Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

I do not think it is absure that Joseph had sex with a former wife. Orthodox hold to this idea that Joseph was a widower, had children from a previous marriage, and was advanced in age when he betrothed Mary (see my avatar).

Yes, and that is the PoJ tradition. See the post from Origen earlier in the thread.

Given the gnostic overtones, the contradictions to scripture, why do EO maintain the teachings of PoJ?

For example, the PoJ teaches the priest gave Mary the water of jealousy. Do you know what that was for? (No need to spell it out, just a simple yes or now.) Scripure, however, says God gave Joseph a dream for confirmation.

Anyway, 1800 years ago these were the only two traditions:

1) Sons of Joseph/previous wife (PoJ)
2) Sons of Joseph/Mary (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Africanus, Hegesipus, etc)

 

[SolomonVII]

you have no way of knowing that. It's actually possible.

It's also possible I'm a cretin in intelligence compared to your illuminous brain power.

Are you even interested in the subject at hand, or just want to get involved in a peeing contest?

either way, it's not about intelligence anyways. Missing the point can happen to anyone.

It is about being rude.

meh... no we don't. "We" all belive in "our" church... whatever it is.

It used to be the motto here that the purpsoe was to find a common faith. Otherwise, why the ban on jw and mormon?
I am talking of a Nicene faith.

here's the part that I'm talking about. I dont' care a fig for the PoJ. Not a bit.

I am baffled that any defend it, or its ideas. It is a rejected book by all accounts.

But threads like this are a diaphonous cover to the real agenda. Pretend if you want that it's about textual criticism. It's really not though, is it? It's a chance to make subterranian jabs at other beliefs. A chance to spit at other creeds than the one you've chosen for yourself.

None of us have personalities as sublime as we might think. I first brought up the PofJ and Joseph the Carpenter in another thread due to research on where the heck are these ideas of Old Joseph/ step-brothers coming from. First documented source is apocrypha.

It's really not a coincidence that you are mentioning PoJ, EV, Gnosticism, and anti-Christ in a thread where your main opponents to the idea are of Orthodox or Catholic beliefs.

There is no reason that Catholics should be the main opponents at all. This is a book that has no common cause with them.

hold your hands up in protest and shake your head... it doesn't matter. I've been on here long enough to know different. I know because I was one of them.

So, you think we are all mini-versions of you?
It does not occur to you that others might actually be interested in the subject matter at hand?
I make no apologies for my personality.
Debate is fun, and to debate with people who are emotionally invested in the subject at hand is an adrenaline rush.
It doesn't mean that I am making any or the points dishonestly, or that I am not interested in the subject matter, and finding the best evidence, wherever it may lead.

3 or so years ago when I spent time in this forum, EO accusing Protestants of gnosticism, and all the heterodoxies of the first century, was all the rage. As I had just said in my post last night, gnosticism likely permeates Christianity. It is a bane of a Church that contemplates tortured flesh every time we look to the cross.

The discovery of gnosticism in the PofJ in this thread is a very interesting development. It is not so much the EO anymore, which shares ideas in the liturgy with PoJ; it is not so much about RCC either in my mind. whose members really had no cause to defend PofJ ideas in the slightest in the first place.
The discovery of Gnosticism makes it all interesting for all of Christianity. Make no doubt about it. Hatred of the flesh permeates all of Christian thought.

(BTW, Solomon... that was the point.)

The whole point is that you wanted to get into another peeing contest with me again. It doesn't really matter what ideas I bring forth. You have no interest in the ideas of this thread anyways.
You are just here for kicks, to waste a little time, before time wastes you.

I gave you ample chances to discuss the ideas. You discuss 'me' instead.

You are not different than Kepha. You are here to waste my time, and that is all.
Don't fool yourself. You haven't changed a bit from the kind of person that you were before.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes, and that is the PoJ tradition. See the post from Origen earlier in the thread.

Given the gnostic overtones, the contradictions to scripture, why do EO maintain the teachings of PoJ?

For example, the PoJ teaches the priest gave Mary the water of jealousy. Do you know what that was for? (No need to spell it out, just a simple yes or now.) Scripure, however, says God gave Joseph a dream for confirmation.

