.
The objection I raise is when people say that Mary is Virgin because sexual relations would make her less than holy. The sacrament of marriage sanctifies our sexual relationships and assures us of the purity of marital bliss. This to me is an anti-sacramental attitude then.
And if not sacramental. then not apostolic Christian. So then, where might have that attitude, prevalent throughout Christian history, come from?
PofJ gives us clues, I think.

But do you not understand that it isn't the position that Marital sex is defling, but that marital sex is common practice, and thus inconsistent with the uniqueness and holiness of the incarnation?

Catholics don't argue that having sex defiles you. They argue that God had another purpose for Mary, beyond that of ordinary means.

Again, I don't share that belief. But at least you should fire at the right target.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Please do. If you are interested in the subject, I certainly am. What I am not interested in is getting into another snarky exchange that is sure to draw all those who dislike me here out of the woodwork like flies to cow pies.

I should point out though, to qualify and place limits on what I had said previously, that virginity is in itself not gnostic.
And even as there is absolutely no historical basis for believing so, even if Mary decided on a chaste, sexless marriage, this too is not gnostic per se.
Christianity is not Judaism after all, and both Christ and Paul were chaste, with Paul speaking of chasteness as a higher virtue for those who are not interested in sex anyway is a perfectly valid point for Christianity. It is not a common Jewish point of view, but, again , Christianity is not Judaism. It is Scriptural, and demonstrably apostolic.

What I do object to though, on theological grounds, is the common Christian conception that Mary would somehow be holier on account of marital chasteness, and less pure on account of marital sex.
EO and Catholics have maintained a very strong sense of sacraments, which in effect sanctify life in the flesh and in the physical world as being of the Kingdom of God, which is at hand here and now, through the water of baptism, through the oil of sanctification, through the bread and wine, and human touch, and full marital bliss.
I am not critical of the article of faith that holds Mary as virgin. It is not a historical belief, but if that is someone's faith then that is that.
The objection I raise is when people say that Mary is Virgin because sexual relations would make her less than holy. The sacrament of marriage sanctifies our sexual relationships and assures us of the purity of marital bliss. This to me is an anti-sacramental attitude then.
And if not sacramental. then not apostolic Christian. So then, where might have that attitude, prevalent throughout Christian history, come from?
PofJ gives us clues, I think.

It's not a historical belief that Mary was ever-virgin? And your belief regarding Mary as having children is the historical belief? How do you come to this conclusion, given that your view was in the extreme minority of early church Christians?

We are saying what we believe, and this is the tradition that has been handed down to us, and it makes good sense to us why she would remain a virgin after such a miraculous occurence. We didn't simply "make up" the teaching of her ever-virginity to make Mary into something she's not or to use it to form the basis of a virgin cult or gnostic sect. It is our understanding, from scripture and tradition, that this is in fact what happened.

Mary being ever-virgin does not somehow give a blanket approval for every Christian to strive to be a life-long virgin. Nor does it mean that Christian's who marry and have sex are "bad". This is what we believe to be the path that God chose for her, and the one she submitted to (not unlike John the Baptist, or Paul, or the other disciples, or Jesus). Many people here are assuming that we beleive her ever-virginity must has some sort of wide-spread implication for Christians as a whole, and that we are to follow her example of virginity and form virgin cults. This is simply not the case. We nor anyone else would be any less likely to form virgin cults based on the example of Jesus or Paul.

 

[SolomonVII]

It's not a historical belief that Mary was ever-virgin? A

Listen carefully now
It has been historically believed that Mary was ever-virgin, but such a belief is based in no known Scripture, and no confirmed apostolic teaching.

And your belief regarding Mary as having children is the historical belief?

