Protoevangelium of James

[Thekla]

... I never remotely indicated that it was. Only that that seems to be a POSSIBILITY.

Then it is a possibility in all cases present in Christianity.
Including, as the detractors of the early centuries pointed out, the virgin birth of Christ.

What DOES seem evident TO ME is that it doesn't have it's origin in Scripture, in Mary or Joseph or Jesus or any Apostle, and not in this rejected so-called "Protoevangelium of James" (as evidence in part by the reality that none supporting the dogma ever quote from it, just reference it).

Okay, I'm not sure precisely what "it" is in this case, as you were discussing virginity and Christianity.

As you WELL know, I don't regard the dogma of 2 denominations that Mary Had No Sex Ever to be true OR false - I simply don't know to the level of calling it DOGMA or HERESY. I only feel that respect for Mary, for women, for marriage and for truth suggests that when we SHOUT something SO intensely personal (and irrelevant) about a wife - it seems better to have some evidence that it's true. I know we've been over this and you very passionately disagree with me on this (we may need to eventually agree to respectfully disagree on this issue of respect), but you know my heart and my position on that. I hold Mary in GREAT esteem, which is WHY I care about what is shouted about Her and whether it is true (and necessary). You are not Catholic, but we Catholics were taught that before something is said, ESPECIALLY something dogmatically and personally, ask "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" And that repeating something unsubstantiated as true is both gossip and sin. I don't know how your denomination teaches on this, but you know my view. If I could care less about Our Lady, I MIGHT not care what is said about Her - but actually, I would. I was taught to care about women, to respect women. Part of my DNA... Forgive me.

I think that might be beyond the subject of this thread.

EXACTLY.....

A point I too have been TRYING to make.

Then it may be best to leave the other points of your post to another thread.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Then it is a possibility in all cases present in Christianity.

"ALL things are possible with God"
But it doesn't make all things TRUE - or dogma.

The issue here is whether this false, rejected book states that it is true that Mary Had No Sex Ever and/or Jesus Had No Siblings At All, as a matter of dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls.

Okay, I'm not sure precisely what "it" is in this case

...that this particular, specific book teaches that it is a matter of dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary Had No Sex Ever and/or Jesus Had No Siblings At All.

I think that might be beyond the subject of this thread.

I couldn't agree more. This book says NOTHING to the issue, which is probably why not a single Catholic or Orthodox brother or sister has quoted a WORD from the book in this thread. Instead, we just have the claim that this book proves the teaching. Does it? IMO, no.





.

 

[SolomonVII]

Then the claims in this thread, as much as they are derived from this new sensibility, should also rely on the same standard of viability as the standard they apply to others.

Yes.

And that is what is lacking.

No it is not. For example, read anything that either Fireinfolding or CaliforniaJosiah or myself has said here, and bold out one quote for me where any of us have not held to the standard of clear evidence for dogma.

For Christians, it might be added, Scripture serves as evidence of the faith.

As for SU, please don't make your arguments to him through me.

As before, the axiomatic assumptions upon which the argument to support the claim are made are flawed; they do not adhere to any rigorous standard and are not only unreliable, they are demonstrably false.

You have failed to name the specific claim you are referring to here.

If one is to have a standard, one should also adhere to the standard, no ?

That is right. One ought not be a hypocrite and hold others to a higher standard.

If not the standard, especially when the claim is for the standard of factual reliability, if not met in the mechanism of investigation, is not even a standard but opportunism.

The claim that we are talking about, as far as I know, is that Joseph was an ancient man way on in years, and Jesus brothers were from a former marriage.
Peripherally, it could also be about the Perpetual Virginiity of Mary, which the PofJ offers slight, indirect support of; damage control is the term I use for it in respect to PVofM.

 

[Standing Up]

It was my impression that the discussion in this thread was on the Protoevangelion, not the ever-virginity per se.
​

CJ: "EXACTLY.....

A point I too have been TRYING to make."


We know the PoJ is early c150? Probably from Alexandria.

PoJ says Mary remained a virgin immediately after birth. It's not a great leap to then expand the idea to she remained one for life. Especially since the book teaches/explains that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's sons from a previous marriage. (Get rid of the brothers, maintain virgin right after birth, deduction becomes very easy---always a virgin.)

The reason I assum it is from Alexandria is because Clement of Alexandria references it and rejects it c175. Specifically, he rejects the notion she remained a virgin after birth. (in the purpureal state, but she was not.) From CoA, pretty simple to deduce what scripture maintains (brothers of Jesus (same mother, different father).

c225 Origen next picks up the controversy between what scripture and PoJ says.

