Something About Mary (2)

[sculleywr]

John, we believe, wrote the gospel of John and 1,2,3 John. So you ask for the gospels telling us that Christ was born normally, the author does.

In addition, when Mt. says "begat", everyone knows what that means. A normal human birth.

What we have with PoJ is no afterbirth. We know this because the midwife tells us and then Tertullian explains it and Clement of Alexandria says the same and then the Trullo council asserts the same idea.

Again, at that time, that was the contrast between scripture (came in the flesh, God with us) and docetic type teachers (PoJ, Marcion, Valentinus, etc).

Given this contrast, it makes sense that it was written early. No problem. But not by apostles and not by apostolic to bishop lineage teaching.

At the time, authorship had not been attributed to the gospels. So when I ask for the gospels, I ask for the gospels. Author or not, we are not comparing the epistles, who state their authorship. We are comparing the gospels, which do not. Even then, it is even debated WHICH John wrote the gospel of John.

Secondly, "begat" applies, technically, to C-section births, which do not have afterbirth. It also applies, in Scripture, to people who die in childbirth. If a person dies in childbirth, they do not pass the afterbirth, either. So the argument is invalid.

The midwife says, "Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of." I don't see afterbirth even mentioned there, much less her telling us there was no afterbirth. Trying to guess that it says there is no afterbirth, when the plain sense is that the nature referred to, according to CONTEXT, is the fact that a virgin, by nature, does not conceive; that's what you're doing.

Throughout the PoJ, the question is posed again and again. "Is she truly a virgin?" Given that the next action is the checking for virginal parts, the nature referred to is more likely her virgin nature, and not the nature of Christ. This is especially accurate when the pronoun is feminine, and not masculine. Christ was already born, so speaking of His nature would necessitate proper pronoun usage.

As every description of Christ in the PoJ is given by way of physical description, you're hanging by a thread here. Athanasius, who wrote the defining volume on the nature of Christ (On the Incarnation of the Word), believed in the ever-virginity.

 

[Thekla]

John, we believe, wrote the gospel of John and 1,2,3 John. So you ask for the gospels telling us that Christ was born normally, the author does.

The understanding of 1 John 5:6 is, for you, different than for most.

If you accept that the same John authored both the Gospel and the epistles in the NT, there are a few matters which ought to be considered:

1 John 5:6, the verb 'came' is in a tense which falls under the tense of the main verb in the sentence - "is". In this verse, "is" is present tense, ie now. (Please correct my grammar here if sources on Koine claim otherwise.)

Thus, the reference to "water and blood" is 'now'. Reading in the light of the Gospel of John, we are referred back to the event of the crucifixion and John's witness that "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and immediately came there out blood and water." (John 19: 34).

Due to this, the verse has (throughout history, as Protestant commentaries will demonstrate) been understood as referencing the crucifixion, and thus to baptism and the Eucharist (by which we are joined to Him).

 

[Standing Up]

The understanding of 1 John 5:6 is, for you, different than for most.

If you accept that the same John authored both the Gospel and the epistles in the NT, there are a few matters which ought to be considered:

1 John 5:6, the verb 'came' is in a tense which falls under the tense of the main verb in the sentence - "is". In this verse, "is" is present tense, ie now. (Please correct my grammar here if sources on Koine claim otherwise.)

Thus, the reference to "water and blood" is 'now'. Reading in the light of the Gospel of John, we are referred back to the event of the crucifixion and John's witness that "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and immediately came there out blood and water." (John 19: 34).

Due to this, the verse has (throughout history, as Protestant commentaries will demonstrate) been understood as referencing the crucifixion, and thus to baptism and the Eucharist (by which we are joined to Him).

Or historical present, referring to a past event (birth), which is to what the verb erchomai had referred earlier (came in the flesh, came by water and blood).

The trouble with reading it as a reference to baptism is it's Arian thought. IOW, Jesus was born, then Christ descended upon him at baptism.