Again listen carefully.
Did I say that?
I did not.
The earliest documented recording of the belief that brothers of Scripture were not brothers of the flesh comes from the PofJ, which is a false writing.
The literal meaning of the word adelphos, "of the womb" is of course brothers in the flesh. While Standing Up makes the stronger statement that brothers in the flesh is scriptural, my main contention on these threads is that if I err, I err on the side of taking the Bible at its word. The literal sense of the word is much more consistent with the related OT prophecy, and with the context of the NT texts.
In the absence of clear apostolic teaching, I believe this is more justified.
That is, it is more justified in the ABSENCE of any historical documentation linking a different understanding back to the Apostles.

Your church teaches differently, in the absence of clear apostolic teaching.
That is your faith. That is faith according to obedience to EO teaching. It is not faith according to Scriptural or apostolic teaching however, for the only documentation that even tangentially supports this claim as being apostolic is PoJ, and James did not leave us this testimony. As far as Scripture goes, the text makes not clear reference to either cousin or stepbrother, and the usual assumption in the absence of other scriptural qualifiers, would be that brothers of the womb actually means brothers of the womb.

It is not a difficult point to understand, but few have grasped this so far.

But if I am wrong, clear the air, and show us the apostolic teaching of this. Show us the Scripture-the Scripture that MUST mean something other than brothers of the same womb!
Nobody, so far, has given this kind of evidence; OrthodoxyUSA in fact quoted Basil that much of this kind of evidence remains unproclaimed by EO on purpose, and it is only evangelization that is not hidden.

How do you come to this conclusion, given that your view was in the extreme minority of early church Christians?

You are making the same leap as others have.
I only say that stepbrothers (or cousins) is not from Scripture or known Apostolic teaching. It is the story that EO shares with PofJ.
I do not even say that James is the source, although that is the more reasonable conclusion to come to, given the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

As far as minority or majority, faith is not a democracy.

We are saying what we believe, and this is the tradition that has been handed down to us, and it makes good sense to us why she would remain a virgin after such a miraculous occurrence.

It has been handed down to you by tradition yes.
There is no evidence to say that it has been handed down to you through apostolic tradition or on the evidence of Scripture.
Where does the evidence come from then?
It is a valid question.

We didn't simply "make up" the teaching of her ever-virginity to make Mary into something she's not or to use it to form the basis of a virgin cult or gnostic sect. It is our understanding, from scripture and tradition, that this is in fact what happened.

Maybe it was made up. Maybe it wasn't. I have no idea. The evidence for such a claim remains hidden to me and probably to everybody else.
The thing is, you don't know either. Old Joseph/ stepbrothers is unsubantiated by anything resembling scriptural or apostolic evidence.

Mary being ever-virgin does not somehow give a blanket approval for every Christian to strive to be a life-long virgin. Nor does it mean that Christian's who marry and have sex are "bad".

Okay. Then it is your contention that it would have been perfectly legitimate, and would not be a problem or compromised the purity of Mary, if she had behaved like a typical married woman with her husband Joseph?
I recall some kind of objection on your behalf that had something to do with Joseph doing his business there after the Holy event.

Are you retracting your former contention then, the same contention that SU has pointed out to you was the argument of Jerome and others?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Listen carefully now
It has been historically believed that Mary was ever-virgin, but such a belief is based in no known Scripture, and no confirmed apostolic teaching.


Again listen carefully.
Did I say that?
I did not.
The earliest documented recording of the belief that brothers of Scripture were not brothers of the flesh comes from the PofJ, which is a false writing.
The literal meaning of the word adelphos, "of the womb" is of course brothers in the flesh. While Standing Up makes the stronger statement that brothers in the flesh is scriptural, my main contention on these threads is that if I err, I err on the side of taking the Bible at its word. The literal sense of the word is much more consistent with the related OT prophecy, and with the context of the NT texts.
In the absence of clear apostolic teaching, I believe this is more justified.
That is, it is more justified in the ABSENCE of any historical documentation linking a different understanding back to the Apostles.

