Something About Mary (2)

[Standing Up]

I said there were narrative/historical inconsistencies:-snip-

All those "inconsistencies" can be explained, but this isn't the thread or time. You won't like the conclusions.

 

[sculleywr]

All those "inconsistencies" can be explained, but this isn't the thread or time. You won't like the conclusions.

As can the "inconsistencies" that have been pointed out about the PoJ. The point is that there is never a doctrinal dispute between Scripture and the PoJ, so attacking it on the "inconsistency" front leaves the Bible open to the same scrutiny.

 

[sculleywr]

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.

Quote from Athanasius:

If Mary would have had another son, the Savior would not have neglected her nor would he have confided his mother to another person, indeed she had not become the mother of another. Mary, moreover, would not have abandoned her own sons to live with another, for she fully realized a mother never abandons her spouse nor her children. And since she continued to remain a virgin even after the birth of the Lord, he gave her as mother to the disciple, even though she was not his mother; he confided her to John because of his great purity of conscience and because of her intact virginity.
​

Sounds to me like Athanasius agrees with the assertion of the PoJ that she was always a virgin.

And the PoJ doesn't contend that Christ was inhuman. That's pathetic prattle and about as accurate as saying that the Scriptures support slavery. -_- Drop it before it hurts you. The PoJ is almost as physical as the gospel of Mark, describing the physical characteristics of Christ and showing Him held in the arms of Mary.

The PoJ, on the birth, doesn't show the physical process any more than any of the gospels do. However, its physical descriptions of events that happen to Christ, and the physicality of His birth is shown in the fact that she was having contractions, which are described thus:

Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth.​

One could not have contractions without a physical child within her. Her pregnancy is way too physical. Next to that is the fact that the child is carried, swaddled, and touched in several ways in this account.

 

[Standing Up]

Quote from Athanasius:

If Mary would have had another son, the Savior would not have neglected her nor would he have confided his mother to another person, indeed she had not become the mother of another. Mary, moreover, would not have abandoned her own sons to live with another, for she fully realized a mother never abandons her spouse nor her children. And since she continued to remain a virgin even after the birth of the Lord, he gave her as mother to the disciple, even though she was not his mother; he confided her to John because of his great purity of conscience and because of her intact virginity.
​

Sounds to me like Athanasius agrees with the assertion of the PoJ that she was always a virgin.

And the PoJ doesn't contend that Christ was inhuman. That's pathetic prattle and about as accurate as saying that the Scriptures support slavery. -_- Drop it before it hurts you. The PoJ is almost as physical as the gospel of Mark, describing the physical characteristics of Christ and showing Him held in the arms of Mary.

The PoJ, on the birth, doesn't show the physical process any more than any of the gospels do. However, its physical descriptions of events that happen to Christ, and the physicality of His birth is shown in the fact that she was having contractions, which are described thus:

Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth.
​

One could not have contractions without a physical child within her. Her pregnancy is way too physical. Next to that is the fact that the child is carried, swaddled, and touched in several ways in this account.

Please provide the link to the Athanasian quote.

 

[Standing Up]

As can the "inconsistencies" that have been pointed out about the PoJ. The point is that there is never a doctrinal dispute between Scripture and the PoJ, so attacking it on the "inconsistency" front leaves the Bible open to the same scrutiny.

Coupld of Contradictions:

The names of Mary's parents.
Location of birth (cave, region).
Nature of birth (no afterflux).
Vestal virgins.

 

[SolomonVII]

Focusing on the model of virginity that the PoJ presents to us, which is all about the hymen, has drawn the church away from understanding virginity that Ireneus had when he talked of Scripture as a virgin.
Focusing on the physical state of a woman's body like that as the definition of virginity, the PoJ, in spite of its being rejected as scripture, in spite of being put on the papal list of apocryphal books, nevertheless the PoJ and the theology that emerges from that book has left a large stain on the church as a whole, in which sin and sexuality becomes synonymous.