Anyway, 1800 years ago these were the only two traditions:

1) Sons of Joseph/previous wife (PoJ)
2) Sons of Joseph/Mary (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Africanus, Hegesipus, etc)

are you unable to distinguish that it is logically sound (either if true, or not) that the tradition that Joseph was older with children from a previous marriage, can exist with or without the PoJ documentation? Or are you blind to the fact that Orthodoxy actually depends on it's holy tradition for veracity, far, far more than any extraneous documentation?

are you being honestly obtuse.... or with purpose?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Are you even interested in the subject at hand, or just want to get involved in a peeing contest?

ooooh. The second one sounds fun. We laying bets?

It is about being rude.

everyone considers the other side rude when there is disagreement. Colour me unrepentant.

It used to be the motto here that the purpsoe was to find a common faith. Otherwise, why the ban on jw and mormon?
I am talking of a Nicene faith.

of which there are more flavours than a bag of skittles. The whole "All Christianity" argument leads to the next fallicous argument of "No real Christian would believe that...."

None of us have personalities as sublime as we might think. I first brought up the PofJ and Joseph the Carpenter in another thread due to research on where the heck are these ideas of Old Joseph/ step-brothers coming from. First documented source is apocrypha.


There is no reason that Catholics should be the main opponents at all. This is a book that has no common cause with them.

I lump the Catholics in, because they are usually one of the two main targets of polemic threads.

So, you think we are all mini-versions of you?
It does not occur to you that others might actually be interested in the subject matter at hand?
I make no apologies for my personality.
Debate is fun, and to debate with people who are emotionally invested in the subject at hand is an adrenaline rush.
It doesn't mean that I am making any or the points dishonestly, or that I am not interested in the subject matter, and finding the best evidence, wherever it may lead.

Heavens no. Mini versions of me? No way. Back when I was being an attack hound against the EO and RC, I was WAY better at it than everything on this thread. I think I left actual teeth marks despite being on the other side of a network.

Debate? sure, it's fun. I'm having a scream right now/ And I certainly don't think you're dishonest. I know exactly what you think, because I was there. "I'm going to prove how wrong X is about Y... because we believe Z, and we're right!

and so on and so forth until we get alienation and anger... but never resolution. Try to take yourself just a little less seriously. You aren't some big screaming deal, and wiser men than you and I have done far more to advance things than we can ever hope to.

3 or so years ago when I spent time in this forum, EO accusing Protestants of gnosticism, and all the heterodoxies of the first century, was all the rage. As I had just said in my post last night, gnosticism likely permeates Christianity. It is a bane of a Church that contemplates tortured flesh every time we look to the cross.

The discovery of gnosticism in the PofJ in this thread is a very interesting development. It is not so much the EO anymore, which shares ideas in the liturgy with PoJ; it is not so much about RCC either in my mind. whose members really had no cause to defend PofJ ideas in the slightest in the first place.
The discovery of Gnosticism makes it all interesting for all of Christianity. Make no doubt about it. Hatred of the flesh permeates all of Christian thought.

"discovery of Gnosticism?" how trite. as if now, in 2012, someone now digs up gnosticism in a document? ridiculous. It either is, or isn't, and always has been, or isn't, and we're nothing new to the party. We all think we've got it all figured out, don't we?

The whole point is that you wanted to get into another peeing contest with me again. It doesn't really matter what ideas I bring forth. You have no interest in the ideas of this thread anyways.
You are just here for kicks, to waste a little time, before time wastes you.

I gave you ample chances to discuss the ideas. You discuss 'me' instead.

You are not different than Kepha. You are here to waste my time, and that is all.
Don't fool yourself. You haven't changed a bit from the kind of person that you were before.

Oh, I'm exactly the same. well... I've gained a few pounds. But don't judge, my wife is a good cook.

The ultimate point, is that despite the fact that I'm not addressing things the way you like them, and I'm not debating in a manner of your approval, nor am I taking you seriously at all....


my posts are every bit as meaningful as yours, or anyone elses on this thread... which is close to zero.