So no, I'll stick with scripture teaching that Christ came in the flesh and came by water and blood as referencing a normal human birth.

 

[sculleywr]

Or historical present, referring to a past event (birth), which is to what the verb erchomai had referred earlier (came in the flesh, came by water and blood).

The trouble with reading it as a reference to baptism is it's Arian thought. IOW, Jesus was born, then Christ descended upon him at baptism.

So no, I'll stick with scripture teaching that Christ came in the flesh and came by water and blood as referencing a normal human birth.

Actually thats not Arian. That's more the issue of the second Council.

And nobody really sees it as referring to the birth. There are only two times "water and blood" are used by John. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume they are the same concepts

 

[Standing Up]

At the time, authorship had not been attributed to the gospels. So when I ask for the gospels, I ask for the gospels. Author or not, we are not comparing the epistles, who state their authorship. We are comparing the gospels, which do not. Even then, it is even debated WHICH John wrote the gospel of John.

Secondly, "begat" applies, technically, to C-section births, which do not have afterbirth. It also applies, in Scripture, to people who die in childbirth. If a person dies in childbirth, they do not pass the afterbirth, either. So the argument is invalid.

Eh? They don't leave the placenta and cord in there.

The midwife says, "Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of." I don't see afterbirth even mentioned there, much less her telling us there was no afterbirth. Trying to guess that it says there is no afterbirth, when the plain sense is that the nature referred to, according to CONTEXT, is the fact that a virgin, by nature, does not conceive; that's what you're doing.

Throughout the PoJ, the question is posed again and again. "Is she truly a virgin?" Given that the next action is the checking for virginal parts, the nature referred to is more likely her virgin nature, and not the nature of Christ. This is especially accurate when the pronoun is feminine, and not masculine. Christ was already born, so speaking of His nature would necessitate proper pronoun usage.

As every description of Christ in the PoJ is given by way of physical description, you're hanging by a thread here. Athanasius, who wrote the defining volume on the nature of Christ (On the Incarnation of the Word), believed in the ever-virginity.

Again, why does the midwife think she remained a virgin? There is a young child, an infant if you will, but why does the midwife think Mary a virgin? Because she looked? Why would she look? Why? What causes her to be amazed in the PoJ?

 

[Standing Up]

Actually thats not Arian. That's more the issue of the second Council.

And nobody really sees it as referring to the birth. There are only two times "water and blood" are used by John. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume they are the same concepts

Water and blood at BIRTH and at DEATH. Why? To PROVE God with us, Emmanuel.

Jesus didn't become Christ at baptism, like some seem to imply. Water and blood is proof of His humanity. If it so happens that it also proves a normal, virgin-ending birth, then so be it. We preach Christ.

 

[sculleywr]

Eh? They don't leave the placenta and cord in there.

Exactly. Since the afterbirth is the passage of the placenta and remainder through the vaginal tract, a mother who births in c-section will have no afterbirth.

Again, why does the midwife think she remained a virgin? There is a young child, an infant if you will, but why does the midwife think Mary a virgin? Because she looked? Why would she look? Why? What causes her to be amazed in the PoJ?

Why would a midwife look at the vaginal tract, where a child would come from, in the process of doing the job of aiding the mother in birth? Please, oh please tell me you have had a 6th grade level health class in your past. Why would a midwife be looking at the passage a baby is born from when she is aiding in the birth of that baby?

Possibly to DO HER JOB?

 

[sculleywr]

Water and blood at BIRTH and at DEATH. Why? To PROVE God with us, Emmanuel.

Jesus didn't become Christ at baptism, like some seem to imply. Water and blood is proof of His humanity. If it so happens that it also proves a normal, virgin-ending birth, then so be it. We preach Christ.

Either way, the question at issue is we have 5 nativity narratives. None of them include the afterbirth.

 

[Thekla]

Or historical present, referring to a past event (birth), which is to what the verb erchomai had referred earlier (came in the flesh, came by water and blood).

The trouble with reading it as a reference to baptism is it's Arian thought. IOW, Jesus was born, then Christ descended upon him at baptism.

