Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

Actually Clement writes, "The Scriptures of the Lord are like that to us.
They gave birth to the truth, but they remain virgin in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth." (p. 114, linked below)
The One Who Knows God - Clement of Alexandria - Google Books

He is making a comparison, but is not calling the Scriptures "the Virgin". (He does not even use the term virgin as an appellation for Scripture - he uses a straight comparative.)

Did you notice the note at the bottom of page 114? It says the same thing I'm saying.

 

[Thekla]

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.
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin,
ccel

... in the childbearing state ... but she was not. For (because) after the birth, found to still be a virgin.
paraphrased thekla-source

The PoJ states the child appears (no birth per se), which means to them Mary was still in the childbearing (puerperal) state. They say this because upon inspection she was still found to be a virgin. Clement denies this; she was not; she didn't remain a virgin. Jesus' birth was "normal". Water, birth, placenta.

PoJ--the child appears. No normal delivery. Mary remains as before.

Clement---normal birth.

St Paul---born of a woman. The virgin conceived.

Clement says that "some say" she was in the puerperal sate as this would be the logical conclusion for a woman who had given birth to a child. Clement says she was not in the puerperal state. He says this was so as when she was examined, she was found to be still a virgin - not in the puerperal state.

Clement says those concluding Mary was in a puerperal state were wrong:
"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."

The term "puerperal" refers to the period of time following childbirth.

Definition of PUERPERAL

: of, relating to, or occurring during childbirth or the period immediately following <puerperal infection> <puerperal depression>

You cannot have puerperal fever (which killed many woman) unless you are birthing or have recently given birth (puerperal typically covers the period of birth through 12 weeks post partum).

Parturition is childbirth specifically; puerperal is birth through roughly 12 weeks. Gravida is a woman in the condition of being pregnant (and can be used to indicate number of pregnancies).

 

[Thekla]

Did you notice the note at the bottom of page 114? It says the same thing I'm saying.

Did you notice that Clement thinks Mary was ever-virgin ?

The footnote explains that Clement was not alone in his belief that Mary was ever-virgin.

 

[Kepha]

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.

"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."

There is one and only one context here. That this puerperal state is dealing with the birth of Her Child. Not Her virginity afterward.

"For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin."


A continuation of that one and only context from His first sentence hence why it begins with: "For some say"

The PoJ states the child appears (no birth per se), which means to them Mary was still in the childbearing (puerperal) state. They say this because upon inspection she was still found to be a virgin. Clement denies this; she was not; she didn't remain a virgin. Jesus' birth was "normal". Water, birth, placenta.

This is futile. And love how you just haaaaad to throw the word 'water' in there. Like you're trying one of those subliminal message thingy's.

Eh? The word tradition has to be there? You like Jerome, is the word tradition in there?

Yes, I would like that word or it could be a mere opinion from that particular ECF. You're stating it definitely was a Tradition. Now show me where they thought this.

 

[Standing Up]

You cannot have puerperal fever (which killed many woman) unless you are birthing or have recently given birth (puerperal typically covers the period of birth through 12 weeks post partum).

And why did some say (PoJ) she was not in that state? What specifically does puerperal indicate has happened?

 

[Thekla]

And why did some say (PoJ) she was not in that state? What specifically does puerperal indicate has happened?

Clement is expressing disagreement with those who say Mary was in the puerperal state. The puerperal state includes the condition at and following birth; you can look this up online as the information is readily available.

In Mary's case, per Clement, the hymen is not broken; ie she is still a virgin (the biological definition).

 

[Standing Up]

I'm going to go through this as delicately as possible.


The PoJ says this about Jesus' birth:
2 And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.

According to the PoJ, there was no normal vaginal birth. There's a light that disappears and a child appears. It goes to her breast. There were two consequences. One Mary evidently remained a virgin. Two she remained in the puerperal state. This does relate to birth, but specifically to things remaining in the uterous after birth.

Now Clement of Alexandria who is commenting on that "appearance", not normal birth:
"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. "

SHE WAS NOT in the puerperal state. Why? She gave birth normally. The sign of virginity is gone. Out came water, baby, placenta, all of it. Mary wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes. Mary lifted Him to her breast. She was healthy; there was no delayed uterine infection-puerperal state. (The PoJ says there was a midwife in contradiction to Scripture.)

'For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.'

For/because/the reason some say she was in the puerperal state is some (PoJ) say after she brought forth, she was found to be a virgin. The puerperal state would be caused by that stuff remaining in the uterus (not coming out). And the stuff stayed there because they say she remained a virgin.

That's the reason. Clement of Alexandria denies it. She gave birth normally, all of it came out, she wrapped the Child, and fed Him herself.

With that in mind, he then says instead,

"Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin,"

That's the continuing virgin. Not Mary. It's the My Word is life, but I digress.

 

[Standing Up]

"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."

There is one and only one context here. That this puerperal state is dealing with the birth of Her Child. Not Her virginity afterward.

"For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin."


A continuation of that one and only context from His first sentence hence why it begins with: "For some say"


This is futile. And love how you just haaaaad to throw the word 'water' in there. Like you're trying one of those subliminal message thingy's.

Hope springs eternal

Yes, I would like that word or it could be a mere opinion from that particular ECF. You're stating it definitely was a Tradition. Now show me where they thought this.

