Something About Mary (2)

[SolomonVII]

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?

No.

 

[sculleywr]

No.

Then, without direct quotes and references to the gospels before Irenaeus, what exact evidence do you give?

1. Neither the PoJ, nor the Gospels, contradict eachother.
2. They do not contradict the teaching of non-heretical writers before Irenaeus.
3. There aren't any copies of either dating to prior to 150 AD.

So what standard do the gospels meet that the PoJ don't? The approval of people TODAY? The PoJ's doctrines are well-accepted by a vast number of the early Christian writers, before there was ever a split.

The Holy Spirit tells you? Half the world says that about this and that. They can't all be right on that. The Holy Spirit is blamed for more heresies than I can count.

 

[Metal Minister]

Then, without direct quotes and references to the gospels before Irenaeus, what exact evidence do you give?

1. Neither the PoJ, nor the Gospels, contradict eachother.
2. They do not contradict the teaching of non-heretical writers before Irenaeus.
3. There aren't any copies of either dating to prior to 150 AD.

So what standard do the gospels meet that the PoJ don't? The approval of people TODAY? The PoJ's doctrines are well-accepted by a vast number of the early Christian writers, before there was ever a split.

The Holy Spirit tells you? Half the world says that about this and that. They can't all be right on that. The Holy Spirit is blamed for more heresies than I can count.

*blind post*
If I may, you're saying that the PoJ should be scripture, or holds the same authority as scripture?

 

[sculleywr]

*blind post*
If I may, you're saying that the PoJ should be scripture, or holds the same authority as scripture?

Neither, I'm saying that its message is apostolic in nature. And that in all honesty, we have earlier references to it than we do of the written gospels.

 

[Metal Minister]

Neither, I'm saying that its message is apostolic in nature. And that in all honesty, we have earlier references to it than we do of the written gospels.

References in what context? That document is riddled with problems, hence why it was never made part of scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

References in what context? That document is riddled with problems, hence why it was never made part of scripture.

The people who canonized scripture took those things which you and many modern people label as problems to be actual truth. There are no actual contradictions with Scripture. But there was no salvific significance to the work. Salvation is the whole purpose of Scripture. Not historical narrative, which is all that the PoJ is

 

[Metal Minister]

The people who canonized scripture took those things which you and many modern people label as problems to be actual truth. There are no actual contradictions with Scripture. But there was no salvific significance to the work. Salvation is the whole purpose of Scripture. Not historical narrative, which is all that the PoJ is

No, it wasn't accepted because its full of problems. Not the least of which is that the true author is completely unknown, though claims to be James. There's a list as long as my arm of problems. If the only reason they didn't accept it as scripture, was supposedly due to a lack of "salvific significance", then what would you consider the ever-virginity of Mary, and Jesus supernatural birth? Wouldn't this be a big deal to those who were compiling the scriptures? It didn't make it, because it isn't authentic, cannot be verified, and has errors. Such as the claim that Jesus Christ was saved from Herod's armies by hiding him in a trough (the Bible narrative in Matthew 1:13 - 16 makes it clear that Christ, Joseph, and Mary left long before there was a reason to hide). There are more, but I hope you understand why they would leave out something that has obvious fiction in it.

 

[sculleywr]

No, it wasn't accepted because its full of problems. Not the least of which is that the true author is completely unknown, though claims to be James. There's a list as long as my arm of problems. If the only reason they didn't accept it as scripture, was supposedly due to a lack of "salvific significance", then what would you consider the ever-virginity of Mary, and Jesus supernatural birth? Wouldn't this be a big deal to those who were compiling the scriptures? It didn't make it, because it isn't authentic, cannot be verified, and has errors. Such as the claim that Jesus Christ was saved from Herod's armies by hiding him in a trough (the Bible narrative in Matthew 1:13 - 16 makes it clear that Christ, Joseph, and Mary left long before there was a reason to hide). There are more, but I hope you understand why they would leave out something that has obvious fiction in it.

1. By that same judgment, the gospels authorship was completely unknown for, what, 60-80 years of history? The only reason we know who wrote them is because someone wrote it down in a generation which couldn't have possibly have first-hand knowledge of the authors.

2. Where does it say that His birth was "supernatural"? There were a number of supernatural events surrounding His birth, but the PoJ doesn't say that the birth itself was different from a normal birth of any other child.

