• 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.

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I would say that the evidence is stronger in favor of the view that Mary did not give birth to any other children before or after Jesus

IF that were the official position, I suspect none would have even a tiny bit of an issue with it (CERTAINLY not me!). I'm not even sure I disagree with you. But it's de fide dogma. A whole other enchilada.




I acknowledge that even with this evidence there is some ambiguity.

Wow. That's all I have to say about that.... wow!

People have been burned at the stake for less than that, for issues less than de fide dogma.

I left the RCC because I couldn't say "I am CERTAIN to the highest level possible that __________ is a matter of highest importance possible for all persons of the Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter that impacts the eternal salvation of souls!" I didn't deny it, I didn't even disagree with it, in a couple of cases, I even saw it as most likely - but because I couldn't (in good conscience) say that later, I was "not Catholic" Again, people have been dispatched to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for a whole lot less than what you've posted concerning issues a whole lot less in status than the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Things must be VERY different in the EOC... Ah, but a discussion for another day and thread.

BTW, your statement is like that of MANY Lutherans.... Perhaps Lutherans and Orthodox are more alike in other things, too?





So we have a text that we both believe is 100% true, but we don't agree on what it says.

IF you are referring to Luke (and not this false, rejected "protoevangelium") then I disagree with you (respectfully). I think ALL THE WORLD agrees with what it says. It's not hard. Read the words. All of them are very common Greek words. We all agree on what it says.





Is it doctrinal? I would have to say no

Wow. I'm just stunned.

It's far MORE, far far MORE than doctrine. It's de fide DOGMA (at least in the RCC).







.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
But you've ignored the bulk of my post !

Absence of extant record is not the same as absence of fact.
No, it is you that is ignoring me.
You are answering me as if my argument was the same as the one that Standing Up is giving. It is not.

Arguing from absence of the fact that something existed before P of J is arguing from nothing.
And that is what EO is doing when they are saying that there is something there before P of J. You are arguing from an absence of fact.

Like I said, you got nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
-snip-
Wow. I'm just stunned.

It's far MORE, far far MORE than doctrine. It's de fide DOGMA (at least in the RCC).







.

Folks may not understand that this so-called de fide dogma means if one doesn't believe, RC belief is you a Christian go to hell.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, it is you that is ignoring me.
You are answering me as if my argument was the same as the one that Standing Up is giving. It is not.

Arguing from absence of the fact that something existed before P of J is arguing from nothing.
And that is what EO is doing when they are saying that there is something there before P of J. You are arguing from an absence of fact.

Like I said, you got nothing.

Well, as someone said, if it's true (and scripture/tradition do so say) that Jesus did have brothers (same mother, different father), then the next question is from where did the idea of a woman's ongoing-virginity-as-necessary-for-something come from? The obvious answer is paganism--vestal virgins.

But this thread, folks, is not about that.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Folks may not understand that this so-called de fide dogma means if one doesn't believe, RC belief is you a Christian go to hell.


Yeah thanks, I'll scratch that one down in the gospel
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It would seem that the crux of agreement is in your last statement. We both believe the Bible is true but don't agree on the truth. I would say that the evidence is stronger in favor of the view that Mary did not give birth to any other children before or after Jesus, but I acknowledge that even with this evidence there is some ambiguity. So we have a text that we both believe is 100% true, but we don't agree on what it says. What next? The logical starting point would be to explore what was believed through history. This is where the Protoevangelium comes in - not because anyone thinks it's on the same level as scripture or because anyone thinks it was actually written by St James himself, but because regardless of who wrote and why - it expresses the belief at the time it was written. It's corroborating evidence.

It's about the only evidence, no? Without it, what do we have? The cousin theory of Jerome c400.

OR, we can explore the other tradition from the same very early times Hegesippius, Origen (which I'll bump), Clement of Alexandria (who rejects the PoJ), and Tertullian and CYril of Jerusalem that ties out to scripture.



