Protoevangelium of James

[Kepha]

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

C'mon now. Those pipes are huge. I bet you go do 50lb dumbell curls between your posts on here. You're probably doing them right now.

 

[Fireinfolding]

C'mon now. Those pipes are huge. I bet you go do 50lb dumbell curls between your posts on here. Actually, I think you're doing them right now.

Thats about how much weight I "put on" and I cant lift anymore, I have a bad back.

The topic is Protoevangelium of James not invisble biceps, though I know its one of your favorite topics start a thread in fitness or something lol

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Well they were. You missed the tie from James brother of Jesus bishop of Jerusalem to Cyril of Jerusalem who agrees. That's tradition, bishop to bishop, no?

 

[Standing Up]

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

Women died from remaining in the state. It's not simply that they gave birth, it's the retention of stuff. The context of Clement of Alexandria is the PoJ.

PoJ: And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared

That is not a normal birth. Mary remained puerperal they say. It required the midwife.

Maybe we need to agree that the PoJ has not described a normal birth. Yes or no?

 

[SolomonVII]

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.

It seems to be related to the Gnostic accounts and the baby passing through as a ray of light through a translucent membrane.
No damage, really no birth even.
James the Just was held in high regard in Gnostic circles, and in the associated Nag Hammadi collection, was he not?
Painless birth, birth of light, the divine spark even, these are certainly the traditions of the Sacred Traditions churches today....
But where did they come from?

A divine spark passing through the hymen would be not painless at all. It would also potentially lead to a theology of Jesus being exclusively of the Divine nature, and only superficially of the human nature, like the bread of the Eucharist, in appearance only.

It is a bit ironic that the human birth of God here is depicted as painless, but the birth pangs of the Woman of Revelation being compared to a sword piercing Mary and refer to the woman giving spiritual birth to the child.

It is not without its inner logic of course, but then we might ask where did it come from in the first place? consider the Egyptian source, and what the Egyptian church eventually schismed over. Consider the Nag Hammadi collection and Hames, and Gnosticism.


....
Very good explanation by the way. I often have trouble wrapping my head around such things, until the context snaps everything into place.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Here's the real issue with that document.


with a cursory reading of it, you can tell it's spurious. It's written in the "Holy Haiku" style. It's the writer, trying to make the text and flow of the document seem very much like that as other documents of the like, but not being able to do so. It's stilted, choppy, and makes numerous errors of transposing later historical traditions/facets into a supposed 1st century work.

 

[Kepha]

The topic is Protoevangelium of James not invisble biceps, though I know its one of your favorite topics start a thread in fitness or something lol

Aww, but the Protoevangelium debate isn't as fun. I suppose rules are rules though.

Well they were. You missed the tie from James brother of Jesus bishop of Jerusalem to Cyril of Jerusalem who agrees. That's tradition, bishop to bishop, no?

Which post was that?

 

[Standing Up]

It seems to be related to the Gnostic accounts and the baby passing through as a ray of light through a translucent membrane.
No damage, really no birth even.
James the Just was held in high regard in Gnostic circles, and in the associated Nag Hammadi collection, was he not?
Painless birth, birth of light, the divine spark even, these are certainly the traditions of the Sacred Traditions churches today....
But where did they come from?

A divine spark passing through the hymen would be not painless at all. It would also potentially lead to a theology of Jesus being exclusively of the Divine nature, and only superficially of the human nature, like the bread of the Eucharist, in appearance only.

It is a bit ironic that the human birth of God here is depicted as painless, but the birth pangs of the Woman of Revelation being compared to a sword piercing Mary and refer to the woman giving spiritual birth to the child.

It is not without its inner logic of course, but then we might ask where did it come from in the first place? consider the Egyptian source, and what the Egyptian church eventually schismed over. Consider the Nag Hammadi collection and Hames, and Gnosticism.


....
Very good explanation by the way. I often have trouble wrapping my head around such things, until the context snaps everything into place.

Not sure about going backward to more sources, but as a result of the PoJ teaching, we did have Tertullian then battling the gnostic ideas that Christ had different flesh than you and I. The light manifested. Particles came together. Tertullian then pulled out scripture and said these are the brothers of Jesus. Proving He had the same flesh. To argue for the ever-virgin (no more births) was to argue against the humanity of Christ.

I suspect all of that then made its way into the eucharist conversation as well. It is His flesh, when His birth wasn't quite accurate.

 

[Thekla]

Women died from remaining in the state. It's not simply that they gave birth, it's the retention of stuff. The context of Clement of Alexandria is the PoJ.

PoJ: And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared

That is not a normal birth. Mary remained puerperal they say. It required the midwife.

Maybe we need to agree that the PoJ has not described a normal birth. Yes or no?

Here is the definition of "puerperal"; it is a general term and has no reference to abnormal conditions occurring postpartum, though a number of medical conditions that can occur during the puerperal period do use the term to define the circumstances of the anomaly (puerperal sepsis, puerperal fever, etc.).
Here, using the noun form:

Puerperium is defined as the time from the delivery of the placenta through the first few weeks after the delivery. This period is usually considered to be 6 weeks in duration. By 6 weeks after delivery, most of the changes of pregnancy, labor, and delivery have resolved and the body has reverted to the nonpregnant state. Medscape: Medscape Access

Christ is the norm; the state of man before the fall is the norm.

As Christ is the savior and healer, I would be surprised if His birth had a "normal" (post fall) effect on Mary. Birth usually involves subtle changes and breakdown in the woman's body; would you expect this to be the case with the birth of Christ Who healed and restored so many ?

