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.
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.
indeed they conflict... much like they both do with the various forms of protestantism.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.
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.
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?
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 whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favour of the reality of Christs 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]
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.
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.
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?
and what of the earlier witnesses Jerome referred to?
"But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospelthat 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?
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.
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?
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.
Originally Posted by FireinfoldingThanks 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.
According to Coloss 1, the Mystery was manifested to us already, and just as Christ was in Mary, so He now dwells in usWe 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..."
when i said they aren't mutually exclusive, i meant that some could be his cousins, and some could be his step-brothers/sisters.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?