3. Actually, there is nothing really giving what time the family left Bethlehem in any of them, including Matthew. The account in Matthew has a weird timeline if it does, because it goes from them returning AFTER Herod dies straight into Herod sending out people. You would have to do some interesting gymnastics to say that it was long before Herod searched.

4. How would knowledge of the virginity of Mary after her miraculous bearing of Christ (is not the concept of a VIRGIN GIVING BIRTH miraculous?) be of Salvific significance?

5. There are perceived errors in the 4 gospels, such as the fact that one account will say the Crucifixion was on Thursday, and the other on Friday. Picking out little pieces that aren't significant to doctrine is a game anyone can play.

6. It is only perceived by you as fiction. Do not apply your ideals to the past. Let the past inform you, rather than you informing the past. Time travel doesn't exist yet.

 

[SolomonVII]

Then, without direct quotes and references to the gospels before Irenaeus, what exact evidence do you give?

1. Neither the PoJ, nor the Gospels, contradict eachother.
2. They do not contradict the teaching of non-heretical writers before Irenaeus.
3. There aren't any copies of either dating to prior to 150 AD.

So what standard do the gospels meet that the PoJ don't? The approval of people TODAY? The PoJ's doctrines are well-accepted by a vast number of the early Christian writers, before there was ever a split.

The Holy Spirit tells you? Half the world says that about this and that. They can't all be right on that. The Holy Spirit is blamed for more heresies than I can count.

James died in circa 62.
The book that bears his name dates to circa 145 .
The text itself testifies that he wrote it.
Ergo, fiction.

In terms of heresy, the argument from EO is a circular one, for it defines heresy in terms of what it teaches, rather than in terms of what the apostles taught.

Suffice to say that the fiction presented within the PoJ does not tie back to any known apostolic teachings, and that much of the Marian theology ties back to this ficitional account, and no further.
The apostles were silent on the issue.

 

[sculleywr]

James died in circa 62.
The book that bears his name dates [according to when it was first referenced] to circa 145 .
The text itself testifies that he wrote it.
Ergo, fiction.

In terms of heresy, the argument from EO is a circular one, for it defines heresy in terms of what it teaches, rather than in terms of what the apostles taught.

Suffice to say that the fiction presented within the PoJ does not tie back to any known apostolic teachings, and that much of the Marian theology ties back to this ficitional account, and no further.
The apostles were silent on the issue.

I fixed it for you so that you know what methods were used.

The gospels, using that same method, date to 180 AD.

Do me a favor, please deliver PROOF that it wasn't written by an apostle. And if I hear one more "the scholars say" or another unsubstantiated assertion, I'm blocking you and this conversation is fin.

 

[SolomonVII]

I fixed it for you so that you know what methods were used.

The gospels, using that same method, date to 180 AD.

Do me a favor, please deliver PROOF that it wasn't written by an apostle. And if I hear one more "the scholars say" or another unsubstantiated assertion, I'm blocking you and this conversation is fin.

You fixed nothing.
The gospels by the same methods date to from around 70 AD to no later than 110.
PoJ dates to mid second century by every reputable account.
We can either believe the "scholars' or the Scholar Sculleywr on this.

The reasons for the 145 date are on every Internet site from "Early Christian Writings" to Ortho Wiki.

Nobody conjectures any different based on the evidence, other than Scholar Sculleywr.

And he has yet to give any reasons why everybody else is wrong, and he is the Scholar with superior knowledge to all other "scholars" who write on the subject.

When the argument is an anti-intellectual one, in which anything that a scholar might help us with becomes dismissed because they are "scholars", in truth you have blocked me out this conversation long ago.

Facts and reasoned judgment are insufficient to argue against your feelings that the PoJ was really written by James. Anything that I might dig up, you have already dismissed out of hand with your anti-intellectual rant against "scholars" anyway.

 

[sculleywr]

You fixed nothing.
The gospels by the same methods date to from around 70 AD to no later than 110.
PoJ dates to mid second century by every reputable account.
We can either believe the "scholars' or the Scholar Sculleywr on this.

The reasons for the 145 date are on every Internet site from "Early Christian Writings" to Ortho Wiki.

Nobody conjectures any different based on the evidence, other than Scholar Sculleywr.

And he has yet to give any reasons why everybody else is wrong, and he is the Scholar with superior knowledge to all other "scholars" who write on the subject.

When the argument is an anti-intellectual one, in which anything that a scholar might help us with becomes dismissed because they are "scholars", in truth you have blocked me out this conversation long ago.

