Something About Mary (2)

[sculleywr]

Please provide the link to the Athanasian quote.

I can't find this particular work on the internet, but here is the citation based on the information in my paper copy:
Athanasius, "De virginitate," in Buby, Mary ofGalilee, III, 104

Here are more quotes concerning the virginity of Mary in all fronts:

But, as appears, many even down to our own time, regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. 'And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth' says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself and not from conjunction.

Clement of Alexandria, "The Stromata, or Miscellanies" in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 551.​

Now it will first be necessary to show what previous reason there was for the Son of God's being born of a virgin. He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how the Lord Himself would give a sign. What, then, is the sign? 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son' (Isaiah 7:14). Accordingly a virgin did conceive and bear 'Emmanuel, God with us' (Matthew 1:23). This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that he might reform it with new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the removal of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as a man by a dispensation in which the virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labor, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul. As, then, the first Adam is thus introduced to us, it is a just inference that the second Adam likewise, as the apostle has told us, was formed by God into a quickening spirit out of the ground - in -- other words, out of flesh which was unstained as yet by any human generation.

Tertullian, "On the Flesh of Christ" in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. Ill, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 536.​

"There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her. "
Origen, Commentary on John 1, 4; PG 14, 32, in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 75.

"Those who speak thus mean to safeguard Mary's dignity in the virginity she conserved until the end, so that body chosen to serve the Word... did not know any relations with a man, after the point that the Holy Spirit came down upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her. "
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10, 17; PG 13, 876-77, in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 75-76.​

"Since Christ was born from the womb of the Virgin, nevertheless he preserved the enclosure of her sexual chastity and the untouched seal of her virginity."
Ambrose, "De institutione virginis," 52, in Buby, Mary ofGalilee, III, 122.
"Behold the miracle of Our Lord's Mother. She conceived, a Virgin; she brought forth, a Virgin. A Virgin was she when she conceived, a Virgin when pregnant, a Virgin after childbirth: as it is says in Ezekiel: And the gate was shut, and it was not opened for the Lord passed through it."
Ambrose, "Homily for Christmas," in Buby, Mary ofGalilee, III, 128.​

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Completely false. The infallible witness of the Catholic Church IS that Mary was a virgin before, during and after giving birth to our Lord, that she was sinless, and that she was assumed into heaven. That the PoJ is one of the proofs is a given, though not the only one. If, indeed, it was the only proof, you might have an argument. But you don't.
The reason it doesn't matter exactly when someone wrote down the text of the PoJ and who wrote it is the same reason it doesn't matter exactly when the Gospels were written or who wrote them. The fact is that they were all verbally transmitted until they were written.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

I could care less your feelings for me, or lack thereof. The point of the whole post is that lack of authority means lack of weight of argument.

 

[SolomonVII]

I could care less your feelings for me, or lack thereof. The point of the whole post is that lack of authority means lack of weight of argument.

By your own measure, your position on the PoJ goes against your own church, and therefore against what you claim to be your own authority.
"This is apocrypha to be avoided". That is not according to my authority, or the authority of consensus, or the authority of the best evidence. It is by the authoritative teachings of the church that you claim that you submit to, but obviously do not. I have provided the papal link, and the papal list even. Ignorance can no longer be your refuge.

Lack of authority of course does not mean lack of weight for argument. By your own acknowledgment, your church has no comment on these things. Just as lack of Catholic teaching on the molecular composition of water does not make those who argue for two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen lacking in authority, such too is the case for those of us who argue against the apostolic origins of PoJ. Reason argument simply does not lack authority just because your church supplies no analysis of origins in this case. Even pope Benedict noted the authority of reason and the Greek roots that are integral to the Catholic faith.

For those of you, such as yourself and sculleywr, who only pay lip service to submission to what you claim is the infallible authority of the church, and claim apostolic origin to the ideas therein in the face of your own church telling you not to, then if you cannot accept the weight of yoru churches teaching, and you cannot accept the weight of reasoned and scholarly analysis of the facts, then your arguments are based on your own feelings, and your feelings alone.

 

[Standing Up]

Completely false. The infallible witness of the Catholic Church IS that Mary was a virgin before, during and after giving birth to our Lord, that she was sinless, and that she was assumed into heaven. That the PoJ is one of the proofs is a given, though not the only one. If, indeed, it was the only proof, you might have an argument. But you don't.
The reason it doesn't matter exactly when someone wrote down the text of the PoJ and who wrote it is the same reason it doesn't matter exactly when the Gospels were written or who wrote them. The fact is that they were all verbally transmitted until they were written.

