Something About Mary (2)

[SolomonVII]

Wrong Ignatius, I think. I was talking about Ignatius of Antioch.

So now, we can see that criticism of our devotion to Mary is little more than a dispute over how much honor we give her. Most Protestants are content to sing Silent Night at Christmas, and then put her in the attic with the Santa Claus, and be done with her. We honor her motherhood of our Lord.

No.
The criticism is about dogma and doctrine being defined by false gospels without any recognized connection to apostolic teaching.

More than that, it is about the pretence that goes into maintaining that these are apostolic teachings, when they simply are not.

It is about that total lack of shame involved in maintaining that PoJ is an apostolic work, even after it is understood by everybody that it is not.

Clearly anyone who can believe in PoJ as historic as the rest of the gospel now can only do so if they already believe that the rest of the gospel is also myth.
If is all about the pretty words and feminine mystique of a wondrous heavenly creature, then historic content is unimportant anyway, for it is enough that Mary appears to us as the Female Divine as a figure of spiritual imagination. The something about Mary therefore is archetypal, psychological, psycho sexual even in the world without women that is the papacy, where much of the latest Mariology became increasingly defined in the the last two hundred years.

The inquiring minds of the next generation, as they hit the teen years always ask, ' but is it true?'

It is a difficult question at the best of times, two thousand years later, with our different standards of what is historical evidence.

On the best evidence, the answer would be yes. Mary was real enough, and in all respects an ordinary and humble woman was instrumental in raising a son in the faith so that he stepped uncorrupted into his role as the only begotten son of God. That is an extraordinary, miraculous accomplishment in and of itself. It does not speak of divine ovaries, or magical hymen, but of character and goodness that a son gets raised uncorrupted, in order that he may fulfill his destiny, such as no destiny had ever been written. To love completely without smothering, to give the support needed to a growing child without making him dependent on you as a crutch, to impart the values to the man where he loves and is intimate with the women in his life, without unhealthy attachments to them, speaks not only of the character of the man, but of the character of the parent to impart the values and the self-control necessary to become such a man.
This is the miracle that is Mary.

On the basis of a a book being written by a man after the normal span of years given to a man had run out, if that is the best evidence that there is to give to a sceptical generation, most of us here in an honest world would admit that that is hardly very good evidence at all to base a faith on.

Very early on, the body of Christians as a whole decided against PoJ as being worthy to be deemed to be inspired by the Spirit. I concur with those bishops in that decision.

 

[sculleywr]

Your quotes were from folks in the 350 and later range IIRC.

Ignatian works are hopelessly interpolated.

I get your point.

There are 7 of his works that are only as interpolated as Scriptures, if you want to get right down to it.

 

[sculleywr]

Scullewyr believes James step brother wrote the PoJ.

The PoJ's author most likely was Marcion, Valentinus, or one of them who fourished in Rome c150ad. They believed a virgin gave birth and remained a virgin. Polycarp corrected Rome, but they disagreed on the issues (see Irenaeus). Scripture says, Christ came by water and blood (a normal birth).

PS. It's a dead giveaway that a teaching is false, when it has to borrow a reputable name to be "sold". Think of all the forgeries passed on as true.

Yeah, except that Justin Martyr, well-known enemy of those people, accepted it as fact that James wrote it.

And saying that she remained a virgin did not mean His birth was not a physical birth. That's saying that she did not have sex after the birth. The PoJ, like the gospels, does not name its author. The attribution of the authorship to the PoJ is earlier than the attribution of authorship to the Gospels.

Secondly, I don't see Scripture saying Christ came from water and blood. Perhaps you would like to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[sculleywr]

Third time. Let's see your quote from Martyr to back up your belief.

The Letters to Tryphon, as well as the Ninth Apology. Both of them refer to the Cave Birth, as well as the EV of Mary. Up to the time of Justin Martyr, the only book within that time mentioning a cave in the nativity is the PoJ. In the Ninth Apology, he actually identifies the source as the book of James.

 

[Standing Up]

Yeah, except that Justin Martyr, well-known enemy of those people, accepted it as fact that James wrote it.

And saying that she remained a virgin did not mean His birth was not a physical birth. That's saying that she did not have sex after the birth. The PoJ, like the gospels, does not name its author. The attribution of the authorship to the PoJ is earlier than the attribution of authorship to the Gospels.