Facts and reasoned judgment are insufficient to argue against your feelings that the PoJ was really written by James. Anything that I might dig up, you have already dismissed out of hand with your anti-intellectual rant against "scholars" anyway.

Yeah. It's over. Apparently, you couldn't care less HOW people come to the conclusions they come to. You just accept them at their whim and way. "Blocked, you are," Yoda declares

 

[SolomonVII]

Scholars tend to date PoJ as they do for several reasons. They note how much influenced the writing was by Luke and Matthew. Since both Luke and Matthew date to after 62, and James died at the hands of Ananias in 62, the claim that this was written by James was therefore spurious one.
It is not really worth arguing over that one, because nobody really believes it was written by James anyway.

But from what I gather, another thing that helps scholars date material is that every time frame has its defining cultural piques. For example a work with the quote "gag me with a spoon" would not really be seriously taken to be a work from pre-World War I, because California valley girls weren't really around back then. Similarly, the tendency that PoJ has to synchronize the two gospels of Luke and Matthew into one cohesive story is a cultural tendency of the mid-second century, and not 62 AD.

It is not a precise science of course, and there are discussions of whether Mark might have been written before 70AD, or after, or if there are portions of Matthew that were written even earlier than that. For some scholars, post 70 AD gospels are assumed, simply because they don't believe in prophecy, and for Jesus to have predicted the destruction of the Temple would have been prophetic before that date. It is a fairly convincing argument for secularists, and for Christians and others to counter-argue, there are some sound arguments as well, although the ball is in their court After all, the axiom is to think horses when you hear the sound of approaching hoofbeats, although a pack of stampeding gnus escaped from transit is not outside of the range of possibility either.

However, for someone to make the claims to having historic teaching, there is a need to provide some kind of evidence for that, or else their claims are simply ones based in blind faith, rather than the best evidence.

Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts on the subject. Now that the chances are less that they will be met with some rather arcane and inane counter points, it seems to be a good time to express them.

 

[Metal Minister]

1. By that same judgment, the gospels authorship was completely unknown for, what, 60-80 years of history? The only reason we know who wrote them is because someone wrote it down in a generation which couldn't have possibly have first-hand knowledge of the authors.

2. Where does it say that His birth was "supernatural"? There were a number of supernatural events surrounding His birth, but the PoJ doesn't say that the birth itself was different from a normal birth of any other child.

3. Actually, there is nothing really giving what time the family left Bethlehem in any of them, including Matthew. The account in Matthew has a weird timeline if it does, because it goes from them returning AFTER Herod dies straight into Herod sending out people. You would have to do some interesting gymnastics to say that it was long before Herod searched.

4. How would knowledge of the virginity of Mary after her miraculous bearing of Christ (is not the concept of a VIRGIN GIVING BIRTH miraculous?) be of Salvific significance?

5. There are perceived errors in the 4 gospels, such as the fact that one account will say the Crucifixion was on Thursday, and the other on Friday. Picking out little pieces that aren't significant to doctrine is a game anyone can play.

6. It is only perceived by you as fiction. Do not apply your ideals to the past. Let the past inform you, rather than you informing the past. Time travel doesn't exist yet.

Are you purposefully ignoring the facts surrounding the PoJ? Like the fact that it claims Joseph wasn't truly Mary's betrothed, but her "guardian" or "foster father" because he refused to marry her. (Another blatant contradiction to the scriptures.) It is a pure work of fiction, for example, in its opening section, Joachim goes into the desert to fast for 40 days and 40 nights. An obvious rip off of the Noahic flood. It says he will not eat or drink until God answers his prayers. This is in direct contrast to Luke 4:12: Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test. On and on and on. These are the reasons that scholars rejected PoJ.

 

[sculleywr]

Are you purposefully ignoring the facts surrounding the PoJ? Like the fact that it claims Joseph wasn't truly Mary's betrothed, but her "guardian" or "foster father" because he refused to marry her. (Another blatant contradiction to the scriptures.) It is a pure work of fiction, for example, in its opening section, Joachim goes into the desert to fast for 40 days and 40 nights. An obvious rip off of the Noahic flood. It says he will not eat or drink until God answers his prayers. This is in direct contrast to Luke 4:12: Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test. On and on and on. These are the reasons that scholars rejected PoJ.

-_- It never said she wasn't betrothed to him.