The PoJ is the only extant "proof", but no one from the catholic church believed the book or its message early on. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem all rejected its message. Pope Gelasius, Aquinas, Jerome all rejected the book itself.

 

[Standing Up]

I can't find this particular work on the internet, but here is the citation based on the information in my paper copy:
Athanasius, "De virginitate," in Buby, Mary ofGalilee, III, 104

Here are more quotes concerning the virginity of Mary in all fronts:

But, as appears, many even down to our own time, regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. 'And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth' says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself and not from conjunction.

Clement of Alexandria, "The Stromata, or Miscellanies" in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 551.
​

You have provided the specific quote AGAINST the PoJ. Some say she remained a virgin (still in the childbirth state, puerperal, no afterbirth), but she was not in that state. She gave birth with water and blood (1 John). Mary is not the virgin; scripture is the virgin who gives us birth and leads us.
​

Now it will first be necessary to show what previous reason there was for the Son of God's being born of a virgin. He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how the Lord Himself would give a sign. What, then, is the sign? 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son' (Isaiah 7:14). Accordingly a virgin did conceive and bear 'Emmanuel, God with us' (Matthew 1:23). This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that he might reform it with new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the removal of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as a man by a dispensation in which the virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labor, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul. As, then, the first Adam is thus introduced to us, it is a just inference that the second Adam likewise, as the apostle has told us, was formed by God into a quickening spirit out of the ground - in -- other words, out of flesh which was unstained as yet by any human generation.

Tertullian, "On the Flesh of Christ" in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. Ill, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 536.

​

Tertullian believed Joseph/Mary had children; you know, the brothers of Jesus.

"There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her. "
Origen, Commentary on John 1, 4; PG 14, 32, in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 75.

"Those who speak thus mean to safeguard Mary's dignity in the virginity she conserved until the end, so that body chosen to serve the Word... did not know any relations with a man, after the point that the Holy Spirit came down upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her. "
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10, 17; PG 13, 876-77, in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 75-76.

"Since Christ was born from the womb of the Virgin, nevertheless he preserved the enclosure of her sexual chastity and the untouched seal of her virginity."
Ambrose, "De institutione virginis," 52, in Buby, Mary ofGalilee, III, 122.
"Behold the miracle of Our Lord's Mother. She conceived, a Virgin; she brought forth, a Virgin. A Virgin was she when she conceived, a Virgin when pregnant, a Virgin after childbirth: as it is says in Ezekiel: And the gate was shut, and it was not opened for the Lord passed through it."
Ambrose, "Homily for Christmas," in Buby, Mary ofGalilee, III, 128.
​

Yes, Ambrose repeats the myth from the PoJ, from Marcion, etc, that the Christ was born abnormally, without birthflux, without water and blood, from the east gate, the side of Mary.

A later council (Trullo?) would also so declare (no afterbirth), directly contradicting scripture (1 John), but following the spurious PoJ, Marcion, Valentus, and the other docetists.

 

[sculleywr]

You have provided the specific quote AGAINST the PoJ. Some say she remained a virgin (still in the childbirth state, puerperal, no afterbirth), but she was not in that state. She gave birth with water and blood (1 John). Mary is not the virgin; scripture is the virgin who gives us birth and leads us.

Yes there was disagreement, I was showing that. I said from all points of view, correct? It would be intellectually dishonest to not show ALL points of view. The point was that it wasn't uncommon to believe otherwise, as follows in the rest of the quotes.

Tertullian believed Joseph/Mary had children; you know, the brothers of Jesus.

As said in the last part, it doesn't actually contradict.

Yes, Ambrose repeats the myth from the PoJ, from Marcion, etc, that the Christ was born abnormally, without birthflux, without water and blood, from the east gate, the side of Mary.

A later council (Trullo?) would also so declare (no afterbirth), directly contradicting scripture (1 John), but following the spurious PoJ, Marcion, Valentus, and the other docetists.

let me make this really big:

How in tarnation does a non-physical birth have contractions which can only be started by physical chemicals from a physical infant's brain???

The PoJ records Mary complaining abou contractions. Ergo, there was a physical child with physical brain sending physical chemicals.