The PoJ tradition continues its expansion, until the church flat out rejects it c500, though Jerome and Aquinas reject it c400.

PS I would say, however, that Clement of Alexandria was a well-read elder. He responded to Melito of Sardis' passover account. So, perhaps PoJ came from elsewhere. The PoJ claims to be written by James (brother of the Lord) from Jerusalem.

 

[Thekla]

Yes.


No it is not. For example, read anything that either Fireinfolding or CaliforniaJosiah or myself has said here, and bold out one quote for me where any of us have not held to the standard of clear evidence for dogma.

I am referring to not dogma (we have no dogma on the biological identity of the adelphos), but on the origin of the ideas on these being the Protoevangelion.

In addition, the idea that all ideas originate in the text that reflects them; this is the tacit assumption underlying the evaluation; though this is axiomatic it is also a demonstrably false axiom.

For Christians, it might be added, Scripture serves as evidence of the faith.

It is evidence, but there is also the empirical evidence; that still is occurring. Do you think that "modern Christians" consider Scripture the only evidence; I don't know, so I'm asking.

As for SU, please don't make your arguments to him through me.

But I seem to recall that you have posted that the Protoevangelion is the source of elements in the Liturgy; this relies on the underlying assumption that text predates or originates the information that it contains, that all texts containing information are extant, and that all information is contain in texts.

You have failed to name the specific claim you are referring to here.

Above ...

That is right. One ought not be a hypocrite and hold others to a higher standard.

One should apply ones standards to oneself.

The claim that we are talking about, as far as I know, is that Joseph was an ancient man way on in years, and Jesus brothers were from a former marriage.

The text under consideration is what we are discussing, and that text contains the information (re: Jospeh, etc.)

Peripherally, it could also be about the Perpetual Virginiity of Mary, which the PofJ offers slight, indirect support of; damage control is the term I use for it in respect to PVofM.

Why "damage control" ?

The standard of "all facts are found in and originate in texts" is not a standard that is held by all.

 

[SolomonVII]

One should apply ones standards to oneself.


...

I have seen no bolded quotes in the above as I requested, where this is lacking, as you have claimed.

The lack of evidence being put for that your claim is true, is in itself evidence of a sorts.

As per damage control, there is a quote presented to us by Kepha and Standing Up in this thread or its twin that explains what I mean by that.

As for the PofJ being the source for liturgy, there is a little history behind that. It started out in one of these similar threads where people were discussing some of these ideas and OrthodoxyUSA said that old Joseph was a part of the liturgy. And step-brothers of Christ is an EO belief, is it not?
Not part of the liturgy I don't think, not dogma, but EV Mary certainly is approaching dogma and is an EO teaching at any rate, in which case PofJ explains the brothers of scripture quite well, as Origen points out.

Anyway, a little research shows that these ideas that OrthodoxyUSA was saying was part of the EO liturgy can be traced back to pseudoepigraphia like the PofJ and Joseph the Carpenter, stuff like that.

Whatever other sources there may be or may have been are completely unknown.
I personally think that these are the source of the EO belief. I have seen no evidence presented that would make me think that they are not, and quotes from Origen and Jerome that make me think that this is exactly what they are coming from. (They were a little closer in time to the source, after all).

Okay, so you disagree, but without any evidence to the contrary, and you disagree without thinking that the PoJ is spurious, even though it is not entirely EO 'kosher' either.
It was a silly little game of roundabout that we are engaging in here.
Fine.
Have it your way. You are not fooling anyone but yourselves playing that game anyway.

I get it. The known facts only take us so far. I cannot say with 100 % certainty that the Joseph was not very old and decrepit and more like a grampa to Mary than a husband, and I can't say for certainty whether the brothers of Jesus were sons of Mary, like the more normal reading of Scripture would suggest, or whether they were just people from the same town, which would kind of give a whole different nuance to the text, I think.

I don't know with 100% certainty whether there are any white crows either, like I think I have already told you before, in many different ways in fact.

But what I do know with 100% certainty is that there is no apostolic tradition known to anybody here that would suggest that Catholic dogma and EO liturgy is apostolic in these matters. My guess is that there is no apostolic tradition known to anybody living that would suggest Catholic dogma and EO liturgy in these matters either, and in fact Catholic Dogma and EO liturgy do not exactly jive with each other on these matters either. Two different traditions prevail here.
Eeny meanie miney moe decides which is true, in light of the complete absence of evidence for either.