So no, I'll stick with scripture teaching that Christ came in the flesh and came by water and blood as referencing a normal human birth.

Actually, not Arian; just Scriptural.

It is consistent with the OT prophecy that God would walk among us, and the fact that Christ's public ministry began at His baptism (water).

This reading does not deny that Christ is human, nor does it require a view of adoptionism in 'reading'.

 

[Standing Up]

Exactly. Since the afterbirth is the passage of the placenta and remainder through the vaginal tract, a mother who births in c-section will have no afterbirth.



Why would a midwife look at the vaginal tract, where a child would come from, in the process of doing the job of aiding the mother in birth? Please, oh please tell me you have had a 6th grade level health class in your past. Why would a midwife be looking at the passage a baby is born from when she is aiding in the birth of that baby?

Possibly to DO HER JOB?

You keep assuming she does this, though it's not mentioned. In fact the opposite is implied. The light blinds her. The young child appears. She declares Mary still a virgin. Why? What's missing? Let's say there's a virgin in the hospital room. The lights go out. A baby appears. The lights come on. Would you think her still a virgin? If so, why? What's missing?

Yet you don't read "water and blood" explicitly as a confirmation of a normal human birth.

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, not Arian; just Scriptural.

It is consistent with the OT prophecy that God would walk among us, and the fact that Christ's public ministry began at His baptism (water).

This reading does not deny that Christ is human, nor does it require a view of adoptionism in 'reading'.

Of course it is. That's adoptionism at its core. Jesus became Christ at his baptism.

No, I'll stick with scripture and tradition about Emmanuel (God with us), at His very normal human birth.

Water and blood at birth. Water and blood at death. Simple.

 

[SolomonVII]

There is a clear difference in those who believe that Jesus was born by water and blood, a delivery which included placenta and normal birth, and those who hold as religious dogma that water, and blood and normal delivery were not present.

There is no historical reason for the belief in a birth without water and blood and all that is involved in a normal birth. None of the known sources of this belief are based in history.

There is no scriptural reason for such a belief. Indeed, like in children of Mary, Scripture must be interpreted in unique ways in order that water and blood are not involved.

People would be hard pressed to tell us the theological reasons why no water and blood and normal delivery are the teaching of their church. Like all dogma derived from neither historical nor scriptural sources, the traditions differ on this too.

There are certainly theological reasons why many of the early scholars of the church insisted on the normalcy of Mary's sexuality as a real woman in every aspect, with real life experiences like any other woman in every respect. There are certainly theological reasons why many of them argued against Mary being left in the puerperal state, that the placenta and all certainly were delivered, unlike what the PoJ suggest. The history of early Christianity is certainly filled with theologians and people who would go to any lengths to deny either the divinity of Christ, or the humanity of a divine Christ, and tampering with the message of Scripture and making the birth of Jesus all about divine light, bloodless, painless, immaculately clean and without the mess of a normal birth made their views theological possible.

Certainly in the past, orthodoxy was not immune to allowing a-historical a-scriptural non-apostolic ideas into their liturgy and doctrines. There was a craving by people to fill in the gaps of scripture with faces and names, and a lot about the nonapsotolic stories were fantastic and fun too.

In a less critical, less sceptical age than our own, what could be the harm, after all?

Today however we live in a very different age. People want to know, 'but did it really happen'.

There is a historical argument to be made for the empty tomb, and indeed even an atheist is one of the people that is a proponent of this. When it comes to the birth of Jesus by Mary however, with no blood, no water, no delivery of the placenta, "no Virginia, it did not really happen that way. That is just a fun story that has been passed along from a simpler time."
Or, it is as true as Santa Claus is, if you prefer the yes answer.

 

[SolomonVII]

Regarding the highlighted, you've got to be joking. The Catholic and Orthodox churches look more to the apostolic teachings than any other Churches. Our liturgies are ancient. Our doctrines are all ancient.

