Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

Of course it is.

No, it's not about EV. It looks like you're assuming there is such a thing as EV.

 

[Standing Up]

No - it doesn't say that either! You are reading into the text according to your extra biblical tradition. There are three statements:

- He was born (it does not say where)
- He was wrapped in swaddling cloths
- He was laid in a manger (it does not say this was in the same place as he was born)

It doesn't say who, if anyone, was present.

It doesn't say there was no room in the inn until AFTER Jesus was born - and in fact this is the reason given why He was laid in the manger after he was born, but this has no bearing on where He was born.

So it would seem that your accusations of contradicting scripture are not actually based on scripture, but rather on your extra-biblical tradition.

I'll revise my list of contradictions.

PoJ
Priest gave water of jealousy (Num. 5) as confirmation
Born in the country of Bethlehem
Born in the desert
Born in a cave
Young child appears
Sons present
Midwife present

Scripture
God gave Joseph a dream as confirmation
Born in the area of Judea.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea
Born in Bethlehem
Born where a manger was
Born normally as a baby
No one present but Joseph

 

[Standing Up]

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.

After His birth, the appellation virgin is dropped from further scripture references to Mary.

 

[Thekla]

I'll revise my list of contradictions.

PoJ
Priest gave water of jealousy (Num. 5) as confirmation
Born in the country of Bethlehem
Born in the desert
Born in a cave
Sons present
Midwife present

Scripture
God gave Joseph a dream as confirmation
Born in the area of Judea.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea
Born in Bethlehem
Born where a manger was
No one present but Joseph

It is expected, in textual analysis, to provide quotations from the text to support ones' claims about the text; would you mind providing the appropriate quotations, cited, from the respective texts ?

 

[Standing Up]

It is expected, in textual analysis, to provide quotations from the text to support ones' claims about the text; would you mind providing the appropriate quotations, cited, from the respective texts ?

Read through the thread. It's all there.

 

[SolomonVII]

Read through the thread. It's all there.

I can attest to that.
But it does require reading and understanding what is written.

 

[Thekla]

Read through the thread. It's all there.

Not exactly; many of the claims for what the text says are not in fact said in the text I read.

As it is customary to correlate claim with quotations from the text, why not just provide them ? This allows the reader to see precisely from where the writer of the claim is drawing his/her information .

 

[Thekla]

I can attest to that.
But it does require reading and understanding what is written.

Yes; for example, the Protoevangelion does not state the child was "born from the light". That is a misreading of the text.

Correlation of claim with quotation, a standard in textual analysis, allows the reader to evaluate the claim as well as discover whether said claim is correlated from a variant text to the one the reader is familiar with.

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes; for example, the Protoevangelion does not state the child was "born from the light". That is a misreading of the text.

Correlation of claim with quotation, a standard in textual analysis, allows the reader to evaluate the claim as well as discover whether said claim is correlated from a variant text to the one the reader is familiar with.

After going point for point with you several times now, and noting how you had no understanding of the text that I wrote, (even to the point where your understanding was to the exact opposite of what I said), I don't have a lot of confidence in your ability to give me the correct reading of anything anymore.

I think I will trust my own understanding much more than your own. Thanks anyway.

 

[Thekla]

After going point for point with you several times now, and noting how you had no understanding of the text that I wrote, (even to the point where your understanding was to the exact opposite of what I said), I don't have a lot of confidence in your ability to give me the correct reading of anything anymore.

I think I will trust my own understanding much more than your own. Thanks anyway.

Of course you will trust your understanding.

But that was not the point of my post.

I requested that the person making the claim support the claim by providing the correlated quotations from the text.

If the purpose of dialogue or posting is, in part, to reach an understanding of each other's thought, then my request is reasonable.

I am not clear that you understood what I posted as well; but we should not mistake disagreement for misunderstanding.

If the claims that are made re: the Protoevangelion are so clear in the text, there is no reason not to post them.

 

[Standing Up]

Read through the read.

 

[Uphill Battle]

After His birth, the appellation virgin is dropped from further scripture references to Mary.

I don't think she's mentioned enough within the Canon after that point to make an argument one way or the other.

