• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Protoevangelium of James

Status
Not open for further replies.

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

Yes they believe it. But their Holy Tradition conflcts, obviously. 1054 and all that.

RC and EO will both tell us that Tradition and Scripture are their norm. For P, it's sola scriptura as the norm.

Don't look for fights that aren't there.
 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yes they believe it. But their Holy Tradition conflcts, obviously. 1054 and all that.

RC and EO will both tell us that Tradition and Scripture are their norm. For P, it's sola scriptura as the norm.

Don't look for fights that aren't there.
indeed they conflict... much like they both do with the various forms of protestantism.

why anyone should think your version is preferable is anyone's guess.

then why didn't you say sola scriptura in the first place? It doesn't get in as good a jab?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

Well, that was the whole point of Tertullian. He said, the fact that Mary/Joseph had children, proved the flesh of Christ. He argued against the phantom birth, the phantom flesh (from light, as a young child who is capable of taking the breast, Mary remains intact), and for the real birth as proved by subequent births.


But certain disciples70217021 He has Appelles mainly in view. of the heretic of Pontus, compelled to be wiser than their teacher, concede to Christ real flesh, without effect, however, on70227022 Sine præjudicio tamen. “Without prejudice to their denial, etc.” their denial of His nativity. He might have had, they say, a flesh which was not at all born. So we have found our way “out of a frying-pan,” as the proverb runs, “into the fire,”70237023 The Roman version of the proverb is “out of the lime-kiln into the coal-furnace.”—from Marcion to Apelles. 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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
indeed they conflict... much like they both do with the various forms of protestantism.

why anyone should think your version is preferable is anyone's guess.

then why didn't you say sola scriptura in the first place? It doesn't get in as good a jab?

Yes, we all conflict.
 
Upvote 0

Ortho_Cat

Orthodox Christian
Aug 12, 2009
9,973
680
KS
✟36,039.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
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.

other than these parts, which clearly indicate Christ being born of his mother in the flesh:

"For it was he who had been warned by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh. "


"And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary."

"I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of."

I would think that gnostics would have a difficult time explaining away these passages to their friends if they were trying to persuade them that Christ didn't come in the flesh.
 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Well, that was the whole point of Tertullian. He said, the fact that Mary/Joseph had children, proved the flesh of Christ. He argued against the phantom birth, the phantom flesh (from light, as a young child who is capable of taking the breast, Mary remains intact), and for the real birth as proved by subequent births.



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

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

subsequent births are not the measureing stick of the normality of first births. Or would you say that everyone who has one child only, can't verify that it wasn't a normal birth?
 
Upvote 0

Ortho_Cat

Orthodox Christian
Aug 12, 2009
9,973
680
KS
✟36,039.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
How far back? c150 with the PoJ? Or c400 with the cousin theory?




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.




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

what is this "gospel according to Peter" mentioned above? No one has mentioned that. It appears to be another document attesting EV around the same time.
 
Upvote 0

Ortho_Cat

Orthodox Christian
Aug 12, 2009
9,973
680
KS
✟36,039.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
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.

I thought there were 3 theories?

1) Step-brothers from Joseph's previous marriage
2) cousins
3) blood brothers

I don't see 1 and 2 as being incompatible.
 
Upvote 0

Ortho_Cat

Orthodox Christian
Aug 12, 2009
9,973
680
KS
✟36,039.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
and what of the earlier witnesses Jerome referred to?

"But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel—that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply 344briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length." NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Jerome was certainly under the impression that these men held the same opinion regarding the ever-virginity that he did. Why shouldn't we believe him?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
subsequent births are not the measureing stick of the normality of first births. Or would you say that everyone who has one child only, can't verify that it wasn't a normal birth?

God-with-us was incredible. What exactly did it mean? Would God really deign to take on disgusting human flesh?

No, said Marcion and Apelles. Then what? Flesh like angels, from light, from stars.

Let them, then, prove to us that those angels derived their flesh from the stars
-tertullian, against apelles (PoJ)

How do we know Emmanuel was one of us? Mary/Joseph had more children. Born like Jesus, of the flesh.

That was his argument 1800 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
and what of the earlier witnesses Jerome referred to?

"But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel—that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply 344briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length." NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Jerome was certainly under the impression that these men held the same opinion regarding the ever-virginity that he did. Why shouldn't we believe him?

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?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I thought there were 3 theories?