Your argument always seems to be that 'my church is right because it is my church, and therefore my church is right'.

It is arguments like that that have made ex-Catholics the largest denomination in the United States.

 

[Thekla]

Of course it is. That's adoptionism at its core. Jesus became Christ at his baptism.

No, I'll stick with scripture and tradition about Emmanuel (God with us), at His very normal human birth.

Water and blood at birth. Water and blood at death. Simple.

Recognizing the beginning of Christ's public ministry starting at His baptism is not "adoptionism" (which claims that the ordinary man Jesus became 'inhabited' at the baptism becoming then the Christ).

The recognition of the public ministry of Christ at His baptism, the public revelation that Jesus was indeed the Christ ( the Son of God incarnate) is what Scripture demonstrates and describes.

Return to the Scriptures, to the Gospels, and read there of His baptism; you will see just what I am saying.

 

[Thekla]

There is a clear difference in those who believe that Jesus was born by water and blood, a delivery which included placenta and normal birth, and those who hold as religious dogma that water, and blood and normal delivery were not present.

There is no historical reason for the belief in a birth without water and blood and all that is involved in a normal birth. None of the known sources of this belief are based in history.

There is no scriptural reason for such a belief. Indeed, like in children of Mary, Scripture must be interpreted in unique ways in order that water and blood are not involved.

People would be hard pressed to tell us the theological reasons why no water and blood and normal delivery are the teaching of their church. Like all dogma derived from neither historical nor scriptural sources, the traditions differ on this too.

There are certainly theological reasons why many of the early scholars of the church insisted on the normalcy of Mary's sexuality as a real woman in every aspect, with real life experiences like any other woman in every respect. There are certainly theological reasons why many of them argued against Mary being left in the puerperal state, that the placenta and all certainly were delivered, unlike what the PoJ suggest. The history of early Christianity is certainly filled with theologians and people who would go to any lengths to deny either the divinity of Christ, or the humanity of a divine Christ, and tampering with the message of Scripture and making the birth of Jesus all about divine light, bloodless, painless, immaculately clean and without the mess of a normal birth made their views theological possible.

Certainly in the past, orthodoxy was not immune to allowing a-historical a-scriptural non-apostolic ideas into their liturgy and doctrines. There was a craving by people to fill in the gaps of scripture with faces and names, and a lot about the nonapsotolic stories were fantastic and fun too.

In a less critical, less sceptical age than our own, what could be the harm, after all?

Today however we live in a very different age. People want to know, 'but did it really happen'.

There is a historical argument to be made for the empty tomb, and indeed even an atheist is one of the people that is a proponent of this. When it comes to the birth of Jesus by Mary however, with no blood, no water, no delivery of the placenta, "no Virginia, it did not really happen that way. That is just a fun story that has been passed along from a simpler time."
Or, it is as true as Santa Claus is, if you prefer the yes answer.

Actually, Solomon, the Scriptures give no details on the birth of Christ (nor does the Protoevangelion).

Neither the Gospels nor the "Proto" mention water and/or blood at His birth. Meaning the discussion here re: the birth is entirely speculative (ie does not rely on what is stated in the texts, but a theory beyond what the texts do say on the matter).

That He was born fully human fully divine has never been at issue.

I think it would result in more fruitful discussion (and understanding between those in discussion) to recall this (ie texts vs. speculation re: texts).

Ie, to be accurate (as in reading here, I see a number of misconceptions/ erroneous claims re: what is believed/understood).

Re: the matter of Mary, I hope you can understand how others see this (as again, Scripture does not state Mary had more children, etc., and to conclude this Scripture must be read against itself instead of in harmony with itself), which includes the understanding that each person is a unique person with a unique purpose toward God and created by Him for this purpose.

Ie, Mary is Mary, and no other person.

 

[sculleywr]

You keep assuming she does this, though it's not mentioned. In fact the opposite is implied. The light blinds her. The young child appears. She declares Mary still a virgin. Why? What's missing? Let's say there's a virgin in the hospital room. The lights go out. A baby appears. The lights come on. Would you think her still a virgin? If so, why? What's missing?

