Something About Mary (2)

[Root of Jesse]

It is not part of RCC Sacred Tradition that the apostle James wrote the PoJ, nor is it part of your tradition that PoJ is Scripture, nor is it part of your tradition that those called the brothers of Jesus were his step-brothers.
If it is then Jerome is not St Jerome, but Jerome the heretic.
Just be clear then, what you are arguing for.

I'm saying that lack of knowledge of who wrote something does not automatically mean that it's not useful for some purpose. I believe that Matthew wrote Matthew, etc. It's Tradition that he did so. But it never says "I, Matthew, wrote this gospel." It also doesn't say who his audience is, though we know.

The point is that this applies to many early writings. We also hold to what those early Fathers tell us is reliable. Thus, while not canonical, the Protoevangelium of James is worthy of study.

It doesn't mean it is not useful for toilet paper either.
What is the use of having a canon then, if doctrine comes willy-nilly ins spite of what the bishops of yore chose?
You are hardly making the case for your bishops, if you are using non-canonical books for your doctrine.

Doctrine comes from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which is mostly from the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them. It may have been written down later than sooner, as the gospels were written after the epistles.
There is no Catholic doctrine that contradicts anything in Scripture.

Sure there has.
Most of Marian dogma, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, and the whole host of dogma that is at the heart of the disputes between the different strata of Christianity are all defined as dogma much, much later than all that.

When something is defined is completely different from when something was first believed. We don't define dogma because it's something we believe. We define dogma when something is questioned. Dogma eliminates confusion.

There are no known apostolic teachings that show that any of the apostles taught the things about Mary that the RCC teaches now. If there were, I am sure that you could have shown them to us long, long ago. You are lying to yourself if you believe otherwise.

I have done so. But here's a few:
Mary, the Mother of God
"After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead." Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).
The Immaculate Conception
"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
Mary Ever Virgin

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232). "Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed." Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

The Assumption of Mary

If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

 

[sculleywr]

It is not part of RCC Sacred Tradition that the apostle James wrote the PoJ, nor is it part of your tradition that PoJ is Scripture, nor is it part of your tradition that those called the brothers of Jesus were his step-brothers.
If it is then Jerome is not St Jerome, but Jerome the heretic.
Just be clear then, what you are arguing for.

It doesn't mean it is not useful for toilet paper either.
What is the use of having a canon then, if doctrine comes willy-nilly ins spite of what the bishops of yore chose?
You are hardly making the case for your bishops, if you are using non-canonical books for your doctrine.

Sure there has.
Most of Marian dogma, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, and the whole host of dogma that is at the heart of the disputes between the different strata of Christianity are all defined as dogma much, much later than all that.
There are no known apostolic teachings that show that any of the apostles taught the things about Mary that the RCC teaches now. If there were, I am sure that you could have shown them to us long, long ago. You are lying to yourself if you believe otherwise.

Actually, since the writings of Justin Martyr are part of the Tradition of both Roman and Eastern churches, the identification of James as the author of the PoJ is part of Tradition.

It is the same with the authorship of the gospels. The writing of Irenaeus is part of Tradition, therefore the authorship of the gospels is part of Tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

And you believe that EVERY LETTER THE APOSTLES WROTE is included in the NT? If you do, you would be quite wrong. Notice later what he said in that same writing:

4.2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
​

So Barbarians had the Tradition without ANY written documents? I thought the Tradition he spoke of was in written documents!!!

It must be something else...Perhaps it was not written documents alone to which he referred!

No one denies that the apostles spoke, spreading the gospel, to Jew and Gentile and Barbarian.

Their tradition is the same as the local church where Irenaeus taught because both originated from apostles. That is Irenaeus' point. Tradtion is only valid that sources to apostles.

See the red? That's the tradition (oral and written) to which Irenaeus says is the same. Zero about all the later nonsense.

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, the continued virginity of Mary, which was established in the PoJ.

Origen sources the myth to the PoJ and gospel of Peter. Not to apostles and scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

SolomonVII: "There are no known apostolic teachings that show that any of the apostles taught the things about Mary that the RCC teaches now. If there were, I am sure that you could have shown them to us long, long ago. You are lying to yourself if you believe otherwise."