 

[SolomonVII]

....
If the purpose of dialogue or posting is, in part, to reach an understanding of each other's thought, then my request is reasonable.

I understand your points well enough.
You have demonstrated that you are not capable of reciprocating, and have never demonstrated an understanding of what I have been saying.

Dialogue with you is therefore impossible for me. It is a monologue you carry on with yourself. My quoted words play no part in that monologue, except to serve as a backdrop.

You have shown no comprehension and have either not read, or misread anything I said to you in the past.
And yet now the accusation is that you have the correct reading, and I am misreading? Experience has taught me that you are that your ability to grasp what is written to be lacking. I know what I wrote, and I know that you misunderstood it, while others had fully understood it.

I have no trust in your abilities to give me the correct reading on anything as a result of that experience.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I understand your points well enough.
You have demonstrated that you are not capable of reciprocating, and have never demonstrated an understanding of what I have been saying.

Dialogue with you is therefore impossible for me. It is a monologue you carry on with yourself. My quoted words play no part in that monologue, except to serve as a backdrop.

You have shown no comprehension and have either not read, or misread anything I said to you in the past.
And yet now the accusation is that you have the correct reading, and I am misreading? Experience has taught me that you are that your ability to grasp what is written to be lacking. I know what I wrote, and I know that you misunderstood it, while others had fully understood it.

I have no trust in your abilities to give me the correct reading on anything as a result of that experience.

Bad debate tactic #23.

You don't understand what I'm saying, therefore you are wrong.

followed with Bad debate tactic #24

I have already determined that you are wrong because you don't get it. Therefore I win, and will no longer discourse with you.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't think she's mentioned enough within the Canon after that point to make an argument one way or the other.

Maybe 4 mentions, but never as how later tradition defined her.

 

[SolomonVII]

I don't think she's mentioned enough within the Canon after that point to make an argument one way or the other.

Complete New Testament References to Mary

 

[Standing Up]

Bad debate tactic #23.

You don't understand what I'm saying, therefore you are wrong.

followed with Bad debate tactic #24

I have already determined that you are wrong because you don't get it. Therefore I win, and will no longer discourse with you.

Not really. The reason we know this is because others get it. No amount of requoting the same information is going to suffice for some. It's just a way to ask for the same info without ever arriving at a conclusion. I have concluded the PoJ is gnostic, spurious, and useless as even a tradition. The church agrees (see the OP). It's okay to say, I disagree; I like the PoJ; I agree with the PoJ; I like the midwives present; I like the giving of the water of jealousy (do folks even comprehend its purpose?). No problem. Just don't keep asking for info that's been presented. The case against PoJ has been made. It is rejected with all of its gnostic speculations.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Maybe 4 mentions, but never as how later tradition defined her.

perhaps not. Do you think 4 mentions is enough sampling to make a definitive statement as such? (bearing in mind that I don't support EV.)

Complete New Testament References to Mary

Not really. The reason we know this is because others get it.

really. That's how you detirmine it's true?

the Flat Earth Society will be pleased to hear about that method of determining truth.

 

[Standing Up]

perhaps not. Do you think 4 mentions is enough sampling to make a definitive statement as such? (bearing in mind that I don't support EV.)

.

One mention is.

Acts 1:13-4 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

11 Apostles, the women, Mary the mother of Jesus, His brethren.

Had scripture wanted to convey the continuance of a condition, it would have. But enough of the EV tradition.

 

[Uphill Battle]

One mention is.

Acts 1:13-4 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

11 Apostles, the women, Mary the mother of Jesus, His brethren.

Who are the brethren?

1) sons of Joseph/previous marriage (PoJ)
2) cousins (Jerome)
3) sons of Joseph/Mary (Tertullian, Africanus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, etc)

The PoJ is rejected. Who are the brethren? Cousins? That theory is not invented until 400 by Jerome (see catholicanswers.com). Who are the brethren?

But enough of the EV. This is about the PoJ.

given that the PoJ is used as supporting documentation for the EV... you'll find it inescapably linked.

I think the PoJ is tripe, myself. It's basically been proven Pseudopigraphical. That in itself is a good indication of falsehood, when you're claiming to be someone you are not when you are writing it. But I understand why others don't view it that way.