Secondly, I don't see Scripture saying Christ came from water and blood. Perhaps you would like to put your money where your mouth is?

1 John 5:6 with 1 John 4:1 and 2 John 1:7.

Your turn. Please quote your Justin Martyr quoting or even referencing the Proto of James. This is request #4.

 

[sculleywr]

1 John 5:6 with 1 John 4:1 and 2 John 1:7.

Your turn. Please quote your Justin Martyr quoting or even referencing the Proto of James. This is request #4.

If you aren't going to read when I have now mentioned the exact writings THREE TIMES, then I'm not going to hold your hand and point you in the right direction.

As to the references, thanks. It still doesn't mean we teach it wasn't a natural birth.

 

[Standing Up]

The Letters to Tryphon, as well as the Ninth Apology. Both of them refer to the Cave Birth, as well as the EV of Mary. Up to the time of Justin Martyr, the only book within that time mentioning a cave in the nativity is the PoJ. In the Ninth Apology, he actually identifies the source as the book of James.

Maybe you have this in mind?

" But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you,” I continued, “what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage.” Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "

It doesn't appear that Martyr is referencing PoJ, but Isaiah, as regards the cave.

LXX: But I must repeat to you the words of Isaiah referred to, in order that from them you may know that these things are so. They are these: ‘Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might. The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water [shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counsellors? ... "

So no, Martyr isn't referencing PoJ that most people agree didn't even exist in his time.

 

[sculleywr]

Maybe you have this in mind?

" But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you,” I continued, “what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage.” Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "

It doesn't appear that Martyr is referencing PoJ, but Isaiah, as regards the cave.

LXX: But I must repeat to you the words of Isaiah referred to, in order that from them you may know that these things are so. They are these: ‘Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might. The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water [shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counsellors? ... "

So no, Martyr isn't referencing PoJ that most people agree didn't even exist in his time.

(The Son of God) became man through the Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings.... And through her was he born…. (Dialogue with Trypho)

Notice that he did not say Mary. Throughout history she is not only called the Mother of God, but the VIRGIN mother of God. She is only ever called the virgin. If she had children after, it would be wrong to call her Virgin.

He is not alone in this reference to the description of ever virgin:

"In the same way Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race..." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:22 c. 180 AD)

Our identifier of the gospel writers also says she was a virgin, even with husband.

All of this paralleling the PoJ. Now, I'm on a different computer than the one I used last time I actually discussed the identification, however, the only work claiming to be apostolic that mentions a cave birth IS the PoJ. Which leaves the question, how do you know it was really a cave birth if you don't accept it?

 

[Standing Up]

(The Son of God) became man through the Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings.... And through her was he born…. (Dialogue with Trypho)

Notice that he did not say Mary. Throughout history she is not only called the Mother of God, but the VIRGIN mother of God. She is only ever called the virgin. If she had children after, it would be wrong to call her Virgin.

He is not alone in this reference to the description of ever virgin:

"In the same way Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race..." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:22 c. 180 AD)

Our identifier of the gospel writers also says she was a virgin, even with husband.

Irenaeus also says:

But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,”37483748 Gen. ii. 25. inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age,"

You don't think Eve was still a virgin do you? Same with Mary.

All of this paralleling the PoJ. Now, I'm on a different computer than the one I used last time I actually discussed the identification, however, the only work claiming to be apostolic that mentions a cave birth IS the PoJ. Which leaves the question, how do you know it was really a cave birth if you don't accept it?

Umm, you don't think Isaiah is scripture? Justin is referencing Isaiah, not PoJ. Justin tells us he is referencing Isaiah. He mentions nothing about PoJ.

The only non-scripture that Justin mentions that mentions cave birth is Mithraism.

So, take you pick at that time, either Isaiah or Mithras. Nothing about PoJ from Martyr.

So, as mentioned, most scholars view the PoJ as a forgery by someone (maybe Marcion) claiming to be an apostle in order to spread their non-apostolic beliefs. It's first mentioned by Origen c250ad.

 

[SolomonVII]

I seem to have a hard time understanding how you think that they were identified as Scripture at that time, since nobody until 160 called them that, and until 160, there were no names attached to them.

People who study these things all agree that the Scriptures were written before 110.
It is only you that says otherwise.

You have judged that the PoJ was written in 150 because its author's identification is in 150.

You are just making things up now.
People who have studied these things have come to the consensus of a date of 145 as to when the PoJ was WRITTEN.
It is only you that says otherwise.

