Protoevangelium of James

[SolomonVII]

The Virgin Birth of Christ: Prophecies in Genesis and Isaiah

 

[razeontherock]

Actually, sometimes the writings explain in a way that make something in Scripture just "pop out" or make sense in a way that is so simple, so straightforward.

at the core the teachings we have are so simple, they "fly" or "lift" the heaviness away. I think things that point to Christ are that way - they sit in the heart with an ease that shows all the stuff in the heart that's a mess. They are "light". Like He says, "My yoke is good/purposeful and my burden is light."

(I love that passage - in Greek, the word for good sounds like the word Christ, and the word for light sounds like the word for deer. So I always think of this, from the Psalms there - "He makes my feet like deer feet, and sets me upon my high places." )

These are the experiences I have with Scripture. If / when someone can share something and I get more of that, great. If ECF's can do that, equally great. I always "knew" (at the prompting of the Spirit) there was more to this passage. So it's saying our yoke is Christ, and our burden is light on it's feet like a deer.

This thread is now filled with win

 

[Standing Up]

Irenaeus, hearer of Polycarp, hearer of John, consistently uses the name (as opposed to adjective plus name) "the Virgin Mary".

Find their quotes and start a thread on the term.

 

[Standing Up]

The problem is not that the Sacred Traditions are stating that they don't know.
By making doctrine and dogma and liturgy out of these very ideas, historically available to us first through pseudoepigrpahia such as the P of J, Joseph the Carpenter, and other apocryphal works, they are stating positively that they do know, that they do know so infallibly even.

Doctrine, dogma, liturgy, are all positive statments of true knowledge. It therefore becomes a valid inquiry, for an apostolic church, how do these dogma, doctrine and liturgy tie back to the apostles?

Ignorance is a valid enough response, if, as you say, dogma is not involved.
But dogma, doctrine and/or liturgy is involved, and the only historical lines of proof that exist all tie back to P of J*, etc.

If not the P of J then, not dogma, doctrine or liturgy either.

That is not doctrine, dogma and liturgy, if the tradition churches don't desire being the the churches where dogma is defined by " a little birdie told me so".





* not that P of J would even be proof, but more like damage control in light of what Scripture actually says.

Exactly. Not only does Aquinas and Jerome 'come against' the PoJ as spurious ravings, so did Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Others in the church had accepted/believed the tradition of old Joseph with sons. Either it is true or not.

PS. That also screeched against the sensibilities of the church at the time, that Joseph would be portrayed as 'less than pure', having a wife and sons. No, if Mary was pure, so was Joseph.

 

[Thekla]

These are the experiences I have with Scripture. If / when someone can share something and I get more of that, great. If ECF's can do that, equally great. I always "knew" (at the prompting of the Spirit) there was more to this passage. So it's saying our yoke is Christ, and our burden is light on it's feet like a deer.

This thread is now filled with win

That's a good description; yes

(Someone once said to me, "God is in the people you meet." I suppose even when separated by years ... or pages.)

 

[bbbbbbb]

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. 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.

I understand your position and have been somewhat perplexed that you, as well as others, have not provided citations proving Standing Up's citations to be later statements than your own. I do not have the interest in the ECF's that you and he do, but I do find this discussion enlightening. I agree that we disagree concerning scriptural data. That is one reason I have been curious to see the counterarguments and data you have against Standing Up's position.

Thanks.

 

[Thekla]

I understand your position and have been somewhat perplexed that you, as well as others, have not provided citations proving Standing Up's citations to be later statements than your own. I do not have the interest in the ECF's that you and he do, but I do find this discussion enlightening. I agree that we disagree concerning scriptural data. That is one reason I have been curious to see the counterarguments and data you have against Standing Up's position.

Thanks.

Mary was referred to in early writings as the Virgin Mary, not as an adjective plus name, but as an appellation. (If she did not remain a virgin, the appellation cannot be used, but virgin would be an adjective describing her condition during a period of time).

The problem with treating the Protoevangelion as demonstration of the origin of something should be clear; it mistakes a record of something for the origin of the same thing. In Church history, when a new teaching occurs there is typically also record of a response to something new - discussion, rebuttal or concurrence supported by argument. I've not seen such a record of response. Could be such things are no longer extant, could be that there was no record produced.

 

[Standing Up]

Here also:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the LORD said to me: 'What they have spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him'.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19, NKJV).

The mother of all Israel in prophecy is Jerusalem, Zion; her children are those of this race. Those whom Paul calls brethren, too.

And clearly, Jerusalem did reject Him, and her children, the brethren of Paul and Christ ...

Different subject, but Horeb refers to Sinai, not Zion. If you confuse the two, you end up with Hagar, not Sarah. The Jerusalem above is my mother.

But start a thread on it.

 

[Thekla]

Different subject, but Horeb refers to Sinai, not Zion. If you confuse the two, you end up with Hagar, not Sarah. The Jerusalem above is my mother.

But start a thread on it.

This was in response to the in thread reference re: the Psalm.

See also Jeremiah 3.

The association of mother and brethren in the Psalms is far reaching - an entire people - per the usage of the OT prophets.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.






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?







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.







Wow. I'm just stunned.