The virginity of Mary at the conception of Jesus is a theologically necessary, as it correctly identifies who the Father of Jesus really is. Perpetual virginity of Mary adds nothing to that, but can only detract from that by making the birginity all about Mary, rather than about the Father.

The disdain for sexuality that has emerged in Christianity was not present in Jewish culture, but it was very much a part of Docetism. A Christianity that grows out of the Hebrew culture then, rather than completely breaks from it, simply does not become a part of a cult of the hymen, which the PoJ has initiated much of the Christian world into. The disdain for female sexuality has become almost inevitable ever since.
EV theology is not harmless, therefore. As it has taken us away from the Hebrew understanding of sexuality with its message that intact hymens and purity are synonymous, the view that sexuality is tainted is reinforced by such a theology.

Ever virginity cannot speak of Mary's hymen, but only of her heart. That has been the only definition of purity that the Bible has ever been interested in. Most definitely, the purity of the virgin heart of Mother Mary, as revealed in her raising of her son into perfection, is something to be lauded, a blessing like no other.

Making it about the hymen comes from the PoJ.

We can only note that PoJ is not from the apostle James, as it claims to be.
It is not Scriptural, however Scripture is defined
It is a breach of the Hebrew tradition which Christianity has been grafted into. This would never equate purity with intact hymens.
It introduces ideas that the apostles never taught.

If Catholics are to accept Perpetual Virginity as de fide teaching, then at least they have been provided with a means to do so now that has nothing to do with hymens.
The virginity of Mary is a quality of a heart that bore and raised the Son of God into this world. That much at least is authentically Scriptural.

Everything else ties back to the PoJ, which the RCC has already deemed unfit for doctrine and dogma. So if making the virginity of Mary before during and after the birth of Jesus is not heretical on that account, then nothing is heretical.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

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



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.

Same here. And so, we trust the Church, which has authority. You trust consensus, which has no authority

 

[SolomonVII]

Same here. And so, we trust the Church, which has authority. You trust consensus, which has no authority

So, to get down to brass tacks, now that you have an infallible authority to lead you, does your church teach you to believe that PoJ was written before 62 Ad, or that it was written by a man who had been dead for some seventy years? Perhaps there is another tradition out there that James did not really die, but is the prototype for the Engergizer bunny?

Does your infallible witness to the truth disagree that the four Gospels were written sometime between the decades after the crucixion to the AD90's or 110 Ad at the latest?

You have access to infallible truth. Tell me, on the points at hand, does your church teach what I have given you, or something else?

And if it remains silent on the dating, or does not have an infallible statement in the matter of dating, then you got nothing, saved for a closed mind against going with the best evidence, wherever that might lead.

 

[SolomonVII]

Seriously Jess, give us something that we can bite into on the dating, other than a flippant response.

 

[SolomonVII]

As far as I can see, the infallible witness seems to agree with me, that the apocryphal work in question is something to be avoided by Catholics.

