Protoevangelium of James

[Standing Up]

As opposed to what, asexually or by osmosis? No, I can assure you that Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe that human beings are born asexually or by osmosis.

It's too bad the Birth of Jesus thread was closed. One would think it a stupid question, but not to everyone.

Anyway, we know 1800 years ago of gnosticism and docetism; that Marcion, Apelles, were saying Christ had flesh, but wasn't born.

Here's the docetic PoJ:

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.

What's that sound like to you? A normal birth?

Light as opposed to water, placenta, blood.
Young child as oppposed to infant
It takes the breast as opposed to Mary taking Him up.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So would you agree Christ was born normally? Down the birth canal, water, infant, placenta. Opened the womb as scripture says.

The Gospel of Peter, translated by Raymond Brown

Of the extant part, nothing about His brothers.

Also, the PoJ only speaks to Mary's virginity at the time of birth. It doesn't say anyhting about her life thereafter.

How did I know where that was going; same old argument against the PV of M; which is a topic for, and has been done to death in Mariology.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So would you agree Christ was born normally? Down the birth canal, water, infant, placenta. Opened the womb as scripture says.

Perhaps...it doesn't have to be exactly like that though. God healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, restored sight, etc so he can be born in any manner he chooses. He was born of virgin, that we know. The other details aren't found in scripture unless you look at the old testament, which early church fathers understood as prophecy.

We say that she gave birth in an ineffable and indescribable manner. We also describe her as "she who gave birth without corruption to God the Word" We don't talk about lights in the cave or clouds though (I don't think). I think it is fair to say that PoJ contains certain embellishments with some parts being based on truth.

 

[Tzaousios]

What's that sound like to you? A normal birth?

Well, since the Orthodox understanding of what happened is not that of the Docetists or the Gnostics, there should not be a problem, right?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The Gospel of Peter, translated by Raymond Brown

Of the extant part, nothing about His brothers.

Also, the PoJ only speaks to Mary's virginity at the time of birth. It doesn't say anyhting about her life thereafter.

Origen also mentions[7] that the Gospel of Peter, together with "the book of James", was the source for the Church doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It would appear that the former text to which Origen was referring is another Gospel of Peter, as evidenced to date: two papyrus fragments from Oxyrhynchus, both in the Ashmolean Museum: P.Oxy 4009 and P.Oxy 2949 contain no such reference and what is referred today as the Gospel Of Peter, discussed below, contains a Passion narrative only.

Gospel of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is safe to assume that such a document did exist and that it corobborated the perpetual virginity aspect that PoJ did since Origen gave reference to it by name.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Well, since the Orthodox understanding of what happened is not that of the Docetists or the Gnostics, there should not be a problem, right?

One would think not...

 

[Standing Up]

Well, since the Orthodox understanding of what happened is not that of the Docetists or the Gnostics, there should not be a problem, right?

1800 years ago it was. Certainly no one believes they're espousing docetism. But look at 1 John, Origen, Tertullian. It was a problem back then.

But, you tell me, how was Christ born if not normally? Opened the womb, out comes water, infant, placenta, blood.

Why's this so hard for people to admit?

 

[Standing Up]

Perhaps...it doesn't have to be exactly like that though. God healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, restored sight, etc so he can be born in any manner he chooses.

The first miracle He did was at Cana. Mary didn't do any miracles. So no, born normally.

He was born of virgin, that we know. The other details aren't found in scripture unless you look at the old testament, which early church fathers understood as prophecy.

We say that she gave birth in an ineffable and indescribable manner. We also describe her as "she who gave birth without corruption to God the Word" We don't talk about lights in the cave or clouds though (I don't think). I think it is fair to say that PoJ contains certain embellishments with some parts being based on truth.

Well, you might want to trace back that idea and see where it leads. I mean, what does that mean? Why the mystery?

In the meantime, I'll go with normal.

Lk. 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord;
Lev. 12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

 

[Tzaousios]

1800 years ago. Certainly no one believes they're espousing docetism. But look at 1 John, Origen, Tertullian. It was a problem back then.