Using that same logic, I could say that the gospels weren't written until 160, since their authors weren't identified until 160.

See the point? Your logic would necessarily destroy the credibility of the gospels in order to destroy the credibility of the PoJ.

I see that you are your own expert when it comes to dating things.

Therein lies your problem: your standard for the PoJ is not the same as your standard for the gospels. It is, indeed, higher. The standard for Scripture must be higher than non-scriptural books. Therefore, we must raise the standard to which the gospels must meet, or we must lower the standards which other books must meet.

My standard is to recognize my own limits when it comes to dating of Biblical materials, and to limit my conclusions to the facts at hand.

 

[sculleywr]

People who study these things all agree that the Scriptures were written before 110.
It is only you that says otherwise.

I didn't ask you what the "scholars" say. So far, "scholars" do not all agree on that, or anything for that matter. I'm asking for you to actually show WHY they agree on it.

Of course, if that is why YOU agree on it, then we know that those "scholars" are apparently more authoritative than the ones who wrote them.

You are just making things up now.
People who have studied these things have come to the consensus of a date of 145 as to when the PoJ was WRITTEN.
It is only you that says otherwise.

I will still hold you to show me who, considering that there are people who have studied it and come to the other conclusion.

I see that you are your own expert when it comes to dating things.

Apparently, "people" make everything better.

My standard is to recognize my own limits when it comes to dating of Biblical materials, and to limit my conclusions to the facts at hand.

1. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus reference the PoJ as though it were true.
2. The unique historical happenings of the PoJ are confirmed by the largest consensus of the Church Fathers, including Athanasius and John Chrysostom.
3. These historical happenings include the Virginity of Mary.

 

[sculleywr]

Irenaeus also says:

But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,”37483748 Gen. ii. 25. inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age,"

You don't think Eve was still a virgin do you? Same with Mary.

Justin also compared the two. However, Justin never said that Mary procreated. And neither, actually, does Scripture.

Umm, you don't think Isaiah is scripture? Justin is referencing Isaiah, not PoJ. Justin tells us he is referencing Isaiah. He mentions nothing about PoJ.

The only non-scripture that Justin mentions that mentions cave birth is Mithraism.

So, take you pick at that time, either Isaiah or Mithras. Nothing about PoJ from Martyr.

So, as mentioned, most scholars view the PoJ as a forgery by someone (maybe Marcion) claiming to be an apostle in order to spread their non-apostolic beliefs. It's first mentioned by Origen c250ad.

1. If I hear the phrase "most scholars" again, I'm going to run screaming around the campus with a toothbrush as a magic wand, trying to levitate things and people.

2. I said APOSTOLIC WORK. Since when was Isaiah an Apostle?

3. Most of those through history who reference the PoJ are in support of it and its teachings. Even Athanasius, though he did not include it in his canon of Scripture, declared that the ever-virginity of Mary was a dogmatic truth.

4. Considering that Marcion taught that Jesus was a non-physical being, and so did Valentinus, such an earthy and physical description of the life of Christ would have been the stupidest thing that the heretics of that time could have come up with. I doubt that the heretics were so stupid that they would release a false gospel which would deny their own teachings.

 

[SolomonVII]

In the early centuries of AD/CE, authorship was not treated as it is now. To wit, a work to be ascribed to an author who did not pen the work when the work contained the content of someone's teaching/ideas. We just operate under a different mindset on the authorship idea now.

Once that is known, and the historicity of the authorship as being directly and personally under the tutelage of the given apostle, then this is what can be fairly called of apostolic origin.

In comparing the authorship of the Proto. of James with the four gospels, and doing so in an impartial manner as possible, what we can note about the PoJ is that this is the only one where the text specifically identifies who the author is.
"I, James..." leaves no room for dispute on who the author is purported to have been.
Given that James is the elder brother of Jesus, born in the Year 1, and given that the theory is old Joseph, young Mary, it would be not out of line to consider that James is, say, five years older than Jesus. 145+ 5 (and that is the assumption that the year 1 is corrrect as the birthyear of Jesus and not 5BC as some others think, then the dating of the book to 145 would make that claim impossible.