 

[Standing Up]

Aww, but the Protoevangelium debate isn't as fun. I suppose rules are rules though.



Which post was that?

I'll have to bump it up. Name was One of Those Elusive Traditions Paul said to abide. In the meantime:

Cyril of Jerusalem

And He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; (for if thou believe not the one witness, thou hast twelve witnesses then He was seen of abovefive hundred brethren at once ; (if they disbelieve the twelve, let them admit the five hundred after that He was seen of James, His own brother, and first Bishop of this diocese. Seeing then that such a Bishop originally saw Christ Jesus when risen, do not thou, his disciple, disbelieve him. But thou sayest thatHis brother James was a partial witness; afterwards He was seen also of me Paul, His enemy; and what testimony is doubted, when an enemy proclaims it?
NPNF2-07. Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Cyril is showing the witnesses of Christ's resurrection.

Cephas.
Apostles.
500 brethren (of the Jewish race).
James His OWN brother (blood brothers of the same mother, different father). This is why some might consider James a partial witness (not impartial IOW). A possible partial witness because of James' blood relation to Jesus Christ.
Paul. He was an enemy at first, yet witnessed for Christ.


Cyril does use brother in both senses of the word (Fire pointed this out, but was ignored). 500 brethren (kinfolk). James His OWN brother (brother-same mother, different father).

So, only 3 choices.

1) PoJ, sons of previous marriage
2) Jerome cousins
3) Actual brothers (same mother, different father).

 

[Standing Up]

Here is the definition of "puerperal";

Before moving on,

PoJ: And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared

That is not a normal birth. Mary remained puerperal they say. It required the midwife.

Maybe we need to agree that the PoJ has not described a normal birth. Yes or no?

 

[Thekla]

Not sure about going backward to more sources, but as a result of the PoJ teaching, we did have Tertullian then battling the gnostic ideas that Christ had different flesh than you and I. The light manifested. Particles came together. Tertullian then pulled out scripture and said these are the brothers of Jesus. Proving He had the same flesh. To argue for the ever-virgin (no more births) was to argue against the humanity of Christ.

I suspect all of that then made its way into the eucharist conversation as well. It is His flesh, when His birth wasn't quite accurate.

I would think the mention of "light" is thought to be not unlike or as the presence of God demonstrated in the burning bush, the light of the Transfiguration, the light on Moses' face, the illumination on Steven's face, the light which blinded Paul ... again, indicating the presence of God.

 

[Standing Up]

Here's the real issue with that document.


with a cursory reading of it, you can tell it's spurious. It's written in the "Holy Haiku" style. It's the writer, trying to make the text and flow of the document seem very much like that as other documents of the like, but not being able to do so. It's stilted, choppy, and makes numerous errors of transposing later historical traditions/facets into a supposed 1st century work.

Thank you. It's just weird. Everyone? agrees it is spurious, yet folks keep arguing it's conclusion (Joseph had sons from a previous marriage). They must not like choices 2 or 3.

2) Cousin theory of Jerome
3) Actual brothers (same mother, different father)

 

[Standing Up]

I would think the mention of "light" is thought to be not unlike or as the presence of God demonstrated in the burning bush, the light of the Transfiguration, the light on Moses' face, the illumination on Steven's face, the light which blinded Paul ... again, indicating the presence of God.

Except the light disappears.

PoJ: And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared

To say otherwise is to go into the ideas Tertullian later battled against. Jesus had different flesh than you or I.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Thank you. It's just weird. Everyone? agrees it is spurious, yet folks keep arguing it's conclusion (Joseph had sons from a previous marriage). They must not like choices 2 or 3.

2) Cousin theory of Jerome
3) Actual brothers (same mother, different father)

to be perfectly fair.... the Infancy gospel of James isn't the sole, nor defining source of the tradition of perpetual virginity.

 

[Thekla]

Except the light disappears.

PoJ: And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared

To say otherwise is to go into the ideas Tertullian later battled against. Jesus had different flesh than you or I.

And the light on Moses' face, and on Stephen's face, and the burning bush, and the Pillar of Fire, and on the Road to Damascus, and at the Transfiguration ... were they seen as constant ? Or did these 'disappear' ?

 

[Standing Up]

to be perfectly fair.... the Infancy gospel of James isn't the sole, nor defining source of the tradition of perpetual virginity.

It was at that time c150-200 (except the Carpenter Son or something like that). Perhaps you're thinking of Pseudo-Matthew c600 who revived the PoJ view after the church banished it.

BTW, hang tough and praise God.

 

[Standing Up]

And the light on Moses' face, and on Stephen's face, and the burning bush, and the Pillar of Fire, and on the Road to Damascus, and at the Transfiguration ... were they seen as constant ? Or did these 'disappear' ?

So, you are agreeing the birth was not normal, right? If so, like I've been saying, we really have no common ground to continue conversation.

 

[Montalban]

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.

I've had my ear almost torn off. I played Rugby in High School - I was a prop

 

[Thekla]

Before moving on,

PoJ: And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared

That is not a normal birth. Mary remained puerperal they say. It required the midwife.

Maybe we need to agree that the PoJ has not described a normal birth. Yes or no?

Where is it said that "Mary remained in the puerperal state" ? Nowhere.

A midwife is typically called for at an impending or during the birth. It is her role to "assist" in case of complications. If no complications occur, or no help is needed, midwives (at least in my experience, and per my reading) tend to stay in the background.

As the PoJ gives "glimpses" but not an actual medical description of the birth, I cannot know.