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


.

The problem is not that the Sacred Traditions are stating that they don't know.

This thread is not about what what we don't know, or about ANY denomination's "tradition." It's about the words in a specific, rejected, false book. And specifically whether that false, rejected book says that Jesus had no siblings and Mary had no sex ever. Which it does not.



.

 

[Standing Up]

This thread is not about what what we don't know, or about ANY denomination's "tradition." It's about the words in a specific, rejected, false book. And specifically whether that false, rejected book says that Jesus had no siblings and Mary had no sex ever. Which it does not.



.

True.

So, time to move on folks? The theory that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage originated at this book which the church rejected. The alternative was to believe what scripture/tradition said Jesus had brothers (same mother, different father) OR invent the cousin theory. Time to examine the cousin theory.

 

[Thekla]

True.

So, time to move on folks? The theory that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage originated at this book which the church rejected. The alternative was to believe what scripture/tradition said Jesus had brothers (same mother, different father) OR invent the cousin theory. Time to examine the cousin theory.

You've not provided evidence, nor supported argument,

1. for the narrow range of definitions of adelphos you think likely

2. that any of the contents of the Protoevangelion are original to the author

Nor does Scripture state "same mother".
In fact, it states nothing at all on the matter.

 

[SolomonVII]

This thread is not about what what we don't know, or about ANY denomination's "tradition." It's about the words in a specific, rejected, false book. And specifically whether that false, rejected book says that Jesus had no siblings and Mary had no sex ever. Which it does not.



.

That is right. The book alludes to Joseph as an old guy with kids from a previous marriage, like EO believes, but offers nothing in terms of support for Ever Virgin or Marys other children.

This is the only book that might offer support for these Traditions, but all have rejected the book as false.

There is ergo no proof for these tradtions.

Time to move on

 

[SolomonVII]

True.

So, time to move on folks? The theory that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage originated at this book which the church rejected. The alternative was to believe what scripture/tradition said Jesus had brothers (same mother, different father) OR invent the cousin theory. Time to examine the cousin theory.

Yes. Everyone most certainly has rejected the P of J and with that book being pronounced by all Christians as spurious, the source of Joseph and his children from a previous marriage has been rejected as well.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yes. Everyone most certainly has rejected the P of J and with that book being pronounced by all Christians as spurious, the source of Joseph and his children from a previous marriage has been rejected as well.

Interesting hypothesis. I find the numbers to show otherwise.

You do realize that you are heavily outnumbered, right?

Why in the world would you make an all inclusive statement like that, knowing that someing is going to call you on it?

"Everyone" & "pronounced by all Chistians".... really?

Forgive me...

 

[Standing Up]

Interesting hypothesis. I find the numbers to show otherwise.

You do realize that you are heavily outnumbered, right?

Why in the world would you make an all inclusive statement like that, knowing that someing is going to call you on it?

"Everyone" & "pronounced by all Chistians".... really?

Forgive me...

See the quote by Pope Gelasius. EO and RC were one group then. About 100 years later, however, there was a new book Pseudo-Matthew c600. It's probably that one, not the banned PoJ that folks began to base their tradition of old man previous marriage upon.

 

[Thekla]

See the quote by Pope Gelasius. EO and RC were one group then. About 100 years later, however, there was a new book Pseudo-Matthew c600. It's probably that one, not the banned PoJ that folks began to base their tradition of old man previous marriage upon.

I wasn't aware that the Protoevangelion was "banned"; could you discuss by whom and where it was banned ?

It is also important to note that the record of an idea, or the inclusion of an idea in a record, is not the same as the origin of an idea.

One might also consider that even texts that are suspect may (and often do) contain facts as well.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



It's VERY sad, but.....


This book is REFERENCED over and over and over as the apologetic for the DOGMA that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER and the opinion that Jesus had no siblings.


And yet.... this is a rejected, false, nonauthoritative book.

And it doesn't teach that Mary had no sex ever OR that Jesus had no sibs. It says NO SUCH THING.


Members of two denominations REFERENCE this book but don't actually share the quotes to prove this DOGMA and opinion for one very simple (and I think undeniable) reason: It's not there. IMO, they know that. And yet, century after century, claim "THIS is the substantiation for this being an issue of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact."


I just find that sad..... IMO (and I ask none to agree with me), truth and Our Lady deserve better.





.

 

[SolomonVII]

Interesting hypothesis. I find the numbers to show otherwise.

You do realize that you are heavily outnumbered, right?

Why in the world would you make an all inclusive statement like that, knowing that someing is going to call you on it?

"Everyone" & "pronounced by all Chistians".... really?

Forgive me...

I am not sure what your argument even is anymore. I did think everyone rejected the book as spurious an not fit for basing liturgy/ doctrine/dogma on. It didn't seem to me like anyone was saying anything otherwise about it.

If it is either your position, or the position of the EO in general that this is not the case, I stand corrected.

 

[Thekla]

The Protoevangelion is not the source of the teaching.

For those who have read much early Church history and/or the ECFs, it should be abundantly clear that "new teachings" are met with much discussion. There is some discussion on ideas occurring in the text, but this revolves around some of the definitions of "adelphos".