Nicene Creed subscribes to the idea that the Church is apostolic, and that is what I subscribe to too. Without evidence that Mary was ever-virgin, and Joseph was not her real husband in every sense, I go by what is apostolic and Biblical rather than by reaching into the unknown, and whose only known links are now overtly pseudoepigraphic.
If I err, as I have said before, I want to err in the side of what the Bible is telling me, rather than going beyond scripture and beyond known apostolic teaching in order to back up faith.
Poster God'sWord in the other thread already gave the prophecy where it is a more consistent read to understand that these were Jesus real flesh and blood brothers through Mary than somebody else.

I don't know what else I can say frankly. I have said the same thing too many times already. If you think I am being a hypocrite, holding you to a different standard of evidence that I hold myself, then that is what you are going to think.

But I honestly don't think I am being a hypocrite on the issue actually.

 

[Standing Up]

In addition, the idea that all ideas originate in the text that reflects them; this is the tacit assumption underlying the evaluation; though this is axiomatic it is also a demonstrably false axiom.

-snip-.

Of course not all ideas originate in the text from that author, but often they do and often within a decade or so of their penning. But in the case of PoJ, we are told as much. Origen is specific and clear. He quotes scripture and then says, there's a tradition originating from the PoJ. It is the source of the Joseph/previous wife tradition.

IOW, IF it were true that they were sons by Joseph/previous wife, he'd have interpreted scripture that way. He didn't. He can't. He has to rely on the PoJ tradition. IF the cousin theory was evident at that time, he'd have mentioned it.

Look, no one has to agree with Origen. You can say he's a heretic, but at least admit what he says. In fact Origen also choses to believe the PoJ idea. He admits it. He tells us why he prefers it. He tells us why the PoJ was written. He agrees with the author. It may not be scripture or apostolic, but it felt good to him.

 

[Standing Up]

“ And they [doubters] spoke, 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?”52625262Matt. 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. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end .... And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html

That's the tradition. It's in the PoJ.

He's already told us what scripture says. Now he tells us about a tradition.

Did the tradition start in the PoJ? Yes, that's what he says. The idea of a previous marriage is a tradition from the PoJ. Where'd the author learn it? Himself. That's how tradition works.

 

[Standing Up]

Or take Clement of Alexandria who wrote with maximum 25 years of the PoJ:

Clement of Alexandria, c175
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.3666
3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]

Some say? Who? Bishops? Scripture? Apostles? Only the PoJ and its disciples.

Now, some may want to say that there are unknown manuscripts, unknown linkages from bishops to apostles that prove the veracity of the PoJ. Except we know the church rejected the book. Aquinas, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, none of them had any inkling that the PoJ was truthful. It contradicts scripture. For people who claim to follow apostolic succession and then maintain the tradition of the PoJ is incomprehensible to me. It simply means, as I've mentioned before, some of us do not share a common understanding, a common ground.

 

[Thekla]

“ And they [doubters] spoke, 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?”52625262Matt. 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. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end .... And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html

That's the tradition. It's in the PoJ.

He's already told us what scripture says. Now he tells us about a tradition.

Did the tradition start in the PoJ? Yes, that's what he says. The idea of a previous marriage is a tradition from the PoJ. Where'd the author learn it? Himself. That's how tradition works.

Who says the tradition starts in the PoJ ?

 

[Thekla]

It was my impression that the discussion in this thread was on the Protoevangelion, not the ever-virginity per se.
​

CJ: "EXACTLY.....

A point I too have been TRYING to make."


We know the PoJ is early c150? Probably from Alexandria.

PoJ says Mary remained a virgin immediately after birth. It's not a great leap to then expand the idea to she remained one for life. Especially since the book teaches/explains that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's sons from a previous marriage. (Get rid of the brothers, maintain virgin right after birth, deduction becomes very easy---always a virgin.)

The reason I assum it is from Alexandria is because Clement of Alexandria references it and rejects it c175. Specifically, he rejects the notion she remained a virgin after birth. (in the purpureal state, but she was not.) From CoA, pretty simple to deduce what scripture maintains (brothers of Jesus (same mother, different father).

c225 Origen next picks up the controversy between what scripture and PoJ says.

The PoJ tradition continues its expansion, until the church flat out rejects it c500, though Jerome and Aquinas reject it c400.

