Protoevangelium of James

[Montalban]

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

I'm surprised they didn't use the case of Prince - the artist formely known as...

 

[Thekla]

I'm surprised they didn't use the case of Prince - the artist formely known as...

It's not on the keyboard.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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 think that if anyone called him "Charles the Fat" then they would likely be called "the recently deceased."

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 ...

because it's what she contributed. It's what she's known for. Other than the Virgin Birth, what, if anything, is there of note about Mary? Not much. Deliberately, by God, if you ask me.

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

either or, actually. Again, I think it's that what she is known for, that is what her appellation was to be.

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

I sincerly doubt that's how it worked.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It's not on the keyboard.

epic good post.

 

[Montalban]

I sincerly doubt that's how it worked.

Which Apostle/Gospel writer witnessed these early events?

 

[Montalban]

It's not on the keyboard.

There's the ability to paste pics

 

[Standing Up]

Not about EV folks.

One more reason to completely reject all of the ideas out of the profane and gnostic PoJ.

PoJ
Shows the priest giving the water of jealousy to Mary (Num. 5).

Scripture
Joseph is troubled, but has a dream and obeys.

It's amazing the church has declared the book worthless. Oh wait, it did.

 

[Standing Up]

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

That's your takeaway?

Okay, born in a place where there's a manger. Maybe a stable. But where in a desert would a cave be? Underground?

Anyway, the PoJ tradition contradicts scripture.

 

[Montalban]

The sola scriptura argument comes undone when people say they're against something not in scripture, and then state things that are not in scripture

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Origen sources it for the tradition. Most likely its author was Marcion or a disciple of his Apelles. Certainly not any apostle or bishop who "taught the same". The PoJ is full of contradictions to apostolic scripture.

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.

That's how tradition works. A bit of mingling of scripture (Mary is the mother's name) and man-made notion (born from a bright light).

So no, completely useless is the PoJ, except to contrast the false and the truth.

 

[Montalban]

I thought StandingUp wasn't against tradition per se

 

[Kepha]

Origen sources it for the tradition. Most likely its author was Marcion or a disciple of his Apelles. Certainly not any apostle or bishop who "taught the same". The PoJ is full of contradictions to apostolic scripture.

I said it's possible the truths got mixed with the untruths. The book gets gradually accepted because they perhaps already knew of some truths it contained (example: step brothers) and it just stuck around for awhile thereafter. And though He used the Proto as an example, He may have not had enough info on the subject as well to name other sources.
Or, you could be right, it could have been picked up, mingled with the proper cousin story taught by Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, etc. as per Jerome, and found a life of it's own till Jerome decided to go agasint Helvidius that in turn brought attention back to the proper theory. Or maybe they both missed the boat and there's another lingering around somethere. Who knows. All I know is we don't hear much of a 'Mary had children' theory either unless one decides to again force their own language and culture onto the text. So excluding that, I believe you brought up only Tertullian there.

That's how tradition works. A bit of mingling of scripture (Mary is the mother's name) and man-made notion (born from a bright light).

Well no. Sacred Tradtion works by way of weeding out the little ts since they obviously have mingled their way in over time like the Canon itself for example.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Which Apostle/Gospel writer witnessed these early events?

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I have large doubt Mary went around and announced to people that, Hey folks... I'm still a virgin.

 

[Montalban]

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I have large doubt Mary went around and announced to people that, Hey folks... I'm still a virgin.

Why not?

She's referred to as "The Virgin" by them, not "She of the Virgin Birth"

 

[Montalban]

Well no. Sacred Tradtion works by way of weeding out the little ts since they obviously have mingled their way in over time like the Canon itself for example.

I'm further perpelexed as I try to understand the position of people who claim that sola scriptura is not against tradition

 

[Uphill Battle]

Why not?

She's referred to as "The Virgin" by them, not "She of the Virgin Birth"

I think I already gave my viewpoint on that matter earlier.

 

[Montalban]

I think I already gave my viewpoint on that matter earlier.

So when she explained the events and said she was a virgin they decided to call her 'the virgin' even though it relates to something that happened earlier?

 

[Fireinfolding]

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I have large doubt Mary went around and announced to people that, Hey folks... I'm still a virgin.

I dont understand calling someone constantly by their sexual status all the time, Like Virgin Nelly, or Virgin Joe.

Maybe, hey, theres Nelly, (psst... you know she's still a virgin?)

Well, if you were meddling into her matters maybe

 

[Montalban]

And yet that's how they referred to her - even if one believes she isn't ever a virgin, she's still referred to as 'the virgin' so regardless of which case is correct that's what she's called.

 

[SolomonVII]

Which post are you referring?

Yours.