Yet you don't read "water and blood" explicitly as a confirmation of a normal human birth.

Why you no pay attention??

There are no details about the birth itself in any of the narratives. Why would you need details from one when the other is not given. Why not assume that she did her job the same way that every midwife would on a normal birth instead of assuming something that you seem to want to add to it.

When the guy who writes the definitive article on the divinity and humanity of Christ accepts the doctrine asserted in the PoJ, perhaps it isn't asserting what you are saying.

 

[Thekla]

Why you no pay attention??

There are no details about the birth itself in any of the narratives. Why would you need details from one when the other is not given. Why not assume that she did her job the same way that every midwife would on a normal birth instead of assuming something that you seem to want to add to it.

When the guy who writes the definitive article on the divinity and humanity of Christ accepts the doctrine asserted in the PoJ, perhaps it isn't asserting what you are saying.

I thought to mention that technically, midwives "attend the birth", help out.
They do not necessarily deliver the baby (never have, in fact - they only do so when necessary/requested ... see anthropological and historical record on this).

 

[Standing Up]

Re Post 177:

It is just ironic that you mock me for referencing scholars, when you reference the same for your own conclusions.


One scholar notes that it is likely that Justin read PoJ. Fair enough. That is hardly a good reason for you to call me flat out wrong for noting that the first mention of PoJ does not go to Justin in 150 but to Origen 50 years later.
Cave birth has already been discussed. The text does not make not of PoJ. It overtly makes mention of Isaiah. It is conjecture to state that this is from the PoJ then.

It is your measured opinion that this is based in PoJ, just as it is Standing Up's measured opinion that Marcion is a likely candidate for having written the PoJ.

It is possible to make the case against prevailing scholarly opinion (including the one that you now refer to in your defense of PoJ influence on Justin per cave birth) that PoJ was written earlier by the Apostle James somewhere before 63 AD.

But nobody has done that yet. Given what every serious student has had to say on the matter, there is every reason to believe that that is a ludicrous stand, and no reason to believe that it is not.

Either Marcion or his disciple Apelles.

It was Tertullian who refuted their views. But the church later declared Tertullian a heretic, thus perhaps, allowing PoJ to pose as apostolic.

 

[Standing Up]

Why you no pay attention??

There are no details about the birth itself in any of the narratives. Why would you need details from one when the other is not given. Why not assume that she did her job the same way that every midwife would on a normal birth instead of assuming something that you seem to want to add to it.

When the guy who writes the definitive article on the divinity and humanity of Christ accepts the doctrine asserted in the PoJ, perhaps it isn't asserting what you are saying.

The answer to why she thought Mary still a virgin was there was no mess, no cord, no blood, no water, no placenta. There was light and then a young child.

But again, we're now repeating ourselves. Think the conversation has run its course.

 

[sculleywr]

The answer to why she thought Mary still a virgin was there was no mess, no cord, no blood, no water, no placenta. There was light and then a young child.

But again, we're now repeating ourselves. Think the conversation has run its course.

And where do you get that idea? Where does the PoJ state there was no mess, no blood. your only evidence is a lack of mention.

Where do the GOSPELS teach there was blood? Your Evidence against the PoJ condemns them as non-scripture.

The midwife would not be a midwife if she did not do her job of observing and aiding the birth.

There are less assumptions. Occam's Razor: the theory with the least assumptions is the most likely to be accurate.

Your assumptions:
1. The midwife did not do her job at all
2. The PoJ means there was no afterbirth when it leaves it out.
3. The nature referred to is something which is not mentioned in the context of the text.

My assumption:
1. The midwife did her job in the same manner any midwife would do her job.

My assumption is far from extraordinary. Normally a midwife would check the vagina, so to assume it is not assuming anything that is strange.

You're assuming something that makes neither historical, nor logical sense. So why should we follow three incredible assumptions? Why not follow the down-to-earth assumption?