PS I would say, however, that Clement of Alexandria was a well-read elder. He responded to Melito of Sardis' passover account. So, perhaps PoJ came from elsewhere. The PoJ claims to be written by James (brother of the Lord) from Jerusalem.

Does Clement of Alexandria say that he rejects the book ?
It was my understanding (nor am I alone in this) that he accepted the ever-virginity.
Likewise Origen.
Have you read other of their writings ?

 

[Thekla]

I have seen no bolded quotes in the above as I requested, where this is lacking, as you have claimed.

The lack of evidence being put for that your claim is true, is in itself evidence of a sorts.

As per damage control, there is a quote presented to us by Kepha and Standing Up in this thread or its twin that explains what I mean by that.

As for the PofJ being the source for liturgy, there is a little history behind that. It started out in one of these similar threads where people were discussing some of these ideas and OrthodoxyUSA said that old Joseph was a part of the liturgy. And step-brothers of Christ is an EO belief, is it not?
Not part of the liturgy I don't think, not dogma, but EV Mary certainly is approaching dogma and is an EO teaching at any rate, in which case PofJ explains the brothers of scripture quite well, as Origen points out.

Anyway, a little research shows that these ideas that OrthodoxyUSA was saying was part of the EO liturgy can be traced back to pseudoepigraphia like the PofJ and Joseph the Carpenter, stuff like that.

So you are claiming that the ver-virginity is traced to the Protoevangelion ?
Otherwise, I'm not sure what correlation you are making ...

Whatever other sources there may be or may have been are completely unknown.
I personally think that these are the source of the EO belief. I have seen no evidence presented that would make me think that they are not, and quotes from Origen and Jerome that make me think that this is exactly what they are coming from. (They were a little closer in time to the source, after all).

I understand you think this, but still correlation is not causation.
I have noted numerous authors who use the Virgin Mary as an apellation; one which would be false had she not remained a virgin.
That one cannot find a particular source does not mean that one source is the source. If that's the standard you desire, that's up to you. But I'm not familiar with any such standard in academia.

Okay, so you disagree, but without any evidence to the contrary, and you disagree without thinking that the PoJ is spurious, even though it is not entirely EO 'kosher' either.

That the information within is "spurious" - there is no way to confirm this one way or the other.
Per the authorship, it was not unusual for another to claim the name of the person's idea he/she was recording.

It was a silly little game of roundabout that we are engaging in here.
Fine.
Have it your way. You are not fooling anyone but yourselves playing that game anyway.

I'm not playing a "game".
I am pointing out that one cannot know either way, and that the assumptions underlying the critiques are not solid.
I have not offered any conclusions on the matter; I have commented on the assumptions underlying the standard being used, and questioned the selective sourcing (some of which seems to betray a misreading of what is sourced).

I get it. The known facts only take us so far. I cannot say with 100 % certainty that the Joseph was not very old and decrepit and more like a grampa to Mary than a husband, and I can't say for certainty whether the brothers of Jesus were sons of Mary, like the more normal reading of Scripture would suggest, or whether they were just people from the same town, which would kind of give a whole different nuance to the text, I think.

How would you know for certain ?

I don't know with 100% certainty whether there are any white crows either, like I think I have already told you before, in many different ways in fact.

Okay, but why would you then insist (though I think that an extreme example) there are no white crows ?

But what I do know with 100% certainty is that there is no apostolic tradition known to anybody here that would suggest that Catholic dogma and EO liturgy is apostolic in these matters. My guess is that there is no apostolic tradition known to anybody living that would suggest Catholic dogma and EO liturgy in these matters either, and in fact Catholic Dogma and EO liturgy do not exactly jive with each other on these matters either. Two different traditions prevail here.

You are again mistaking record for event; that is not a tenable underpinning for your argument.

Eeny meanie miney moe decides which is true, in light of the complete absence of evidence for either.

Why not just say, "I don't know" ?

Nicene Creed subscribes to the idea that the Church is apostolic, and that is what I subscribe to too. Without evidence that Mary was ever-virgin, and Joseph was not her real husband in every sense, I go by what is apostolic and Biblical rather than by reaching into the unknown, and whose only known links are now overtly pseudoepigraphic.

As it cannot be proven by Scripture, why the effort to claim that the Protoevangelion is the source of a teaching ?

If I err, as I have said before, I want to err in the side of what the Bible is telling me, rather than going beyond scripture and beyond known apostolic teaching in order to back up faith.
Poster God'sWord in the other thread already gave the prophecy where it is a more consistent read to understand that these were Jesus real flesh and blood brothers through Mary than somebody else.