Your church teaches differently, in the absence of clear apostolic teaching.
That is your faith. That is faith according to obedience to EO teaching. It is not faith according to Scriptural or apostolic teaching however, for the only documentation that even tangentially supports this claim as being apostolic is PoJ, and James did not leave us this testimony. As far as Scripture goes, the text makes not clear reference to either cousin or stepbrother, and the usual assumption in the absence of other scriptural qualifiers, would be that brothers of the womb actually means brothers of the womb.

It is not a difficult point to understand, but few have grasped this so far.

But if I am wrong, clear the air, and show us the apostolic teaching of this. Show us the Scripture.
Nobody, so far, has given this kind of evidence; OrthodoxyUSA in fact quoted Basil that much of this kind of evidence remains unproclaimed by EO, and it is evangelization that is not hidden.



You are making the same leap as others have.
I only say that stepbrothers (or cousins) is not from Scripture or known Apostolic teaching. It is the story that EO shares with PofJ.
I do not even say that James is the source, although that is the more reasonable conclusion to come to, given the absence of any evidence to the contrary.


It has been handed down to you by tradition yes.
There is no evidence to say that it has been handed down to you through apostolic tradition or on the evidence of Scripture.
Where does the evidence come from then?
It is a valid question.


Maybe it was made up. Maybe it wasn't.
The thing is, you don't know either. Old Joseph/ stepbrothers is unsubantiated by anything resembling scriptural or apostolic evidence.


Okay. Then it is your contention that it would have been perfectly legitimate, and would not be a problem or compromised the purity of Mary, if she had behaved like a typical married woman with her husband Joseph?
I recall some kind of objection on your behalf that had something to do with Joseph doing his business after the Holy event.

Are you retracting your former contention then, the same contention that SU has pointed out to you was the argument of Jerome and others?

Are you continuing to feign ignorance of Holy Tradition?

 

[Standing Up]

Are you continuing to feign ignorance of Holy Tradition?

There is no such as Holy Tradition apart from their definition of Holy Tradition. EO has a Holy Tradition. RC has a Holy Tradition. P has a Holy Tradition (though scripture is the norm). Holy Tradition is the box of chocolates that Christians pick from. You never know what you're gonna get.

However, from scripture times to c200, there are only 2 theories about who the brothers are. One is from the PoJ. And then there's the other one.

 

[Standing Up]

It's not a historical belief that Mary was ever-virgin?

How far back? c150 with the PoJ? Or c400 with the cousin theory?

And your belief regarding Mary as having children is the historical belief?

It's clear to me that's what they believed. c200-Origen. There's only 2 theories about who the brothers are:

“ And they [doubters] spoke [quoting scripture], wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) is not this the carpenter’s son?”52625262 Matt. xiii. 55. And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, “Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?”52635263 Matt. xiii. 55, 56. They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter,52645264 The Gospel of Peter, of which a fragment was recovered in 1886 and published in 1892. as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,”52655265 Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 9. that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html

We know Christ was born of Mary/Spirit. But the doubters thought He was born of Mary/Joseph, along with the rest of their children.

Origen then provides the alternative tradition based on the PoJ.

How do you come to this conclusion, given that your view was in the extreme minority of early church Christians?

It wasn't. Some say basing it on the PoJ. Not many, not all, not named apostles.

 

[SolomonVII]

Read through the thread. It hasn't been done under a basket. Just from a few posts ago:

To me, here's the connection. Tertullian:

"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

That idea is from the PoJ. The light recedes, the young child appears, it takes the breast, Mary remains intact.

My understanding is that Gnostic Marcion, who understands the Creator of the world and flesh to be an evil demiurge, find the idea of God enfleshed, and born of a woman, to be a particularly repugnant idea.

Snnip a verse or two out of the beginning of Luke, and along with the PofJ, Marcion has a very effective 'apostolic' tool to counter the claims of orthodoxy.

There is no evidence in PofJ that Jesus was born of the woman. Indeed, Salome's hand withers touching the maidenhead proof that not such thing occurred. Hymen is the proof that nothing has passed through the women, neither in nor out.