1) Step-brothers from Joseph's previous marriage
2) cousins
3) blood brothers

I don't see 1 and 2 as being incompatible.

c100-400 there were only 2 theories. #1 and #3.

Aquinas railed against the PoJ as apocryphal rantings. Jerome then invented the cousin theory c400. C500 Pope Gelasius condemend the PoJ. c600 Pseudo-matthew resurrected #1 theory, but probably without the docetic overtones from 400 years earlier.

#1 and #2 are mutually exclusive.
 
Upvote 0

Ortho_Cat

Orthodox Christian
Aug 12, 2009
9,973
680
KS
✟36,039.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
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-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.



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.


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. 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.


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?

Ah, but then again, a lack of virginity isn't clearly presented in scripture, either. As I mentioned before, the 4 protestant reformers all believed in the EV. Those men were accustomed to using scripture to back up their beliefs, so if they were convinced that the EV was contrary to scripture (which several seem to be asserting here) they would have no doubt dropped it in a heartbeat. Yet they affirmed it, and strongly.

As expected, we have seen good arguments in this thread which lay out a case for both sides. Literally, both positions can be supported by scripture and deduction thereof.

So what should we do to break this apparent stalement? Other than deferring to tradition or personal interpretation, there is no other reasonable option. That is what it comes down to every time in this types of debates.

So we go to the early witnesses and see what they have to say. The same church fathers who established the biblical canon, formulated the creed, and defended the teaching of the Trinity against heretics affirmed the EV of Mary. Yet, some have purposefully ignored the belief advice of these holy men regarding the state of virginity of Mary. Why is this? Scripture is clearly not sufficient to tell us one conclusively one way or the other, so why not listen to these men who have been pillars of the Christian faith rather than rely on our personal interpretations (or worse, heretics)?

Sadly, it appears that many have attempted to listen to anyone else but them, even looking towards heretics to justify their positions. The Protestant reformers knew this was no path to take, and instead looked towards the Fathers of the Church through the lens of scripture to verify and double-check this apostolic teaching.

Regarding Mary's virginity, I simply cannot conceive of it being any other way. Could she still be holy if she had other children? Of course she could have! But this is not the path that the Lord has deemed for her, as testified by countless saints of the church, through her councils, and the reformers. Who are we to say otherwise?
 
Upvote 0

Ortho_Cat

Orthodox Christian
Aug 12, 2009
9,973
680
KS
✟36,039.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
c100-400 there were only 2 theories. #1 and #3.

Aquinas railed against the PoJ as apocryphal rantings. Jerome then invented the cousin theory c400. C500 Pope Gelasius condemend the PoJ. c600 Pseudo-matthew resurrected #1 theory, but probably without the docetic overtones from 400 years earlier.

#1 and #2 are mutually exclusive.

when i said they aren't mutually exclusive, i meant that some could be his cousins, and some could be his step-brothers/sisters.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by Fireinfolding 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..." :angel:
According to Coloss 1, the Mystery was manifested to us already, and just as Christ was in Mary, so He now dwells in us :) :angel:

Colo 1:26 The Mystery having been Hid from the ages and from the generations, now yet was made manifest to the holy-ones of Him.
27 To whom God wills to make known any the riches of the glory of this, the Mystery in the Nations, which is Christ in ye, the hope of glory.
[Revelation 10:7]

Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh Messenger, whenever He may be being about to be trumpeting, also is finish the Mystery of God
as He brings Well Message to His bondservants the prophets.

hypnotized Fleetwood Mac - YouTube
 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
when i said they aren't mutually exclusive, i meant that some could be his cousins, and some could be his step-brothers/sisters.

Actually... technically it could be all three.

cousins, and step siblings, and blood siblings.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
other than these parts, which clearly indicate Christ being born of his mother in the flesh:-snip-.

So would you agree Christ was born normally? Down the birth canal, water, infant, placenta. Opened the womb as scripture says.
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟34,229.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So would you agree Christ was born normally? Down the birth canal, water, infant, placenta. Opened the womb as scripture says.

As opposed to what, asexually or by osmosis? No, I can assure you that Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe that human beings are born asexually or by osmosis.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
what is this "gospel according to Peter" mentioned above? No one has mentioned that. It appears to be another document attesting EV around the same time.

The Gospel of Peter, translated by Raymond Brown

Of the extant part, nothing about His brothers.

Also, the PoJ only speaks to Mary's virginity at the time of birth. It doesn't say anyhting about her life thereafter.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.