I use the word tradition to distinguish it from scripture. There's 66 books scripture. And the rest is tradition. Is how I use the word. There's the cousin tradition, the sons from a previous marriage tradition, and then there's what scriptue and the other tradition say---sons of Mary/Joseph.

I'll get it together for you.

 

[Kepha]

I'll get it together for you.

No need if that's how you see it. I assumed you were trying to prove that these biological sons of Mary were according to the CFs handed down through the Church.

 

[Thekla]

I'm going to go through this as delicately as possible.


The PoJ says this about Jesus' birth:
2 And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.

There was no normal vaginal birth. There were two consequences. One Mary evidently remained a virgin. Two she remained in the puerperal state. This does relate to birth, but specifically to things remaining in the uterous after birth.

Now Clement of Alexandria who is commenting on that "appearance", not normal birth:
"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. "

SHE WAS NOT in the puerperal state. She gave birth normally. The sign of virginity is gone. Out came water, baby, placenta, all of it. Mary wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes. She was healthy; there was no delayed uterine infection-puerperal state. (The PoJ says there was a midwife in contradiction to Scripture.)

The puerperal state refers to being in the condition of having given birth. Every woman who gives birth is in the puerperal state.

Clement is stating the exact opposite of what you claim he says.

Puerperal has nothing to do with what remains in the womb after birth; that is expelled following birth; if not, it is an abnormal condition referred to as
"retained" as in a "retained placenta". A retained placenta (or anything retained in the womb after birth) can cause massive bleeding, resulting in death, or puerperal fever, often resulting in death in earlier times.

The puerperal state is typically 12 weeks (3 months) following childbirth during which the body returns to its pre-pregnancy state; the uterus shrinks and returns to its place below the pelvic ridge, the hips shrink in a bit again (though not completely), the ribcage does likewise, etc.

'For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.'

For/because/the reason some say she was in the puerperal state is some (PoJ) say after she brought forth, she was found to be a virgin. The puerperal state would be caused by that stuff remaining.

Anything remaining in the uterus following birth falls under an "abnormal event", as is given a sperate dx name (as in "retained placenta").

The puerperal state is an overarching term covering a period of time following the birth during which the woman's body returns to its pre-pregnancy state.

That's the reason. Clement of Alexandria denies it. She gave birth normally and wrapped the Child herself.

He states exactly the opposite.

"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. " She did not show the aftereffects of birth !

With that in mind, he then says instead,

"Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin,"

That's the continuing virgin. Not Mary. It's the My Word is life, but I digress.

He says Mary remained a virgin.

He does not state the Scriptures are a virgin; he uses virgin as a comparative. "The Scriptures of the Lord are like that to us. They gave birth to the truth, but they remain virgin in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth."

He says that Mary remains a virgin; he says like that the Scriptures remain virgin for us as they "conceal the mysteries of the truth." He considers the virgin birth (no puerperal state) a miracle and a mystery.

 

[Montalban]

Great post

Except it missed everything in the post it replied to, including the challenge from ECFs to show someone else being called Son of Mary.

Most importantly it missed the contradiction in the OP.

The OP uses Jerome as a source of authority on one thing, then mocks him over a so-called 'cousin theory'

In otherwords Jerome is used only selectively.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Except it missed everything in the post it replied to, including the challenge from ECFs to show someone else being called Son of Mary.

Most importantly it missed the contradiction in the OP.

The OP uses Jerome as a source of authority on one thing, then mocks him over a so-called 'cousin theory'

In otherwords Jerome is used only selectively.

Not speaking to you till June 7th still

 

[Montalban]

Not speaking to you till June 7th still

I didn't ask you to. However you're welcome to read what I said. Secondly I find it odd to actually speak to me to say you're not speaking to me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Except it missed everything in the post it replied to, including the challenge from ECFs to show someone else being called Son of Mary.

Most importantly it missed the contradiction in the OP.

The OP uses Jerome as a source of authority on one thing, then mocks him over a so-called 'cousin theory'

In otherwords Jerome is used only selectively.

Let one who is without error cast the first stone

http://www.christianforums.com/t6757962/
Jerome's error?

So DID Jerome use texts that were known
to contain gross error, when preparing his
translation?

And if so, wouldnt this cause a huge problem

 

[Kepha]

Not speaking to you till June 7th still

lol why is June 7th the day you're allowing yourself to speak to him again?

 

[Montalban]

lol why is June 7th the day you're allowing yourself to speak to him again?

I'd be interested to know this too. It's too early for my birthday

 

[Fireinfolding]

lol why is June 7th the day you're allowing yourself to speak to him again?

I cant say

 

[Montalban]

Anyways, I'd be interested in seeing evidence from ECFs that call anyone else a son of Mary

 

[Kepha]

I'd be interested to know this too. It's too early for my birthday

lol the only thing I think you'd get from Fireinfolding on your birthday is one swing to the nose and judging from the size of her biceps in her avatar, she could do alot of damage boy.

 

[Fireinfolding]

lol the only thing I think you'd get from Fireinfolding on your birthday is one swing to the nose and judging from the size of her biceps in her avatar, she could do alot of damage boy.

Oh for goodness sake Kepha theres no bicep anywhere in that pic, what the heck you looking at? Im just tired of my pic Im trying find one, excuse me as I try a few of me on.

I'll probrobly pick my purple fairy and make yall really happy