As for the other books, Luke and Mark in particular, whether or not they were written by Luke, it is not their purported authorship that makes them apostolic. Simply put, Luke was in no way prominent, and Mark was not an apostle, but a companion of an apostle.
It is not the penmanship that allows them to be considered apostolic works, but their deep and immediate connection to actual apostolic communities in the times of the actual apostles living and teaching on earth. What we are receiving in the four Gospels are actual eye witness accounts from the people who witnessed the miracle of Jesus first hand.

The authorship of the four canonical gospels is by tradition, is disputable, and is disputed, but the historicity of their ties to the apostles and the apostolic communities is really not much disputed by anybody.

Therein lies the difference. The historic standards of attributing authorship in first century Palestine are indeed different than our own, but the standard used by the four gospels is a humble one that downplays authorship, whereas the PoJ does just the opposite.

 

[sculleywr]

In comparing the authorship of the Proto. of James with the four gospels, and doing so in an impartial manner as possible, what we can note about the PoJ is that this is the only one where the text specifically identifies who the author is.
"I, James..." leaves no room for dispute on who the author is purported to have been.
Given that James is the elder brother of Jesus, born in the Year 1, and given that the theory is old Joseph, young Mary, it would be not out of line to consider that James is, say, five years older than Jesus. 145+ 5 (and that is the assumption that the year 1 is corrrect as the birthyear of Jesus and not 5BC as some others think, then the dating of the book to 145 would make that claim impossible.

As for the other books, Luke and Mark in particular, whether or not they were written by Luke, it is not their purported authorship that makes them apostolic. Simply put, Luke was in no way prominent, and Mark was not an apostle, but a companion of an apostle.
It is not the penmanship that allows them to be considered apostolic works, but their deep and immediate connection to actual apostolic communities in the times of the actual apostles living and teaching on earth. What we are receiving in the four Gospels are actual eye witness accounts from the people who witnessed the miracle of Jesus first hand.

The authorship of the four canonical gospels is by tradition, is disputable, and is disputed, but the historicity of their ties to the apostles and the apostolic communities is really not much disputed by anybody.

Therein lies the difference. The historic standards of attributing authorship in first century Palestine are indeed different than our own, but the standard used by the four gospels is a humble one that downplays authorship, whereas the PoJ does just the opposite.

I guess, then, that Paul's doing the opposite means we should question that, as well.

 

[SolomonVII]

I guess, then, that Paul's doing the opposite means we should question that, as well.

I don't think that you are really up to the task of responding to me or anybody else here in any coherent way.

If that is what you guess, there is no response that I could possibly give you to continue a conversation that is in any way rational or intelligent.

 

[sculleywr]

I don't think that you are really up to the task of responding to me or anybody else here in any coherent way.

If that is what you guess, there is no response that I could possibly give you to continue a conversation that is in any way rational or intelligent.

you implied that identifying oneself in writing a theological work was a sign of lacking humility in the PoJ, and thus it couldn't be the work of James. But, then again, James also identified himself in his epistle.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as it were.

Quite a lot of contradictions you like in your evaluation of ancient documents. Of course, you always listen to the "scholars".

 

[SolomonVII]

It is not a lack of humility that is a problem with a work being attributed to James who would have been 150 years old at the time.

It is an assertion of apostolic authenticity long after the apostle is dead, and therefore an overt attempt at to legitimize dubious religious ideas through name-dropping.

It worked. The forged work became popular and people were duped.
In truth, people wanted to be duped. The spiritual magnification of the Heavenly Mother was a very comforting concept for Greco-Roman culture.

Other Gospels recognized as canon, such as Mark and Luke, don't even make claims to apostolic authorship. Their authenticity has been established rather through historical connections to first person associations and eye witness testimonies from apostolic communities in the time of the actual apostles. These are reports of eyewitness accounts of the life and times of Jesus made by actual witnesses to the event. They are the journalism of the day.

As far as any links to actual apostles for the gospels in the informal canonization process, those came later, and the claims of actual apostolic authorship of what were essentially anonymous works are not really the basis for their wide acceptance. It was because the works were widespread, widely known throughout the Christian world, and widely accepted as consistent with what the apostles taught that led to the consensus that these were authentic and spiritual works.

The continuity between these writings later accepted and the actual apostles was there from the beginning, from the lifetimes of the actual apostles.They were not based on ludicrous claims of being written by an apostle, long after that apostle was dead. Their authenticity does not even lie in being penned by an apostle, for two of the four do not even make such claims at all, and the other two the writer remains anonymous. It is the fact that these writings have been recognized as authentic from the very beginning by the apostolic communities, and by the generations that came immediately after that are the reason that the Gospels can indeed be held to be authentic and historical Christian Scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

It is not a lack of humility that is a problem with a work being attributed to James who would have been 150 years old at the time.