-snip-
I have done so. But here's a few:
Mary, the Mother of God
"After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead." Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).
The Immaculate Conception
"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
Mary Ever Virgin

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232). "Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed." Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

The Assumption of Mary

If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

None of those references are apostolic. None are scriptural.

But if you say they are apostolic, it was Epiphanius who concluded re Mary, no one knows what happened to her. So now you have your earliest known "apostolic" teaching; that is, no one knows, certainly not someone 1000 years later.

 

[sculleywr]

Origen sources the myth to the PoJ and gospel of Peter. Not to apostles and scripture.

The PoJ was identified as Apostolic 10-20 years before the Gospels are identified as Apostolic, specifically in the writing of St. Justin the Martyr.

 

[sculleywr]

No one denies that the apostles spoke, spreading the gospel, to Jew and Gentile and Barbarian.

Their tradition is the same as the local church where Irenaeus taught because both originated from apostles. That is Irenaeus' point. Tradtion is only valid that sources to apostles.

See the red? That's the tradition (oral and written) to which Irenaeus says is the same. Zero about all the later nonsense.

And Tradition is not limited to the WRITTEN letters. And earlier references are made to the authorship of the PoJ, which is James according to Justin the Martyr, than to the Gospels. You cannot tell me you will accept one based on the report of one, and reject one because it was reported by one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

SolomonVII: "There are no known apostolic teachings that show that any of the apostles taught the things about Mary that the RCC teaches now. If there were, I am sure that you could have shown them to us long, long ago. You are lying to yourself if you believe otherwise."



None of those references are apostolic. None are scriptural.

But if you say they are apostolic, it was Epiphanius who concluded re Mary, no one knows what happened to her. So now you have your earliest known "apostolic" teaching; that is, no one knows, certainly not someone 1000 years later.

The fact is that these quotes are written as if it's defending a known fact. Just like the first use of the word Catholic by Ignatius of Antioch. He said it, and they knew what he was talking about.
Folkis didn't just write stuff to write it. They wrote to defend against something that questioned the belief.

Ummm...we know nobody knows what happened to Mary, regarding where she might have died, or been buried. Which is very unusual, because we know where most of the Apostles were buried, we think we know where many of the named companions of Jesus, such as Mary Magdalene, went and died and was buried. We know that Mary was entrusted to John, who was bishop of Ephesus, and we know where Mary lived in Ephesus, but there's no grave...probably because she didn't die. There is no contradictory evidence regarding Mary's supposed demise. If you could show us her bones (like we can show you Peter's bones, and Paul's bones, and James' bones), you might have something...

 

[Standing Up]

The PoJ was identified as Apostolic 10-20 years before the Gospels are identified as Apostolic, specifically in the writing of St. Justin the Martyr.

Huh? You can provide more info?

 

[Standing Up]

And Tradition is not limited to the WRITTEN letters. And earlier references are made to the authorship of the PoJ, which is James according to Justin the Martyr, than to the Gospels. You cannot tell me you will accept one based on the report of one, and reject one because it was reported by one.

Keep in mind the PoJ contradicts scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

The fact is that these quotes are written as if it's defending a known fact. Just like the first use of the word Catholic by Ignatius of Antioch. He said it, and they knew what he was talking about.
Folkis didn't just write stuff to write it. They wrote to defend against something that questioned the belief.

Ummm...we know nobody knows what happened to Mary, regarding where she might have died, or been buried. Which is very unusual, because we know where most of the Apostles were buried, we think we know where many of the named companions of Jesus, such as Mary Magdalene, went and died and was buried. We know that Mary was entrusted to John, who was bishop of Ephesus, and we know where Mary lived in Ephesus, but there's no grave...probably because she didn't die. There is no contradictory evidence regarding Mary's supposed demise. If you could show us her bones (like we can show you Peter's bones, and Paul's bones, and James' bones), you might have something...

"Knowing" something in 350ad is not even close to sourcing apostolic lineage.

The idea of apostolic means it ties to apostles. You know, like scripture. So when Peter Priest writes in 350ad that Mary had green skin, it may be that they believed that, but did the apostles?