 

[Kristos]

Does anyone have any quotes from Early Church Fathers that assert Mary was not ever-virgin? Anyone before Luther (even though Luther himself took it for granted)?

Sorry, I don't have time to pull up the quotes right now, but I recollect that Tertullian did in fact believe that Mary had other children, but this was written during his more fanatical years with the Montanists in the context of his polemics with the Docetists. He of course then left even the fundamentalism of the Montanists as 'too soft' to establish his own hyper-extreme sect. He did write some decent things early in his life, but toward the end he went a little wacko.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Similarly, Orthodox fast for a certain period of time (including fasting from sexual relations) before receiving the eucharist and abstain from food a certain period of time after that. Because we are not receiving mere food and Drink, but Christ himself, so our bodies are consecrated "set aside" for that purpose the next day. So this can be compared in a sort of way to the reception of the Word made flesh in the womb of the Virgin.

We assert that Mary received God the Word in her womb and He took His flesh from her. This was a one time, unique event. God is not made flesh everyday through all of us, but at one time in history. We don't really speculate to say how this is different than our receiving of the Spirit at baptism, or Christ in the eucharist, but it was an entirely unique occurrence in time, and was something to be marvelled at with fear and awe. Indeed though, it is a pre-figurement of what is to be done in all of us through Christ and God's Spirit. So in a mysterious way, when we receive Christ, he sustains us (bodily and spiritually). Yet when she received Christ (although he continued to sustain her as God) she also physically sustained him, and continued to do so after birth! What a marvel of how God has humbled himself to be born of a creature.

It can be commonly understood that Jesus was saying "more than that" after addressing the woman in the crowd. She was blessed (and chosen) primarily because she heard the word of God and kept it, and affirmed it by her "yes" at the annunciation. This was a great example, par excellence, of how we should all respond to God and receive Him. This was the message that the crowd needed to hear at the time. The church however carries in her bosom the truth and fullness of the gospel message as it has been now fully revealed to us. So we are now able to look back and contemplate on how God has worked through his creation and fully appreciate all the aspects of it, seeing how Christ humbled himself as a lowest of human beings during his time on earth, and was raised up and glorified. This is how we now view the incarnation (and Mary's role), in light of the rest of the aspects of God's saving plan for creation, not as an isolated event.

Thanks for sharing, cant say I understand it but it appears the discussion might be over so I'll let it be

 

[Standing Up]

Sorry, I don't have time to pull up the quotes right now, but I recollect that Tertullian did in fact believe that Mary had other children, but this was written during his more fanatical years with the Montanists in the context of his polemics with the Docetists. He of course then left even the fundamentalism of the Montanists as 'too soft' to establish his own hyper-extreme sect. He did write some decent things early in his life, but toward the end he went a little wacko.

Tertullian used the fact of more children from Mary as an argument for the flesh of Christ (normal birth) against the gnostics of his day (wasn't born, Mary intact). This was covered in the early pages of the thread.

 

[Standing Up]

are you unable to distinguish that it is logically sound (either if true, or not) that the tradition that Joseph was older with children from a previous marriage, can exist with or without the PoJ documentation? Or are you blind to the fact that Orthodoxy actually depends on it's holy tradition for veracity, far, far more than any extraneous documentation?

are you being honestly obtuse.... or with purpose?

Where? I've asked for more tradition, but there is none at that time. There's two choices about who the brothers are.

But you are right. For 1800 years, even though the church condemned the PoJ's teachings 300 years later c500 (see OP), the PoJ teaching continues to exist amongst Christians.

 

[Tzaousios]

The intricacy of the dance of rhetorical association (without saying it outright) of Orthodoxy/Catholicism with the heresy of Gnosticism is breathtaking.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Where? I've asked for more tradition, but there is none at that time. There's two choices about who the brothers are.

But you are right. For 1800 years, even though the church condemned the PoJ's teachings 300 years later c500 (see OP), the PoJ teaching continues to exist amongst Christians.

