Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

-snip-

Standing up will never help me even in the simplest things regarding my faith. He snips texts out of their proper context and throws his own interpretation on it -snip-

Just when I thought things were going swimmingly.

Well, what do you have besides the completely debunked PoJ to support the idea that the brothers of Christ were sons of Joseph/previous marriage? Bring out some quotes. Come, let us reason together.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That is true in this case, I agree.
It also seems that in her case, the term "virgin" refers to her disposition, her independence as it were.

But in the case of Mary, there seems (at least per Scripture), a different level of spiritual maturity. Elizabeth, in her pursuits and dalliances, did not show a strong "moral" character.

Thekla, Know that I love you, but this is irrelevant argumentation.

morality and character, don't mean anything at all in regards to an appelation.

(And, in fact, she was called "virgin queen" because the expectation was that an unmarried woman, would in fact be chaste.) level of spiritual maturity isn't germane to the topic.

 

[Uphill Battle]

More contradictions between the spurious, useless PoJ and Scripture.

PoJ

8 And they came to the midst of the way, and Mary said unto him: Take me down from the ass, for that which is within me presseth me, to come forth. And he took her down from the ass and said unto her: Whither shall I take thee to hide thy shame ? for the place is desert. XVIII. I And he found a cave there and brought her into it, and set his sons by her: and he went forth and sought for a midwife of the Hebrews in the country of Bethlehem.

PoJ
Born in the country of Bethlehem
Born in the desert
Born in in the cave
Sons present
Midwife present

Scripture
Born in the area of Judea.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea
Born in Bethlehem (inn was full)
Born in the stable
No one present but Joseph

one thing to point out. The fact that it is mentioned as a cave, is a canard... many stables were actually caves, across the entire region.

other than that, please continue.

 

[Standing Up]

one thing to point out. The fact that it is mentioned as a cave, is a canard... many stables were actually caves, across the entire region.

other than that, please continue.

Well, I think the thread is pretty much winding up. There's only 2 theories of who the brothers of Christ were, c150-250.

1) Sons of Joseph/previous wife
2) Sons of Joseph/Mary

The source for choice #1 is the PoJ. The author was most likely Marcion or a disciple of his like Apelles. It contradicts scripture, as been shown over and over from scripture and tradition (Origen, Tertullian, CLement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem). I can't believe folks keep using its divorced from scripture tradition. Don't understand why, except for some unknown reason they don't like choice #2.

So, unless someone can bring forth another choice from that time, we have to decide #2. Or, we can move on to Jerome's cousin theory that he invented c400ad to explain the brothers of Christ as cousins.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well, I think the thread is pretty much winding up. There's only 2 theories of who the brothers of Christ were, c150-250.

1) Sons of Joseph/previous wife
2) Sons of Joseph/Mary

The source for choice #1 is the PoJ. The author was most likely Marcion or a disciple of his like Apelles. It contradicts scripture, as been shown over and over from scripture and tradition (Origen, Tertullian, CLement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem). I can't believe folks keep using its divorced from scripture tradition. Don't understand why, except for some unknown reason they don't like choice #2.

So, unless someone can bring forth another choice from that time, we have to decide #2. Or, we can move on to Jerome's cousin theory that he invented c400ad to explain the brothers of Christ as cousins.

Or, you can realize that option 1 and 2 are not the basis for the belief in the churches that believe that Mary had no other children. There is always that, to consider.

 

[Fireinfolding]

#2 would be my choice (but you already knew that)

Reason, It doesnt assume beyond the scripture

 

[Kristos]

More contradictions between the spurious, useless PoJ and Scripture.

PoJ

8 And they came to the midst of the way, and Mary said unto him: Take me down from the ass, for that which is within me presseth me, to come forth. And he took her down from the ass and said unto her: Whither shall I take thee to hide thy shame ? for the place is desert. XVIII. I And he found a cave there and brought her into it, and set his sons by her: and he went forth and sought for a midwife of the Hebrews in the country of Bethlehem.

PoJ
Born in the country of Bethlehem
Born in the desert
Born in in the cave
Sons present
Midwife present

Scripture
Born in the area of Judea.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea
Born in Bethlehem (inn was full)
Born in the stable
No one present but Joseph

Sorry, I had to LOL at this. Where exactly does it is say Jesus was BORN in a stable? Not in scripture that is for sure. And where does it say that Joseph was present when Jesus was born? Not in scripture that's for sure!

So it would seem that YOU are contradicting scripture

 

[SolomonVII]

Sorry, I had to LOL at this. Where exactly does it is say Jesus was BORN in a stable? Not in scripture that is for sure. And where does it say that Joseph was present when Jesus was born? Not in scripture that's for sure!

So it would seem that YOU are contradicting scripture

It seems that Joseph was there with her, according to Luke, unless he off course dropped her off by the feed trough while he went and had a brewski at the inn nearby.
Feed trough implies animals, so that is where the association with stables come from. It is possible though that caves were used as animal shelters.
The symbolism of the manger is of importance theologically, for it is remarkable to think of someone as high as God would be offering up his flesh and blood for a a lower species so to speak, closer to animals really than to God. I think it is Francis of Assisi that makes this connection between God offering himself up as food, out of love. It would be like us offering ourselves up for food for ants, or some such thing.
As for the symbolism of the cave, I am not too sure anymore what that would be. There might be some Platonic references perhaps?

Chapter 2
1
1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus 2 that the whole world should be enrolled.
2
This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
3
So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.
4
And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,
5
to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
6
While they were there, the time came for her to have her child,
7
and she gave birth to her firstborn son. 3 She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

 

[Kepha]

Jerome never quotes anyone. And IF they had written about the issue, he wouldn't have had to invent the cousin theory to try to explain things.