Do you at least understand the issue here? Not that you agree, but do you at least "get it"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

"Knowing" something in 350ad is not even close to sourcing apostolic lineage.

The idea of apostolic means it ties to apostles. You know, like scripture. So when Peter Priest writes in 350ad that Mary had green skin, it may be that they believed that, but did the apostles?

Do you at least understand the issue here? Not that you agree, but do you at least "get it"?

I didn't quote Peter Priest. I didn't quote any priest. I quoted reputable sources.

You probably believe that Ignatius was the first one to use the word Catholic in reference to the Catholic Church, too, but we can infer, since he wrote it, that people reading it knew what it referred to.

I know what you're saying, and I see your point, if the author of what I quoted was someone out of the blue, as if Dan Brown had a real reputable source in the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (I forget their names, but they're forgettable).

I only quoted a couple of sources so we wouldn't get so bogged down in the muck and mire, but there are countless sources. Also, the fact that Bernadette Soubrious quoted the vision saying "I am the Immaculate Conception", when the title had just been promulgated, and not widely distributed, and when she was illiterate and had no way of knowing what the vision told her; says something about the truth of that doctrine. We also have typology that shows why Mary could be and is all those things.

As you say, do you get it? Even if you don't agree? Why would God want to subject himself to a sinful womb for 9 months? We believe he made for himself a perfect creature, and honored her for living up to what he expected, when Eve did not.

 

[SolomonVII]

Actually, since the writings of Justin Martyr are part of the Tradition of both Roman and Eastern churches, the identification of James as the author of the PoJ is part of Tradition.

It is the same with the authorship of the gospels. The writing of Irenaeus is part of Tradition, therefore the authorship of the gospels is part of Tradition.

No less than Jerome rejected the step-brother muth for the virgin Joseph theology.

 

[SolomonVII]

I'm saying that lack of knowledge of who wrote something does not automatically mean that it's not useful for some purpose. I believe that Matthew wrote Matthew, etc. It's Tradition that he did so. But it never says "I, Matthew, wrote this gospel." It also doesn't say who his audience is, though we know.

There is enough knowledge of Jewish practice in the apostolic writings of the New Testament so that the claim to be apostolic is at least historically possible, and culturally valid.
PoJ is later than the apostolic age, dating to 145. The cultural milieu of the tale is not Jewish, as any relative certainly would be.
So we would have an older brother of Jesus born before 1 AD therefore and alive 145 years later in order to write the book. It is not quite of the epic proportions of Methuseleh, but there is reason enough to roll the eyes at the magical claims of apostolic authorship in this case.

The point is that this applies to many early writings. We also hold to what those early Fathers tell us is reliable. Thus, while not canonical, the Protoevangelium of James is worthy of study.

It is worthy of study as a historic piece of the ideas being put out in the early centuries of Christianity. IN terms of doctrine and dogma and actual Christian faith, if what we hold of the early fathers is reliable, then we really ought to go with their decision that this book was not worthy of canon, and therefore not worthy of doctrine, dogma, or Christian belief.

Doctrine comes from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which is mostly from the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them. It may have been written down later than sooner, as the gospels were written after the epistles.

Step-brother doctrine may well be of the EO Sacred Tradition. It is not of the RCC Sacred Tradition..
As far as EV goes, PoJ makes no comment on that.

There is no Catholic doctrine that contradicts anything in Scripture.
When something is defined is completely different from when something was first believed. We don't define dogma because it's something we believe. We define dogma when something is questioned. Dogma eliminates confusion.

Actually it creates confusion, and creates disbelief when it arbitrarily goes beyond known apostolic teachings, that can validly be tied back to something that the apostles actually taught.

I have done so. But here's a few:
Mary, the Mother of God
"After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead." Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).
The Immaculate Conception
"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
Mary Ever Virgin

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232). "Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed." Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

The Assumption of Mary

If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

Ad 324, the apostles were all asleep in Christ by that time.

 

[sculleywr]

No less than Jerome rejected the step-brother muth for the virgin Joseph theology.