SU, remind us what elements of the protoevangelium do you consider to be gnostic again? And also please provide us with evidence that there were gnostic sects who were using this text to show Jesus wasn't born of flesh.

for other's here is a copy online:

Protoevangelium of St. James

 

[SolomonVII]

You join with Aquinas/Jerome (RC really) who thought it absurd the idea holy Joseph had sex with a former wife. Blasphemy! Thus, the cousin theory was born to replace the PoJ idea (the brothers of Christ were sons of Joseph from a previous wife).

I think we have to distinguish here between authentic Catholic teaching, which teaches the redemption of the physical world, the sacramental nature of marriage, the recovery of the world of Creation which God declared good; we have to distinguish between that authentic teaching, and the gnostic creep which is repulsed by all that, that sees marital sex as somehow making the woman dirty.

Thank you for the very good find, by the way, of seeing that the PofJ was indeed a tract that embellishes and justifies the creed of Marcion and the Gnostics, and gives them an apostolic justification for their anti-life gospel that despises the flesh, despises the God of our creation for having created us. You have noticed what Tertullian noted all those years ago, and which few if any on any internet site that I can discern anyway, have been able to put together.
The Nativity Gospel of James is indeed a tract that sets forth the Gnostic message, a message against procreation, a message against the enfleshment of God, the Incarnation of God really, into his own Creation, his world of flesh and blood and desire too.

Far from honouring Mary, the cult of virginity does the opposite and denigrates Mary, and with her all married women, but holding up an icon of femininity that is unnatural to marital state, that in its essence sees sexuality as something that denigrates women.
It is an anti-sacramental vision, that is played over and over again in the church history, first documented in the PofJ, but then increasingly in the centuries to follow emulated by churchman and after churchman, lauded as the ideal right up until our day.
It is not even a quintessentially Catholic stance, nor Eastern Orthodox, but Protestants too follow this gospel, as they vicariously purge themselves of their own evil skin through the scourging of Jesus, which heals them. The battle for the redemption of the body, which is the Incarnation, becomes a battle against the body, against flesh, and not just being ruled by fleshly desires, but against the flesh itself.
This can be seen over and over again, quote after quote, not just from the theologians and churchmen of the the third and fourth centuries, but throughout Christian history.
It is as old and as enduring as the Church itself. It is anti-Christ in that is draws its energy from the story of the Passion of itself, it marvels at the ravages of the devil against the body of Christ himself.

It is antichrist. It is in essence, Gnosticism.

Maybe nobody else really gets the importance of your discovery that you shared with us, but I do.
It may not seem like much for all your efforts here, but still, thank you for that.

 

[SolomonVII]

The idea that Joseph and Mary would carry on with "business as usual" after such an awesome thing had occurred, I consider to be absurd.

You join with Aquinas/Jerome (RC really) who thought it absurd the idea holy Joseph had sex with a former wife. Blasphemy! Thus, the cousin theory was born to replace the PoJ idea (the brothers of Christ were sons of Joseph from a previous wife).

I think we have to distinguish here between authentic Catholic teaching, which teaches the redemption of the physical world, the sacramental nature of marriage, the recovery of the world of Creation which God declared good; we have to distinguish between that authentic teaching, and the gnostic creep which is repulsed by all that, that sees marital sex as somehow making the woman dirty.

Thank you for the very good find, by the way, of seeing that the PofJ was indeed a tract that embellishes and justifies the creed of Marcion and the Gnostics, and gives them an 'apostolic' justification for their anti-life gospel that despises the flesh, despises the God of our creation for having created us. You have noticed what Tertullian noted all those years ago, and which few if any on any internet sites that I can researched anyway, have been able to put together.
The Nativity Gospel of James is indeed a tract that sets forth the Gnostic message, a message against procreation, a message against the enfleshment of God, the Incarnation of God really, into his own Creation, his world of flesh and blood and desire too.