Instead it is all divine lightness of the birth that never was. One might even glimpse the divine spark.

Was the flesh that appeared as the light dimmed even real at all?

In the context of the Marcion tradition and teaching, PofJ has all the fixings for a very potent 'apostolic' testimony of the gnostic faith.

Like you point out Clement objects to Mary being left in the puerperal state in this PofJ birth that never was.

Tertullian understood well enough the implications of denying Jesus his flesh and his brothers in the flesh as well. Jesus was very much a bouncing baby boy, and Mary herself was very much a woman of this world, not the ephemeral woman of the Temple being fed from the hands of angels, before her feet even touch the dirt of the ground.

All miracles in the Bible are signs. This miracle is a sign too, a sign that Jesus was of the light and not of the flesh, not of the flesh of the woman,not belonging to this world at all really.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I think it is quite unfortunate that the early reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) weren't members of Christian Forums; perhaps you all would have been able to convince them to abandon their belief in the ever-virginity of Mary? It's funny to think if they were alive today that they could very well be the ones arguing against you (using well reasoned scripture, as was their habit) instead of our RC/EO brethren, who seem to be the only defenders of this belief today. How far from the tree...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

My understanding is that Gnostic Marcion, who understands the Creator of the world and flesh to be an evil demiurge, find the idea of God enfleshed, and born of a woman, to be a particularly repugnant idea.

Snnip a verse or two out of the beginning of Luke, and along with the PofJ, Marcion has a very effective 'apostolic' tool to counter the claims of orthodoxy.

There is no evidence in PofJ that Jesus was born of the woman. Indeed, Salome's hand withers touching the maidenhead proof that not such thing occurred. Hymen is the proof that nothing has passed through the women, neither in nor out.

Instead it is all divine lightness of the birth that never was. One might even glimpse the divine spark.

Was the flesh that appeared as the light dimmed even real at all?

In the context of the Marcion tradition and teaching, PofJ has all the fixings for a very potent 'apostolic' testimony of the gnostic faith.

Like you point out Clement objects to Mary being left in the puerperal state in this PofJ birth that never was.

Tertullian understood well enough the implications of denying Jesus his flesh and his brothers in the flesh as well. Jesus was very much a bouncing baby boy, and Mary herself was very much a woman of this world, not the ephemeral woman of the Temple being fed from the hands of angels, before her feet even touch the dirt of the ground.

All miracles in the Bible are signs. This miracle is a sign too, a sign that Jesus was of the light and not of the flesh, not of the flesh of the woman,not belonging to this world at all really.

Hmm, that might be the case if the PoJ didn't mention "Christ in the flesh"...which flies in the face of the anti-incarnationist's.

 

[Standing Up]

I think it is quite unfortunate that the early reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) weren't members of Christian Forums; perhaps you all would have been able to convince them to abandon their belief in the ever-virginity of Mary? It's funny to think if they were alive today that they could very well be the ones arguing against you (using well reasoned scripture, as was their habit) instead of our RC/EO brethren, who seem to be the only defenders of this belief today. How far from the tree...

Unfortunately, they also maintained the easter tradition that Irenaeus sources to Sixtus I. So no, it wouldn't matter if the source weren't apostolic.

 

[SolomonVII]

It wasn't. Some say basing it on the PoJ. Not many, not all, not named apostles.

It is hard to say how much effect PoJ had, but certainly by the time of Augustine, and Jerome and within a few more hundred years into the Christian era, any previous ideas that Tertullian and Clement had, had long been swept under the tide of EV dogma.
The silence of the apostles on the matter by then never even crossed into the consciousness of the emerging church.

Intuitively, the conception of Mary as EV had an early and dramatic popular appeal to the former gentiles who were the ones filling the Christian Church. Certainly, if there were any teachings of EV dogma, the testimony of the apostles and their first studies would not have been such a silent one. Any teachings that the apostles had made on such an evidently popular practice would have been as abundant as the Gospels.
Instead, what is abundant to the archeological record is the PoJ.