Noah never fasted prior to the flood, but for that matter, Christ fasted in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights. Was that a rip off?
Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

There are plenty of times, also, where people showed their devotion by prayer and fasting. They fasted in bereavement. They fasted when they desired something of the Lord. They fasted because a fast was a time when one dedicated himself to prayer and service to God in whatever method there was available. A fast was not simply abstinence from food. It was abstinence from doing things which would hinder one's service to God. God gave us examples of when this would work.

Now, when Christ said "do not put the Lord your God to the test," what did He mean? The Bible also says "put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need."

Since there can be no contradiction, we must assume it isn't a blanket command, because such would contradict the declaration of God.

The context of the first is that Satan was tempting Christ to, basically, attempt suicide. This was taking the Scripture out of context to make it look like it was allowed for us to purposely harm ourselves.

The context of the second is to tithe to God, which is a command of God. It is saying, "follow my command, and see if I will not bless you."

As God does command and bless fasting, we can pretty well say that the fasting of Joachim falls under the second category.

 

[Metal Minister]

-_- It never said she wasn't betrothed to him.

It says he flatly refused to take her as a wife, and that he instead was persuaded to be her guardian. It was only AFTER Mary was to be pregnant that he caved in and assented to marry her. How about where it says that Jesus Christ was saved from Herod's armies by them hiding Him in a trough? Which you seemed to have ignored.

 

[sculleywr]

It says he flatly refused to take her as a wife, and that he instead was persuaded to be her guardian. It was only AFTER Mary was to be pregnant that he caved in and assented to marry her. How about where it says that Jesus Christ was saved from Herod's armies by them hiding Him in a trough? Which you seemed to have ignored.

You do know that part of the job of a betrothed is to be a guardian, right? Secondly, this doesn't necessitate non-apostolic sourcing, because there are "mistakes" like this throughout the gospels. How many women were at the tomb? When was the crucifixion? Two questions that the gospels disagree on in relation to the death of Christ. Does that mean they are non-apostolic? No.

I didn't ignore the Herod part, if you would go back two responses to your posts, you would see mine. I believe it's number 4, but I'm not sure.

 

[Metal Minister]

You do know that part of the job of a betrothed is to be a guardian, right? Secondly, this doesn't necessitate non-apostolic sourcing, because there are "mistakes" like this throughout the gospels. How many women were at the tomb? When was the crucifixion? Two questions that the gospels disagree on in relation to the death of Christ. Does that mean they are non-apostolic? No.

I didn't ignore the Herod part, if you would go back two responses to your posts, you would see mine. I believe it's number 4, but I'm not sure.

First, we're not talking about the Gospel, we're talking about the PoJ, though honestly, after your remark about God's holy word containing errors, I seriously doubt we should be speaking at all!!!! To assert God's word contains errors, is to assert that God Himself can make errors. Yeah, our discussion is over...

 

[sculleywr]

First, we're not talking about the Gospel, we're talking about the PoJ, though honestly, after your remark about God's holy word containing errors, I seriously doubt we should be speaking at all!!!! To assert God's word contains errors, is to assert that God Himself can make errors. Yeah, our discussion is over...

I said there were narrative/historical inconsistencies:

Mark 16:8
English Standard Version (ESV)
And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Matthew 28:8
English Standard Version (ESV)
So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Luke 24:9
English Standard Version (ESV)
and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
John 20:18
English Standard Version (ESV)
Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her.

It's called seeming contradictions. They seem to be contradicting eachother, but they truly aren't.

Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).

John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).

Does this harm my impression of the Gospels as inspired words? No! But it does show that the Gospels were told from differing perspectives. There are four differing perspectives in the gospels, and they contain the perspective of the writer.

 

[Standing Up]

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



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.

Since I showed you were wrong that Justin Martyr references PoJ, but rather Isaiah, you're now skipping to something else. BTW, no one but you thinks PoJ is apostolic. No one.

The church c450 and Aquinas and Jerome rejected PoJ as spurious prattle. Remember, EO claims to have been part of that church at that time (pre Aquinas).

Like with Martyer, you'll now have to show your Athanasius quote in order to prove yourself; iow, your credibility has vanished. And no, I don't want to have to do your proofing for you again.

As to your point #4, you're not understanding Marcion, the gnostics/docetics. They taught Christ was "real". Walked, talked, ate, but didn't have normal human flesh. The PoJ was written specifically in support of their non human birth, with the child appearing as the light recedes, through his mother, but not of his mother. No normal flesh and blood and cord and placenta birth. The midwife amazed that their was no proof of human birth. They taught he was a spiritual entity, appearing here or there, but not human flesh and blood.