Add to this other evidence, such as the use of "Ever Virgin" in the ecumenical councils, the common belief held by groups of Christians separated by other doctrinal issues (e.g. Copts, Armenian, Syrians, Greek, Latins all believe this same thing). Is it doctrinal? I would have to say no, but at the same time I think it would be close to impossible to maintain otherwise and commune with the OO, EO, ACOE or RCC because the title "Ever Virgin" is used often in the hymns - she is always the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary. Is that poetic hyperbole in the hymns meant to convey a transcendent truth? Perhaps, and I suppose you could believe that as long as you don't flat out deny it.

There goes communion.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Ok so ad hom isn't it; but your logic went against the PoJ, assuming every statement it made must be wrong, because it is rejected. That doesn't fly.

Some state there are other reasons for adhering to your reason #1, despite PoJ. Those need to be addressed



These points here need to be addressed too!

Well, let's assume we do reject the PoJ. What are we left with?

Scripture and Hegesippius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem saying the brothers of Jesus were from the same mother and different fathers.

I mean, what else is there at that time?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
BUMP---not to be ignored. Look at what he says:

You might appreciate this from Origen. I just wonder if he knew what he was writing.

“... is not this the carpenter’s son? And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, [IN SCRIPTURE] “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? 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, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James," [TRADITION] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.
ANF09. The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, The Apocalypse of the Virgin and Sedrach, The Te - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


Anyone else see it?

Make a choice. Scripture or Tradition.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Scripture doesn't comment on the particular relationship covered by adelphos and adelphi.

So one can remain "agnostic", or not.

It is typical for writers to say "some say", or "it is said", acknowledging that the concept did not originate with the author. Origen also reports that those in the Gospel stating adelphos "thought they were children of Mary and Joseph". If Joseph was considered the common male, then still the relationship cannot be ascertained by this statement. Anyone residing in or of the household would be potentially considered "children of", regardless of actual parentage.

Origen also reports - in repeating Celcus - that according to the Jews that Celsus has consulted, Mary was turned out by Joseph for adultery; there is only one child of Mary reported in this account.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
the Protoevangelion

I get confused between seeing it spelled this way, and the way it is in the thread title. Seeing it spelled this way remionds of how bizarre this year has been up here in the Arctic circle; no winter, straight into summer - and still no dandelions?
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
I get confused between seeing it spelled this way, and the way it is in the thread title. Seeing it spelled this way remionds of how bizarre this year has been up here in the Arctic circle; no winter, straight into summer - and still no dandelions?

Ditto here ^_^

Most of our perennial vegetables are already up, and the lettuce and chard from last year never quite died off; we're already having fresh greens for the salad.

The decorative cherry trees have been covering the ground with Springtime "pink snow"; with a bit of wind, it looks like a colorful Winter.

But no dandelions ...
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As for the Protoevangelion, it is of course not accepted as Scripture.

Regardless of position, it can also not be demonstrated to contain nothing but inaccuracies.

How does one know for sure of its inaccuracies?

Using scripture as the measure (whether it contradicts) or something other?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Standing Up
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
How does one know for sure of its inaccuracies?

Using scripture as the measure (whether it contradicts) or something other?

Historically (objectively) we can't. I would need to reread it, but I don't recall that anything in it contradicts Scripture.

What it does do is comment further on what is said in Scripture.

So, unless Scripture can be proven to say whose children the adelphos were, or that Mary was not ever-virgin, or that there was no midwife, etc. it can't be said to contradict or not.

Scripture does not give every detail (which is impossible anyway).

So the best one can say is, "I don't know".
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Historically (objectively) we can't. I would need to reread it, but I don't recall that anything in it contradicts Scripture.

What it does do is comment further on what is said in Scripture.

So, unless Scripture can be proven to say whose children the adelphos were, or that Mary was not ever-virgin, or that there was no midwife, etc. it can't be said to contradict or not.

Scripture does not give every detail (which is impossible anyway).

So the best one can say is, "I don't know".