 

[Uphill Battle]

There is no such as Holy Tradition apart from their definition of Holy Tradition. EO has a Holy Tradition. RC has a Holy Tradition. P has a Holy Tradition (though scripture is the norm). Holy Tradition is the box of chocolates that Christians pick from. You never know what you're gonna get.

However, from scripture times to c200, there are only 2 theories about who the brothers are. One is from the PoJ. And then there's the other one.

sorry. You're off target. Documentation that you forward, is immaterial... when the benchmark for their belief is that they believe that is what their church has always taught.

nice canard about Scripture being irrelevant to everyone other than protestants though. Didn't miss that one.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hmm, that might be the case if the PoJ didn't mention "Christ in the flesh"...which flies in the face of the anti-incarnationist's.

Are you sure?

Marcion's New Testament consisted of Euangelion (meaning something along the lines of a rewarded for good news given to the messenger) which was two thirds of the Gospel of Luke, and Apostolikon which was 10 Pauline Epistles. These were a shorter Galations and Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans (which was Ephesians), Philippians, Philemon and Colossians.

The Marcionites regarded the Mosaic Law, Sabbaths, Holidays, Fasting, Angels, Archangels and even Jehovah as things to be avoided in order to make spiritual progress. Therefore most references to these things in the New Testament were either added later in order to water down his doctrine, and present Christianity as a New Dispensation of Judaism, or in some cases Marcion mentions Jewish Prophets and observances himself as a bad example. In some cases these have simply been turned around later by editors.

The main differences between the Gospel of Luke and Euangelion, is that Euangelion starts around chapter 4. Therefore there is no virgin birth and Marcion's Isu Chrestos is a phantom. However he is still crucified in the end and bleeds. Marcion's text has been the object of ridicule because of this. Interestingly Marcion was a true Christian Evangelist, and didn't care much about logic of this sort. It was simply a life to be practiced, and the good news was to be shared. This is clearly where Marcion was not a Gnostic (although until I learn more, I am guessing that Marcion was the father of Gnosticism also - after all Nag Hammadi is dated late 4th century) as the Gnostics believe in receiving revelation directly from God in a creative process.

The Euangelion and Apostolikon of Marcion

Phantom blood, phantom flesh as well perhaps?

I cannot see the PofJ as being anything but an effective tool for the gnosticism of Marcion.

But perhaps we will just disagree on that point.

 

[Standing Up]

It is hard to say how much effect PoJ had, but certainly by the time of Augustine, and Jerome and within a few more hundred years into the Christian era, any previous ideas that Tertullian and Clement had, had long been swept under the tide of EV dogma.
The silence of the apostles on the matter by then never even crossed into the consciousness of the emerging church.

Intuitively, the conception of Mary as EV had an early and dramatic popular appeal to the former gentiles who were the ones filling the Christian Church. Certainly, if there were any teachings of EV dogma, the testimony of the apostles and their first studies would not have been such a silent one. Any teachings that the apostles had made on such an evidently popular practice would have been as abundant as the Gospels.
Instead, what is abundant to the archeological record is the PoJ.

Probably much more than what we've scratched. Docetism (as it was called then) and gnosticism are evident in the PoJ.

" The ascetic notion of immediate revelation through divine knowledge sought to find an absolute transcendence in a Supreme Deity. This concept is important in identifying what evidence there is pertaining to Gnosticism[79] in the NT, which would influence orthodox teaching.[80] Main Gnostic beliefs that differ from Biblical teachings include: the creator as a lower being [‘Demiurge’] and not a Supreme Deity; scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”;[81] and Jesus as a spirit that “seemed”[82] to be human, leading to a belief in the incarnation (Docetism).[83] ... This philosophy[85] was known by the so-called “Church Fathers” such as Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian
Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Docetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, it's clear to me the source of the PoJ.