V. The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:

LIKEWISE A LIST OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

firstly we confess that the synod of Sirmium called together by Constantius Caesar the son of Constantine through the Prefect Taurus is damned then and now and for ever.
the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle, which is called the nine books of the holy Clement apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Philip apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Mathias apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Barnabas apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of James the younger apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of Thomas which the Manichaeans use apocryphum
the Gospels in the name of Bartholomew apocrypha
the Gospels in the name of Andrew apocrypha
the Gospels which Lucianus forged apocrypha
the Gospels which Hesychius forged apocrypha
the book on the infancy of the saviour apocryphus
the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife apocryphus
the book which is called by the name of the Shepherd apocryphus
all the books which Leucius the disciple of the devil made apocryphi
the book which is called the Foundation apocryphus
the book which is called the Treasure apocryphus
the book of the daughters of Adam Leptogeneseos apocryphus
the cento on Christ put together in Virgilian verses apocryphum
the book which is called the Acts of Thecla and Paul apocryphus
the book which is called Nepos's apocryphus
the books of Proverbs written by heretics and prefixed with the name of holy Sixtus apocryphus
the Revelation which is called Paul's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Thomas's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Stephen's apocrypha
the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Adam apocryphus
the book about Og the giant of whom the heretics assert that after the deluge he fought with the dragon apocryphus
the book which is called the Testament of Job apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Origen apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of holy Cyprian apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Jamne and Mambre apocryphus
the book which is called the Lots of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the grave-plate (?) of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the canons of the apostles apocryphus
the book Physiologus written by heretics and prefixed with the name of blessed Ambrose apocryphus
the History of Eusebius Pamphilii apocrypha
the works of Tertullian apocrypha
the works of Lactantius also known as Firmianus apocrypha
the works of Africanus apocrypha
the works of Postumianus and Gallus apocrypha
the works of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla apocrypha
the works of Faustus the Manichaean apocrypha
the works of Commodian apocrypha
the works of the other Clement, of Alexandria apocrypha
the works of Thascius Cyprianus apocrypha
the works of Arnobius apocrypha
the works of Tichonius apocrypha
the works of Cassian the Gallic priest apocrypha
the works of Victorinus of Pettau apocrypha
the works of Faustus of Riez in Gaul apocrypha
the works of Frumentius Caecus apocrypha
the cento on Christ stitched together from verses of Virgil apocryphum
the Letter from Jesus to Abgar apocrypha
the Letter of Abgar to Jesus apocrypha
the Passion of Cyricus and Julitta apocrypha
the Passion of Georgius apocrypha
the writing which is called the Interdiction of Solomon apocrypha
all amulets which are compiled not in the name of the angels as they pretend but are written in the names of great demons

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

WHy do you accept 145 as the date of authorship of PoJ? Because "some scholars you trust" do? What is their authority? A diploma? What definitive evidence is there?

 

[SolomonVII]

WHy do you accept 145 as the date of authorship of PoJ? Because "some scholars you trust" do? What is their authority? A diploma? What definitive evidence is there?

Don't weasel out of the question I asked you by asking me another question.
You say that you have a better way because you have an infallible authority to answer these things.

I have already given a lot of information on how that date was derived.
But since you know better, what is the correct dating for the PoJ, according to the authority that you follow?

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, to get down to brass tacks, now that you have an infallible authority to lead you, does your church teach you to believe that PoJ was written before 62 Ad, or that it was written by a man who had been dead for some seventy years? Perhaps there is another tradition out there that James did not really die, but is the prototype for the Engergizer bunny?

The Church doesn't say, nor does it matter, either who wrote it, or when it was written down. The Gosple narratives were spoken for 30-50 years before they were written down, too. And that's the point. The first written New Covenant writings were the Epistles. The Gospels were passed on verbally before they were written.

Does your infallible witness to the truth disagree that the four Gospels were written sometime between the decades after the crucixion to the AD90's or 110 Ad at the latest?

Not only that, but they're in the order they are for a reason. No Q source, no primacy of Mark's gospel. But they were taught verbally for a long time before they were written. Same can be said of the PoJ.

You have access to infallible truth. Tell me, on the points at hand, does your church teach what I have given you, or something else?

Which points?

And if it remains silent on the dating, or does not have an infallible statement in the matter of dating, then you got nothing, saved for a closed mind against going with the best evidence, wherever that might lead.

We have the doctrines. Mary was a virgin before, during and after Jesus was born. Mary was immaculately conceived, and at the end of her life, was assumed into heaven.

 

[SolomonVII]

The Church doesn't say, nor does it matter, either who wrote it, or when it was written down. The Gosple narratives were spoken for 30-50 years before they were written down, too. And that's the point. The first written New Covenant writings were the Epistles. The Gospels were passed on verbally before they were written.