Thanks Thelka, since I dont know much of the church fathers, do certain churches believe they are all without error?


For instance if Origen would disagree or others somehow on a point another book (say the protoevangelium of James) or what Standing Up is showing, how is that handled if the church seems to go in the direction otherwise? I ask that only because I dont understand how the whole church fathers (and what they believed) comes into play (or is taught downward). Well, since (for instance) if not going by scripture. How might a disagreement (such as one Origen might have had) with a point of PoJ then "churched out" so to speak? By that are their beliefs valued to a point where the church considers and halts, or is it a pick and chose type thing, or would the church override what they might have taught?

Just using what Standing Up is showing, thats what I am interested in.

I mean I know they can just say, "the protoevangelium of James is spurious" (and add though that doesnt make everything 100% untrue) I understand. However if a church father points out an error he doesnt agree with specifically in it, would His word be equal to Gods in a sense? Well, given Gods words just dont say (just leaving room for speculation). Since the POJ is considered spurious (already) and some of those considered church fathers come out and say what might be, how is that taken into consideration overall if at all?

Is it blown off? considered? held relevant? Equal to the words of God, Hows that work?
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Thanks Thelka, since I dont know much of the church fathers, do certain churches believe they are all without error?
We don't.
(I don't think the Protoevangelion is considered even an "ECF piece".)


For instance if Origen would disagree or others somehow on a point another book (say the protoevangelium of James) or what Standing Up is showing, how is that handled if the church seems to go in the direction otherwise?
First by comparison with what was received/always taught. Then, if the disagreement remains and is spreading, through a Council of all of the bishops (each having one vote). Then at the next Council, the earlier Council is either approved or rejected.

Some of Origen is "accepted", but some of his writings are condemned. Mostly, he worked on the first "parallel Bible", lining up all the different available versions.

I ask that only because I dont understand how the whole church fathers (and what they believed) comes into play (or is taught downward). Well, since (for instance) if not going by scripture. How might a disagreement (such as one Origen might have had) with a point of PoJ then "churched out" so to speak? By that are their beliefs valued to a point where the church considers and halts, or is it a pick and chose type thing, or would the church override what they might have taught?

A lot of what Origen taught was overidden. The Church, as before, judges by what was always taught and also "mindset"; what is called the "mind of the Church", the character - it's Christ centerdness. We have no infallible Pope.

After a while of reading the ECFs, you notice that they mention an earlier author (usually an ECF) and continue discussing that idea. They usually only mention the last author to state the idea, but you can generally follow teachings back to very early on this way. The earliest speak of what they have received.

So it is a pick and choose sort of thing, but based on a standard. Some writings are accepted, some discarded (or condemned), some kept but not as dogma or doctrine.

Just using what Standing Up is showing, thats what I am interested in.

I mean I know they can just say, "the protoevangelium of James is spurious" (and add though that doesnt make everything 100% untrue) I understand. However if a church father points out an error he doesnt agree with specifically in it, would His word be equal to Gods in a sense? Well, given Gods words just dont say (just leaving room for speculation). Since the POJ is considered spurious (already) and some of those considered church fathers come out and say what might be, how is that taken into consideration overall if at all?

No way is an ECFs word equal to God - Scripture is called the "Crown of Tradition" (and the Gospels are sort of like the "Crown" of Scripture). If an ECF is wrong, he's wrong. They're just human. But we recognize the Holy Spirit working in and through people, and and of course the working of the Holy Spirit is for the benefit of the whole (as in Paul's letter to the Corinthians).

The Protevangelion is not considered as Scripture (or even like an ECF). And the ECFs vary in opinions on many matters. As long as these matters do not negatively affect salvation, or are clearly wrong in some way, then they can be used for study, etc.

Is it blown off? considered? held relevant? Equal to the words of God, Hows that work?

Never equal to Scripture (we kiss the Gospels, but no other book :)).

So some things are relevant, some important, some interesting, and some dangerous (like some of Origen's teachings). The dangerous writings are "tossed out".
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.