Far from honouring Mary, the cult of virginity does the opposite and denigrates Mary, and with her all married women, but holding up an icon of femininity that is unnatural to marital state, that in its essence sees sexuality as something that denigrates women.
It is an anti-sacramental vision, that is played over and over again in the church history, first documented in the PofJ, but then increasingly in the centuries to follow emulated by churchman and after churchman, lauded as the ideal right up until our day.
It is not even a quintessentially Catholic stance, nor Eastern Orthodox, but Protestants too follow this gospel, as they vicariously purge themselves of their own evil skin through the scourging of Jesus, which heals them. The battle for the redemption of the body, which is the Incarnation, becomes a battle against the body, against flesh, and not just being ruled by fleshly desires, but against the flesh itself.
This can be seen over and over again, quote after quote, not just from the theologians and churchmen of the the third and fourth centuries, but throughout Christian history.
It is as old and as enduring as the Church itself. It is anti-Christ in that is draws its energy from the story of the Passion of itself, it marvels at the ravages of the devil against the body of Christ himself.

It is antichrist. It is in essence, Gnosticism.

Maybe nobody else really gets the importance of your discovery that you shared with us, but I do.
It may not seem like much for all your efforts here, but still, thank you for that.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I think we have to distinguish here between authentic Catholic teaching, which teaches the redemption of the physical world, the sacramental nature of marriage, the recovery of the world of Creation which God declared good; we have to distinguish between that authentic teaching, and the gnostic creep which is repulsed by all that, that sees marital sex as somehow making the woman dirty.

Thank you for the very good find, by the way, of seeing that the PofJ was indeed a tract that embellishes and justifies the creed of Marcion and the Gnostics, and gives them an apostolic justification for their anti-life gospel that despises the flesh, despises the God of our creation for having created us. You have noticed what Tertullian noted all those years ago, and which few if any on any internet site that I can discern anyway, have been able to put together.
The Nativity Gospel of James is indeed a tract that sets forth the Gnostic message, a message against procreation, a message against the enfleshment of God, the Incarnation of God really, into his own Creation, his world of flesh and blood and desire too.

Far from honouring Mary, the cult of virginity does the opposite and denigrates Mary, and with her all married women, but holding up an icon of femininity that is unnatural to marital state, that in its essence sees sexuality as something that denigrates women.
It is an anti-sacramental vision, that is played over and over again in the church history, first documented in the PofJ, but then increasingly in the centuries to follow emulated by churchman and after churchman, lauded as the ideal right up until our day.
It is not even a quintessentially Catholic stance, nor Eastern Orthodox, but Protestants too follow this gospel, as they vicariously purge themselves of their own evil skin through the scourging of Jesus, which heals them. The battle for the redemption of the body, which is the Incarnation, becomes a battle against the body, against flesh, and not just being ruled by fleshly desires, but against the flesh itself.
This can be seen over and over again, quote after quote, not just from the theologians and churchmen of the the third and fourth centuries, but throughout Christian history.
It is as old and as enduring as the Church itself. It is anti-Christ in that is draws its energy from the story of the Passion of itself, it marvels at the ravages of the devil against the body of Christ himself.

It is antichrist. It is in essence, Gnosticism.

Maybe nobody else really gets the importance of your discovery that you shared with us, but I do.
It may not seem like much for all your efforts here, but still, thank you for that.

can you show how the PoJ demonstrates what you describe above?

 

[SolomonVII]

can you show how the PoJ demonstrates what you describe above?

It has already been done here, Ortho.

.....
I suppose I could go and retrieve all my posts, and all the post that Standing Up has written here and repeat the process, but you can do that too, if that is what you are really looking for.

I am sorry if that sounds curt. I have already done like you requested for somebody else on this thread, and I got burnt for my efforts. I am a little shy of doing the same thing all over again.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The intricacy of the dance of rhetorical association (without saying it outright) of Orthodoxy/Catholicism with the heresy of Gnosticism is breathtaking.

But it's been identified and exposed forthrightly, at the very least.

It has already been done here, Ortho.

.....
I suppose I could go and retrieve all my posts, and all the post that Standing Up has written here and repeat the process, but you can do that too, if that is what you are really looking for.

I am sorry if that sounds curt. I have already done like you requested for somebody else on this thread, and I got burnt for my efforts. I am a little shy of doing the same thing all over again.

Shyness isn't a typical trait of the rabid anti-catholic. (or anti-orthodox, etc...)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It has already been done here, Ortho.