So...the Orthodox are espousing an "Origenist" (whatever that is) and a Montanist view of the Virgin Birth?

But, you tell me, how was Christ born if not normally? Opened the womb, out comes water, infant, placenta.

Why does Christ's birth have to be "normal" just because it has all of the attending features of how everyone else is born?

 

[Standing Up]

Why does Christ's birth have to be "normal" just because it has all of the attending features of how everyone else is born?

It's normal because He is flesh, just like you and I.

Here's the docetic PoJ:

"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."

What's that sound like to you? A normal birth?

Light as opposed to water, placenta, blood.
Young child as oppposed to infant
It takes the breast as opposed to Mary taking Him up.

From that docetic teaching, Tertullian tells us:

This man having first fallen from the principles of Marcion into (intercourse with) a woman, in the flesh, and afterwards shipwrecked himself, in the spirit, on the virgin Philumene,70247024 See Tertullian, de Præscr. Hæret. c. xxx. proceeded from that time70257025 Ab eo: or, “from that event of the carnal contact.” A good reading, found in most of the old books, is ab ea, that is, Philumene. to preach that the body of Christ was of solid flesh, but without having been born.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vi.html

Not born. Came from light, stardust, stars. A young child appears, not an infant. Could Mary have birthed a 2-3 year old? It takes the breast. Mary remains intact, which implies "without having been born".

You don't have to agree, but surely you don't agree that the PoJ has described a normal birth, given the responses against its teaching.

 

[SolomonVII]

Ah, but then again, a lack of virginity isn't clearly presented in scripture, either. As I mentioned before, the 4 protestant reformers all believed in the EV.

Did they do so on the basis of sola scripture, or on the basis that it was inconceivable to them to that Joseph would be doing his business down there?

Those men were accustomed to using scripture to back up their beliefs, so if they were convinced that the EV was contrary to scripture (which several seem to be asserting here) they would have no doubt dropped it in a heartbeat. Yet they affirmed it, and strongly.

What I am asserting, for those who listen carefully, is that EV is in no way supported by Scripture, or by apostolic Tradition.
Is that so hard to admit to?
Must you go to phantom arguments of the 'seeming several others' than deal with what I have been saying all along?

I by the way did not make the argument against you on the basis of Protestant gurus. I made the argument against 'business as usual' on the basis that that attitude is anti-sacramental.

I have already dealt with the argument of Protestant authority, and see no need to do so again.

As expected, we have seen good arguments in this thread which lay out a case for both sides. Literally, both positions can be supported by scripture and deduction thereof.

Without dogma understanding a priori that Mary could not have had other children, the argument of Jesus not having brothers of the same womb would not have arisen.
It is a case of dogma driving scripture, and not dogma being derived from scripture. Without clear apostolic teaching to support this, the step-brother theory is based on faith and obedience to one's church and any further arguments are coincidental to the belief.

So what should we do to break this apparent stalement? Other than deferring to tradition or personal interpretation, there is no other reasonable option. That is what it comes down to every time in this types of debates.

Personal interpretation of Jerome is cousins. Personal interpretation of EO is step-brothers, and this can be traced back no further than PoJ.
Scripture and first tradition teach brothers in the flesh.
I don't think that it is all that tough of a decision, were it not that later teaching compels obedience to a later tradition.

So we go to the early witnesses and see what they have to say.

That is what SU did, and repeatedly.

The same church fathers who established the biblical canon, formulated the creed, and defended the teaching of the Trinity against heretics affirmed the EV of Mary. Yet, some have purposefully ignored the belief advice of these holy men regarding the state of virginity of Mary. Why is this? Scripture is clearly not sufficient to tell us one conclusively one way or the other, so why not listen to these men who have been pillars of the Christian faith rather than rely on our personal interpretations (or worse, heretics)?

Because in this case it set-brothers/cousins is of a later tradition.

Regarding Mary's virginity, I simply cannot conceive of it being any other way. Could she still be holy if she had other children? Of course she could have!

Yes she could have been holy and immaculate and pure and the Mother of God, even if it was business as usual.

But this is not the path that the Lord has deemed for her, as testified by countless saints of the church, through her councils, and the reformers. Who are we to say otherwise?