Not only that, but they're in the order they are for a reason. No Q source, no primacy of Mark's gospel. But they were taught verbally for a long time before they were written. Same can be said of the PoJ.
Which points?

We have the doctrines. Mary was a virgin before, during and after Jesus was born. Mary was immaculately conceived, and at the end of her life, was assumed into heaven.

Again...
Dates please?
Show me where your Church teaches me that I am wrong to accept the dates that you criticized me for accepting.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Don't weasel out of the question I asked you by asking me another question.
You say that you have a better way because you have an infallible authority to answer these things.

I have already given a lot of information on how that date was derived.
But since you know better, what is the correct dating for the PoJ, according to the authority that you follow?

Not defined, but not very important, because the Gospels were the Gospels before they were ever written down. They were true before they were written down, too.

The likelyhood is that James told his disciples the facts of the PoJ, and they were passed down verbally, just like the Gospels were.

And who are you to order me as you did???No authority there either...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Again...
Dates please?
Show me where your Church teaches me that I am wrong to accept the dates that you criticized me for accepting.

The relevant thing is not when they were written down...that's true whether your dates are right or wrong.
Where you're wrong is discounting the contents based on a consensus dating of when they were written.

 

[SolomonVII]

And if it(the infallible witness) remains silent on the dating, or does not have an infallible statement in the matter of dating, then you got nothing, saved for a closed mind against going with the best evidence, wherever that might lead.

Again, no apologies are necessary.

 

[SolomonVII]

The relevant thing is not when they were written down...that's true whether your dates are right or wrong.

If it is not relevant, then it is not relevant for you to comment on what I wrote, as if you had something better to go on, as it pertains to the matter at hand.
In terms of discussing the evidence as to whether the PoJ is apostolic writing, and written by James, the dating is most certainly relevant to refuting such nonsense.

In terms of following your infallible witness, who has already told Catholics to avoid that writing, your arguments against me are even a breach of your own principle of accepting the churches witness as infallible.
It is I that has been affirming the witness of the church as the correct one. It has been yourself and scullywr that have been levelling all your efforts at refuting me, and undermining the evidence that your own church got this correct the first time around.

 

[SolomonVII]

Not defined, but not very important, because the Gospels were the Gospels before they were ever written down. They were true before they were written down, too.

The likelyhood is that James told his disciples the facts of the PoJ, and they were passed down verbally, just like the Gospels were.

And who are you to order me as you did???No authority there either...

LOL RoJ. Playing the victim card does make me feel sorry for you though, at this point of the discussion. It does make you look very pathetic for sure.
Hard not to feel sorry for you.

However, commands don't tend to end with question marks, as far as I know.

You were the one that was critical of my methodology as pertaining to dating, and you were the one that made the assertion that you had a better method.

Suffice it to say that your better method came up with no dates whatsoever.

 

[sculleywr]

Coupld of Contradictions:

The names of Mary's parents.
Location of birth (cave, region).
Nature of birth (no afterflux).
Vestal virgins.

I don't recall either of the parents of Mary being named in the Gospels. Maybe you would like to tell me how an inclusion of their names is a contradiction?

Location of birth is given as Bethlehem. It says in a cave that is apparently owned by the innkeep. No contradiction here, just a confirmation that yes, a prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled in the birth of Christ involving a cave.

Nature of birth? The gospels don't record the nature of birth. However, the PoJ includes the contractions at the beginning. We don't see the birth itself, but the existence of contractions very conclusively determines that the birth was physical, because non-physical birth would have not had physical contractions because a physical child could not cause the contractions to start:

A mysterious combination of factors work together to start your contractions. The complicated process begins with a series of chemical messages from your baby's brain that tell your body this kid is ready to rock and roll. These messages stimulate a hormonal chain reaction in your body, releasing prostaglandins and oxytocin, the substances that trigger contractions and get the show on the road.
Contractions During Labor | What to Expect​

As to vestal virgins, you'll have to elaborate.