Irrelevant. There is now a possibility it went back further than you insist and without evidence to the contrary, you have no absolute truth. Without absolute truth, you're left with an opinion. But that's about it.

PoJ not trustworthy

Last time:



- Non Inspired texts do not mean truths still cannot be contained within their pages.



- Since we can acknowledge some truths are in there, then these same truths may have traditionally been held along side with the texts.

 

[Kristos]

It seems that Joseph was there with her, according to Luke, unless he off course dropped her off by the feed trough while he went and had a brewski at the inn nearby.
Feed trough implies animals, so that is where the association with stables come from. It is possible though that caves were used as animal shelters.
The symbolism of the manger is of importance theologically, for it is remarkable to think of someone as high as God would be offering up his flesh and blood for a a lower species so to speak, closer to animals really than to God. I think it is Francis of Assisi that makes this connection between God offering himself up as food, out of love. It would be like us offering ourselves up for food for ants, or some such thing.
As for the symbolism of the cave, I am not too sure anymore what that would be. There might be some Platonic references perhaps?

Try again.

 

[Thekla]

Thekla, Know that I love you, but this is irrelevant argumentation.

morality and character, don't mean anything at all in regards to an appelation.

(And, in fact, she was called "virgin queen" because the expectation was that an unmarried woman, would in fact be chaste.) level of spiritual maturity isn't germane to the topic.

I think it may be, but I think also maybe it is not.

You are exactly correct ! An appellation can out-survive its accuracy.

But the accuracy of the application is person-dependent.

Elizabeth dodged hers, but it remained. (In the distant past, when I was in HS, her "virginity" was explained as not only unmarried, but also her independence ... I suppose the textbooks are different now.)

So also, it can be that the appropriateness of an appellation does in some cases remain; it depends on circumstance and person.

And that was my - muddled - point.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, a manger is a feed trough and also can be where the feed trough is located. (Manger is French for "to eat".) Scripture doesn't name the structure, but caves were used as shelter/stables for animals.

For example:

Early tradition places the birth of Jesus in a cave. Scripture doesn't mention the existence of a cave, and skeptics note that many biblical events were commemorated in caves (more convenient for pilgrims to be sheltered from sun and rain?). But it is also true that many houses in the area are built in front of caves. A cave could serve a household well by providing shelter for the animals or a place of storage.
Bethlehem (BiblePlaces.com)

 

[SolomonVII]

Try again.

What, you think that Joseph did join the boys at the inn for a brewski?
Anything's possible, I guess.

 

[Thekla]

#2 would be my choice (but you already knew that)

Reason, It doesnt assume beyond the scripture

Oh well here goes - not to be a mess again (sorry)
but I choose "nothing" (neither 1 nor 2), as to choose any meaning would be to go beyond Scripture.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think it may be, but I think also maybe it is not.

You are exactly correct ! An appellation can out-survive its accuracy.

But the accuracy of the application is person-dependent.

Elizabeth dodged hers, but it remained. (In the distant past, when I was in HS, her "virginity" was explained as not only unmarried, but also her independence ... I suppose the textbooks are different now.)

So also, it can be that the appropriateness of an appellation does in some cases remain; it depends on circumstance and person.

And that was my - muddled - point.

fair enough.

but then, wouldn't you say that the veracity of the appellation is then based on our understanding of the character of thus named... therefore making the appellation as proof circular?


I.E. The "Virgin queen" name is known not to be true, as we have evidence of lovers, therefore the appellation remained, despite it's innaccuracy

I.E. the Perpetual virgin, is known to be true, becuase "x" trusted source states that it is true, therefore the appelation remained, as it was accurate.

so the appellation iteslf doesn't prove, or deny it, it just is.

 

[Montalban]

I don't know about that.

Using an appelation doesn't mean it's a constant state. It typically points to, and identifies the pinnacle, or attribute for which the individual is famous... as in this case, the virgin birth of Christ.

So if Charles the Fat (French king) lost weight he'd be known as "Charles the previously fat"?

However with Mary she's called "The Virgin" even after having had Jesus.

 

[Montalban]

Wow, I can still be a virgin, this is great news

If you being a virgin at the time you conceived was important and continued onwards after, then yes I would call you this

 

[Thekla]

So if Charles the Fat (French king) lost weight he'd be known as "Charles the previously fat"?

However with Mary she's called "The Virgin" even after having had Jesus.

I'm going with Charles the Bald, and Pepin the Short.
(I think we should leave Charles the Bad out of this ...)

 

[Thekla]

fair enough.

but then, wouldn't you say that the veracity of the appellation is then based on our understanding of the character of thus named... therefore making the appellation as proof circular?


I.E. The "Virgin queen" name is known not to be true, as we have evidence of lovers, therefore the appellation remained, despite it's innaccuracy

I.E. the Perpetual virgin, is known to be true, becuase "x" trusted source states that it is true, therefore the appelation remained, as it was accurate.

so the appellation iteslf doesn't prove, or deny it, it just is.

Okay

But I do wonder why Mary might be given that appellation (early on, in fact), when her role as a birthgiver or mother was more the visible "height" of her actions ...

 

[Montalban]

there is a major distinction though. When addressing the issue of Mary, it is always in relation to her giving birth to the Christ child.

I think you mean at the time of conception, as we maintain her virginity remained intact during her pregnancy, the birth of Jesus, and there after

to call her "Mary the Virgin" in regards to that, would be accurate, even 40 years later, and after a possible birth of many other children, because it is in relation to what she was for the incarnation, that is being addressed.

No. The knowledge we have of Mary at the time would have been passed on to the Apostles and the gospel writers by her -as she was the witness to her events

She would have said "I'm still a virgin" to the people so they called her that. She otherwise would have just said "At the conception I was still a virgin" and her virginity would have been something that she would have referred to the Apostles as a past event