If you mean the prophecy in the Psalm, the context of the OT - and what happened in 1st c. Jerusalem - the Jews are the most straightforward understanding. And the prophecy does not, again, narrow the terminology "brother".

But if it cannot be proven by Scripture, again, why then attach erroneous claims of origin for the e-v, etc., without recourse to a proper underpinning for your claim ?

I would think, given your description of the need for solidity in a time of questioning, this would likewise apply to the axioms upon which the case is built.

I don't know what else I can say frankly. I have said the same thing too many times already. If you think I am being a hypocrite, holding you to a different standard of evidence that I hold myself, then that is what you are going to think.

But I honestly don't think I am being a hypocrite on the issue actually.

Do you then believe that:

1. all information is contained in texts
2. all information contained in texts originates in the text
3. all texts containing information are extant

Or do you base your claim on another set of axioms, and could you describe them ?

I'm not calling you a hypocrite, I am questioning the validity of the axioms which underly the claim: the Protoevangelion is the source of the teaching in the EO Liturgy, including the ever-virginity.

 

[SolomonVII]

So you are claiming that the ver-virginity is traced to the Protoevangelion ?
Otherwise, I'm not sure what correlation you are making ...

If they were steps Marian virginity would not be compromised with other children.
I don;t know what ever-virginity would be traced back to. CJ researched and found nothing at all.
There does not seem to be any basis for this belief.

This has all been said before, I am surprised that you have never read any of it.

I understand you think this, but still correlation is not causation.
I have noted numerous authors who use the Virgin Mary as an apellation; one which would be false had she not remained a virgin.
That one cannot find a particular source does not mean that one source is the source. If that's the standard you desire, that's up to you. But I'm not familiar with any such standard in academia.

I didn;t say it was.
But you hear what you want to hear and not what is being said.

That the information within is "spurious" - there is no way to confirm this one way or the other.
Per the authorship, it was not unusual for another to claim the name of the person's idea he/she was recording.

It was not written by James, not of the apostolic age, and not ever owned by the church as authentic.
We are still on the roundabout.
But obviously EO members do find it of value,hence my calling the EO a church based on apocryphal works and pseudoepigraphia.
It is all rather schitzophrenic this roundabout.

I'm not playing a "game".
I am pointing out that one cannot know either way, and that the assumptions underlying the critiques are not solid.
I have not offered any conclusions on the matter; I have commented on the assumptions underlying the standard being used, and questioned the selective sourcing (some of which seems to betray a misreading of what is sourced).

If you don;t know, then you don;t know.
This was CJ's point about basing dogma on what is not known. Nobody knows, but it is in the liturgy. It is doctrine. It is dogma.
No matter that you don't know. Church knows somehow, someway somewhere, but that is notfor us to question but to just accept.

How would you know for certain ?

Functional knowledge allows us to get up in the morning, stick our feet out in the dark, and fully expect that the floor will soon be there to greet them.

Okay, but why would you then insist (though I think that an extreme example) there are no white crows ?

I didn'y insist. You are either making things up, or not reading with any comprehension at all.
I am coming to the conclusion that maybe this is just beyond your ability to understand.

You are again mistaking record for event; that is not a tenable underpinning for your argument.

Oh no I am not. Again you are not reading wih any comprehension. I know for certain this is true because you and everybody else have already concede this is true, and would show us in a heartbeat if that was available to you.

Why not just say, "I don't know" ?

Why doesn't everybody say that they don't know rather than claiming to be the One True Church?
I make no claims to belong to an infallible church, or to believe in infallible doctrine.
Statisical, probable, pragmatically true, these are the terms I bring into the conversation. Infallible certainty incapable of being in error is the terms that I have been arguing against, especially when there is no evidence of things unsee, which Paul uses as a standard of faith.

As it cannot be proven by Scripture, why the effort to claim that the Protoevangelion is the source of a teaching ?

You say it is not, but have no answer as to where else the specific ideas have come from.
It all becomes rather schitzpoid, playing on this merry-go-round with you.

If you mean the prophecy in the Psalm, the context of the OT - and what happened in 1st c. Jerusalem - the Jews are the most straightforward understanding. And the prophecy does not, again, narrow the terminology "brother".

It has all been discussed before. I found what God's Word said about this prophecy about Christ to be very provocative. It certainly is something that EoO could proclaim without abandoning the non-scriptural dogma of EV Mary though, so of course you will not accept that this is about Christand his mothers children.