Problem is, one is closer than the other, and one is more accepted OVER ALL in the early Church, which is the PoJ. Look at Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and many others. Justin the Martyr isn't alone, and when you have your canon of the New Testament from a man who considered Mary's ever-virginity a sacred truth, you might want to reconsider something.

 

[SolomonVII]

Problem is, one is closer than the other, and one is more accepted OVER ALL in the early Church, which is the PoJ. Look at Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and many others. Justin the Martyr isn't alone, and when you have your canon of the New Testament from a man who considered Mary's ever-virginity a sacred truth, you might want to reconsider something.

When it comes to EV, ALL of the early Church begins with the Gnostic and the apocryphal

Not with the apostles, for which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that they even taught such a thing.

 

[sculleywr]

When it comes to EV, ALL of the early Church begins with the Gnostic and the apocryphal

Not with the apostles, for which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that they even taught such a thing.

Then there is no proof that the Apostles wrote the gospels. Your measurement of the Apostolic source of the PoJ ought to be equal to your measurement for confirmation of the Apostolic source of the Gospels. There is no proof of the authorship of the gospels that is earlier than the proof of the authorship of the PoJ. Ergo, if you refuse the Apostolic authority of the PoJ, you must, logically, reject the gospels as well, since they do not meet up to your standards.

PoJ confirmed authorship date: 140-150
Gospels confirmed authorship date: 160-170

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Using the standards of SolomonVII, I declare the gospels to be unapostolic, since there is no confirmation of their authorship prior to 140 AD

 

[SolomonVII]

Then there is no proof that the Apostles wrote the gospels. Your measurement of the Apostolic source of the PoJ ought to be equal to your measurement for confirmation of the Apostolic source of the Gospels. There is no proof of the authorship of the gospels that is earlier than the proof of the authorship of the PoJ. Ergo, if you refuse the Apostolic authority of the PoJ, you must, logically, reject the gospels as well, since they do not meet up to your standards.

PoJ confirmed authorship date: 140-150
Gospels confirmed authorship date: 160-170

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Using the standards of SolomonVII, I declare the gospels to be unapostolic, since there is no confirmation of their authorship prior to 140 AD

That is misrepresentation of what I am saying, and misrepresentation of the dating of the Gospels.

The dating of the Gospels and Paul's writings do meet the standard of being written during the time of the apostolic age. Scholars from both within and outside of Christianity would agree, with the dating of John being the latest, but still being in the range of being written in the lifetime of a very aged John.

The first to mention PoJ was Origen, and for him it was dubious.


But it was popular, especially in the East. That cuts the mustard with you, but it does not cut the mustard with me.

 

[sculleywr]

That is misrepresentation of what I am saying, and misrepresentation of the dating of the Gospels.

The dating of the Gospels and Paul's writings do meet the standard of being written during the time of the apostolic age. Scholars from both within and outside of Christianity would agree, with the dating of John being the latest, but still being in the range of being written in the lifetime of a very aged John.

The first to mention PoJ was Origen, and for him it was dubious.


But it was popular, especially in the East. That cuts the mustard with you, but it does not cut the mustard with me.

Wrong, the first to mention the PoJ is Justin Martyr. He calls it the Book of James, but the Scriptural letter of James mentions nothing of a cave birth. The only book which mentions a cave birth with the name of James attached to it is the PoJ. Thus, when Justin Martyr says that the Book of James talked about a cave birth, and there is only one written work of James we know of that does, we must assume he spoke of that. Justin Martyr references the PoJ in his letters to Tryphon and in his apologies, one for the cave birth, and the other for the virginity of Mary.

Again, the standards the PoJ needs to meet should be the same. Since they meet the dating standard YOU have set forth, you need another standard.

 

[SolomonVII]

If you think that the dating standards I set out are the same, you simply have not been listening, or are unable to comprehend what I am saying.
The source I had said that it was Origen. If Justin Martyr referred to it in 150, I accept that. It confirms the dating, and confirms that the dubious PoJ is the source as well for much of the EO mythology.
Myself, I prefer Scripture, which was agreed upon and canonized by a wide consensus of Christian opinion at a very early date.
Otherwise, it is JM says this, and O says that, and everything remains up in the air.