We are people who take Scripture and apostolic tradition seriously. Two traditions of the two churches are at odds with one another as to why this is believed.

 

[Standing Up]

Solomon: "Without dogma understanding a priori that Mary could not have had other children, the argument of Jesus not having brothers of the same womb would not have arisen.
It is a case of dogma driving scripture, and not dogma being derived from scripture. Without clear apostolic teaching to support this, the step-brother theory is based on faith and obedience to one's church and any further arguments are coincidental to the belief."

If PoJ did not exist, if docetism didn't exist, if gnosticism didn't exist, the clear reading of scripture is

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Gal. 1:8 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Ps. 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.

 

[Tzaousios]

It's normal because He is flesh, just like you and I.

Right, and since out of just about any of them, the Orthodox one takes a robust, heavily-incarnational stance on it. The attempted linkage with Gnosticism or dualism is not working.

Try asking a Protestant, especially a lonewolf or non-denom. one, how important they think the Incarnation is to their theologies...

 

[Tzaousios]

Not born. Came from light, stardust, stars. A young child appears, not an infant. Could Mary have birthed a 2-3 year old? It takes the breast. Mary remains intact, which implies "without having been born".

You don't have to agree, but surely you don't agree that the PoJ has described a normal birth, given the responses against its teaching.

Well, one might be led towards all sorts of wild-eyed speculations using the exclusivist "strictly literal" hermeneutic that many of the resident Protestants like to say is the only "correct" method for interpreting texts.

Could it be, even for a moment, that the author was trying to convey to an audience that was used to allegorical and hyperbolic interpretations that the Virgin Birth was very special despite whether or not it had all of the normal physical traits of a human birth?

 

[SolomonVII]

Solomon: "Without dogma understanding a priori that Mary could not have had other children, the argument of Jesus not having brothers of the same womb would not have arisen.
It is a case of dogma driving scripture, and not dogma being derived from scripture. Without clear apostolic teaching to support this, the step-brother theory is based on faith and obedience to one's church and any further arguments are coincidental to the belief."

If PoJ did not exist, if docetism didn't exist, if gnosticism didn't exist, the clear reading of scripture is

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Gal. 1:8 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Ps. 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.

It is clear that the dogma that includes Mary not having children does not come from Scripture. The normal reading of Paul and the NT gospel must be skewed into something else in order for it to be understood as is taught by the various later traditions of the churches.
In the case of the Psalms prophecy, it most certainly does contradict scripture to say that Mary did not have children. For a church that teaches the woman of Revelations is Mary, to then state the the mother of Psalms is Israel is an opportunistically convenient argument to make.

Clear apostolic teaching on the matter could clear the air, but instead of this, we have some of the church saying cousin, some saying step-brother. Objectively then, there is no way to choose one from the other, even if we wanted to place our blind faith in the Sacred Church, and believe in 'what has always been taught'.

Sacred Tradition teaches different from Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition therefore does not know.

 

[SolomonVII]

....
Gospel of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is safe to assume that such a document did exist and that it corobborated the perpetual virginity aspect that PoJ did since Origen gave reference to it by name.

The Gospel of Peter (Greek: κατά Πέτρον ευαγγέλιο&#957, or Gospel according to Peter, is one of the non-Canonical gospels which were rejected by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon, as apocryphal.[1] It was the first of the non-canonical gospels to be rediscovered, preserved in the dry sands of Egypt.

There is no doubt that this is belief according to heterodox Christianity. It could well be heterodox belief that arose very early in church history.
Is this to be the documentation of orthodox belief and orthodox dogma though?

 

[Tzaousios]

There is no doubt that this is belief according to heterodox Christianity. It could well be heterodox belief that arose very early in church history.
Is this to be the documentation of orthodox belief and orthodox dogma though?

"Heterodox" based upon whose binding authority?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Sacred Tradition teaches different from Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition therefore does not know.

Which is a good point

However is it true that neither can be wrong or questioned because they are both by Sacred Tradition?

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

This thread has run its course.
We are down to ad homs and circular arguments, so closing it up.

Mod Hat Off​