But if it cannot be proven by Scripture, again, why then attach erroneous claims of origin for the e-v, etc., without recourse to a proper underpinning for your claim ?

Okay, I have had enough. I have given you a fair shot to present some kind of rebuttal to me, and it has been a fruitless exercise.
If you don't know what I have been saying up until now ,you never will.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

.

 

[Thekla]

Isaiah 60, again, the sons and daughters are the children of Jerusalem.

It is a consistent theme in the OT among the Prophets.

 

[Standing Up]

Who says the tradition starts in the PoJ ?

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.

Origen says. It's really very simple. If there was the teaching of Joseph/former wife around before the PoJ, he would have referenced it. He would have quoted scripture or Ignatius or Polycarp. He didn't. He couldn't. The tradition began from the author of PoJ. It's why the author borrowed the name of James brother of the Lord.

Like I said, just say, I disagree, but don't ask so obvious question.

 

[Standing Up]

Does Clement of Alexandria say that he rejects the book ?
It was my understanding (nor am I alone in this) that he accepted the ever-virginity.
Likewise Origen.
Have you read other of their writings ?

Clement of Alexandria, c175
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.3666
3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html

Again, he references the PoJ. He says, she was not a virgin upon bringing forth. The PoJ says she was.

Good luck finding any direct quote like the above from Clement of Alexandria about belieiving anything different.

What we have is two traditions at this stage. The brothers were same mother, different father. OR different mothers, different fathers. The former comes from scripture to Clement of Alexandria to Origen. The latter begins with PoJ and then is denied by CoA and Origen. In Origen's case, however, he nonetheless chooses the PoJ tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

To append to the above post about Clement of Alexandria, he says


But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.3666
3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]\language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, ...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html

So no, Clement wouldn't be confused about who the real virgin is.

 

[Standing Up]

CJ asked about more information on PoJ. This may assist from Tertullian.

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.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vi.html

That's the idea in the PoJ. Christ was of flesh, but wasn't necessarily born, keeping Mary as a virgin. That's the reference to remained in the purpureal state from Clement of Alexandria (though she was not, he counters (see post just above)).

Marcion flourished in Rome under 'pope' Anicetus IIRC. He may be the author of the PoJ.

 

[SolomonVII]

God's Word referred us Psalm 69, btw.
Like all OT prophecies fulfilled through Jesus, what David is referring to in terms of his own biography, is fulfilled by the NT in often startling and livid detail-it often fits better to the time a thousand years hence than to David himself!
For all I know, not being an erudite Jew myself, what David was referring to himself in this biography could have been meant in a more general sense. The poison and vinegar given to him as food and drink may well not have been offered in the literal sense as was the case for Jesus. The children of his Mother likewise may have been meant more in a general sense. I am not totally aware of what he is referring to when it comes to himself.

For Jesus however, like the vinegar and gall given to him in mockery of his distress, were quite literally given him. Likewise, his brethren, the children of his mother according to God's written Scripture, specifically rejected him and he could do no works in his hometown on account of that disbelief.


Psalm 69 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary

We should frequently consider the person of the Sufferer here spoken of, and ask why, as well as what he suffered, that, meditating thereon, we may be more humbled for sin, and more convinced of our danger, so that we may feel more gratitude and love, constraining us to live to His glory who died for our salvation. Hence we learn, when in affliction, to commit the keeping of our souls to God, that we may not be soured with discontent, or sink into despair. David was hated wrongfully, but the words far more fully apply to Christ. In a world where unrighteousness reigns so much, we must not wonder if we meet with those that are our enemies wrongfully. Let us take care that we never do wrong; then if we receive wrong, we may the better bear it. By the satisfaction Christ made to God for our sin by his blood, he restored that which he took not away, he paid our debt, suffered for our offences. Even when we can plead Not guilty, as to men's unjust accusations, yet before God we must acknowledge ourselves to deserve all that is brought upon us. All our sins take rise from our foolishness. They are all done in God's sight. David complains of the unkindness of friends and relations. This was fulfilled in Christ, whose brethren did not believe on him, and who was forsaken by his disciples. Christ made satisfaction for us, not only by putting off the honours due to God, but by submitting to the greatest dishonours that could be done to any man. We need not be discouraged if our zeal for the truths, precepts, and worship of God, should provoke some, and cause others to mock our godly sorrow and deadness to the world.