.....
I suppose I could go and retrieve all my posts, and all the post that Standing Up has written here and repeat the process, but you can do that too, if that is what you are really looking for.

I am sorry if that sounds curt. I have already done like you requested for somebody else on this thread, and I got burnt for my efforts. I am a little shy of doing the same thing all over again.

i will have a gander then

 

[Standing Up]

SU, remind us what elements of the protoevangelium do you consider to be gnostic again? And also please provide us with evidence that there were gnostic sects who were using this text to show Jesus wasn't born of flesh.

for other's here is a copy online:

Protoevangelium of St. James

Read through the thread. It hasn't been done under a basket. Just from a few posts ago:

To me, here's the connection. Tertullian:

"But certain disciples [Marcion's Apelles?] compelled to be wiser than their teacher, concede to Christ real flesh, without effect, however, on their denial of His nativity. He might have had, they say, a flesh which was not at all born. ..."

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

That idea is from the PoJ. The light recedes, the young child appears, it takes the breast, Mary remains intact.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

i will have a gander then

I take it back. I can't go through 30 pages. Can anyone point out a specific passage in the PoJ that is gnostic? I want to see what it is you all are referring to specifically.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I have a question for those who think that declaring Mary as ever-virgin is tantamount to promoting gnosticism and virgin cults.

Do you also think that because of the fact Paul was unmarried (and also a virgin, I would presume) he is endorsing gnosticism and virgin cults?

Does the fact that he wrote this:

1Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband. 4The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud you not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

in which he clearly gives preference to chastity over any other lifestyle, mean that he is endorsing gnosticism and virgin cults?

This makes us think about Jesus as well. If we are to follow someone's lifestyle, it would be Jesus. Yet, we know he was unmarried and a virgin. In fact, he said "those who do not follow after me cannot be my disciple." So someone could logically deduce, by some of the opinions expressed regarding Mary's virginity in this thread, that the same conclusions can be drawn from Jesus' and Paul's lifestyle as well.

So then, I think one should be very careful not to stretch this "theory" connecting chastity and gnosticism too far, for obvious reasons, unless they are ready to declare that all of Christianity promotes gnosticism and virgin cults.

 

[Kepha]

In thinking about this, Jerome was not exactly accurate in his portrayal. 2 reasons. 1 he doesn't mention any of the others (Clement of A, Origen, Tertullian, Africanus, etc) we know argued against the PoJ. 2 he only references the heretics who thought Jesus was born a man and adopted as Christ at baptism. IOW, Jerome is comparing apples and oranges.

First off, he wouldn't mention Clement since He believed in the EV and you continuing to say the opposite will never change that fact. Then He only mentioned two other names. Why, because those were obviously the only two Helvidius mentioned. IOW, Jerome was rebutting Helvidus point by point.

"Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views,"
-against helvidius- by Jerome
Ebion, Theodotus and Valentinus were forerunners of Arianism (adoptionism). No doubt Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaaes, and Martyr argued against adoptionism. But that is not to say they argued against the brothers of Jesus by Joseph/Mary. In fact, Jerome can't produce any evidence of it, which is why he makes orange juice while he's trying to make apple juice.

Not exactly an honest comparison by Jerome.

This is a perfect example of wishful thinking. The entire reading was ONLY about one thing. Defending the Ever Virgin belief. St. Jerome said NOTHING about those other things under each and every one of His steps while defending a corrupt stance regarding those brothers of Christ. Arianism was never brought up once. Here's what St. Jerome said early to show His true intent of His writings.

I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse [NOTE: Jerome uses the ancient method of counting parts of months as whole months, hence a pregnancy of a little more than nine months is called ten months long; he later, chapter 20, shows that he knows pregnancy normally lasts nine months]. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a virgin after her son was born.

There is NOTHING about Arianism there or even hints it.

Also, lets just accuse St. Jerome of lying because He doesn't produce actual quotes instead of just names. We all could just say "maybe" He did have that info available to him which you'd never do or every post of yours on here would admittedly be in question since they end with absolutes of your line of thinking.

And St. Jerome never thought it important enough to make longer His 'Against Helvidus' teaching and said this. He didn't think it necessary at the time to write volumes on it.