It is an assertion of apostolic authenticity long after the apostle is dead, and therefore an overt attempt at to legitimize dubious religious ideas through name-dropping.

It worked. The forged work became popular and people were duped.
In truth, people wanted to be duped. The spiritual magnification of the Heavenly Mother was a very comforting concept for Greco-Roman culture.

Other Gospels recognized as canon, such as Mark and Luke, don't even make claims to apostolic authorship. Their authenticity has been established rather through historical connections to first person associations and eye witness testimonies from apostolic communities in the time of the actual apostles. These are reports of eyewitness accounts of the life and times of Jesus made by actual witnesses to the event. They are the journalism of the day.

As far as any links to actual apostles for the gospels in the informal canonization process, those came later, and the claims of actual apostolic authorship of what were essentially anonymous works are not really the basis for their wide acceptance. It was because the works were widespread, widely known throughout the Christian world, and widely accepted as consistent with what the apostles taught that led to the consensus that these were authentic and spiritual works.

The continuity between these writings later accepted and the actual apostles was there from the beginning, from the lifetimes of the actual apostles.They were not based on ludicrous claims of being written by an apostle, long after that apostle was dead. Their authenticity does not even lie in being penned by an apostle, for two of the four do not even make such claims at all, and the other two the writer remains anonymous. It is the fact that these writings have been recognized as authentic from the very beginning by the apostolic communities, and by the generations that came immediately after that are the reason that the Gospels can indeed be held to be authentic and historical Christian Scripture.

Solomon, it is the assumption that the "scholars" are right that makes your mistake. Those same scholars who say it was written in 150, they also say that date based on the parallels between it and Justin Martyr, positing that Justin was familiar with it.

That same method is used, by your same "scholars", to date the gospels to Irenaeus' time, saying that since he was the first to mention them by name and quote, that is when they were written.

Using the methods you speak of, we can only date the gospels to the time of Irenaeus, because nobody quotes from them and says "John wrote,'-------'"; nobody says Matthew wrote his gospel; and nobody said these are the gospels until Irenaeus, as far as our evidence goes.

We would naturally respond to that with the statement that what was taught by them in the meantime has no contradiction with the gospels. Well, quite frankly, the PoJ doesn't contradict anyone outside of Marcion's and Valentinus's heretical groups. Attributing it to a group of people who teach so much different from what it taught is foolish.

 

[SolomonVII]

Solomon, it is the assumption that the "scholars" are right that makes your mistake. Those same scholars who say it was written in 150, they also say that date based on the parallels between it and Justin Martyr, positing that Justin was familiar with it.

That same method is used, by your same "scholars", to date the gospels to Irenaeus' time, saying that since he was the first to mention them by name and quote, that is when they were written.

Using the methods you speak of, we can only date the gospels to the time of Irenaeus, because nobody quotes from them and says "John wrote,'-------'"; nobody says Matthew wrote his gospel; and nobody said these are the gospels until Irenaeus, as far as our evidence goes.

We would naturally respond to that with the statement that what was taught by them in the meantime has no contradiction with the gospels. Well, quite frankly, the PoJ doesn't contradict anyone outside of Marcion's and Valentinus's heretical groups. Attributing it to a group of people who teach so much different from what it taught is foolish.

So the choice is either between the "scholars", or "sculleywr".


As for Justin Martyr, it seems that Standing Up was informed enough to find the relevant quote, and the proper context, and that was that as far as that conversation went.
Either way, there is no evidence that "sculleywr" has provided that would make any of think that he is a superior scholar than the "scholars".

 

[sculleywr]

So the choice is either between the "scholars", or "sculleywr".


As for Justin Martyr, it seems that Standing Up was informed enough to find the relevant quote, and the proper context, and that was that as far as that conversation went.
Either way, there is no evidence that "sculleywr" has provided that would make any of think that he is a superior scholar than the "scholars".

Well, using the scholars' methods, I would say that since Irenaeus is the first in time to purposefully quote and attribute names to the gospels, they weren't written until 180 AD.

But then again, you love the scholars' methods. So, do you think the Gospels weren't written until they were quoted and referenced?