Trust me, you're arguing with someone who has worked in the clinical field. I was tested several times on this topic because I have to be able to assist in case of a birth if I work in a hospital.

The existence of contractions in the birth of Christ means that the birth of Christ, even according to the PoJ, was physical.

Of course, we could say that NONE of the gospels record the exit of the amniotic sac (which I am assuming you are meaning when you refer to after-flux). Why should it be required in the PoJ?

 

[sculleywr]

The PoJ is the only extant "proof", but no one from the catholic church believed the book or its message early on. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem all rejected its message. Pope Gelasius, Aquinas, Jerome all rejected the book itself.

There were many early on who rejected the epistles of Peter, as well. Does that mean we shouldn't use them? What of Revelation? it wasn't really accepted wholly in the Church until EXTREMELY recently, relatively speaking.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes there was disagreement, I was showing that. I said from all points of view, correct? It would be intellectually dishonest to not show ALL points of view. The point was that it wasn't uncommon to believe otherwise, as follows in the rest of the quotes.





As said in the last part, it doesn't actually contradict.




let me make this really big:

How in tarnation does a non-physical birth have contractions which can only be started by physical chemicals from a physical infant's brain???

The PoJ records Mary complaining abou contractions. Ergo, there was a physical child with physical brain sending physical chemicals.

Trust me, you're arguing with someone who has worked in the clinical field. I was tested several times on this topic because I have to be able to assist in case of a birth if I work in a hospital.

The existence of contractions in the birth of Christ means that the birth of Christ, even according to the PoJ, was physical.

Of course, we could say that NONE of the gospels record the exit of the amniotic sac (which I am assuming you are meaning when you refer to after-flux). Why should it be required in the PoJ?

Here's the midwife talking to Salome: "Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not"

What is the only reason that the midwife thinks a virgin brought forth? There's the baby, but how did it get there? What is unique about this birth that she thinks a virgin brought forth?

That the baby presses forth doesn't necessarily mean what we think of as contractions. Why does the midwife think Mary still a virgin? Her nature (being pregnant) allows not. What should have happened, but didn't, according to the PoJ? You quoted it with Clement of Alexandria ...

 

[Root of Jesse]

By your own measure, your position on the PoJ goes against your own church, and therefore against what you claim to be your own authority.
"This is apocrypha to be avoided". That is not according to my authority, or the authority of consensus, or the authority of the best evidence. It is by the authoritative teachings of the church that you claim that you submit to, but obviously do not. I have provided the papal link, and the papal list even. Ignorance can no longer be your refuge.

Lack of authority of course does not mean lack of weight for argument. By your own acknowledgment, your church has no comment on these things. Just as lack of Catholic teaching on the molecular composition of water does not make those who argue for two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen lacking in authority, such too is the case for those of us who argue against the apostolic origins of PoJ. Reason argument simply does not lack authority just because your church supplies no analysis of origins in this case. Even pope Benedict noted the authority of reason and the Greek roots that are integral to the Catholic faith.

For those of you, such as yourself and sculleywr, who only pay lip service to submission to what you claim is the infallible authority of the church, and claim apostolic origin to the ideas therein in the face of your own church telling you not to, then if you cannot accept the weight of yoru churches teaching, and you cannot accept the weight of reasoned and scholarly analysis of the facts, then your arguments are based on your own feelings, and your feelings alone.

Being "Apocrypha" doesn't mean it's to be avoided. By your own publication of the KJV with Apocrypha, if it was to be avoided, it shouldn't be there. It means "of questionable authenticity". The root word means "not canonical". So what?

You know what's really funny? You take Tertullian's writing in one point, but not in another. For that writing, the Decretum Gellasium, says this as well:
"3. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE HISTORIES: Jobone bookTobitone bookEsdrastwo booksEsterone bookJudithone bookMaccabeestwo books"

These books are part of the Canon of Scripture.

Regarding the Decretum, from Wikipedia, and well sourced:
The so-called Decretum Gelasianum or Gelasian Decree was traditionally attributed to the prolific Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496. In surviving manuscripts the Decretal exists on its own and also appended to a list of books of Scripture titled as attested as canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383. Since that list contains a quotation from Augustine, writing about 416, it is evident that the title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, is of no historical value,[1] although the canon presented herein represents the same canon as shown in the Council of Carthage Canon 24, 415 AD [2][3]
The Decretum is in several parts: the second part is a canon catalogue, and the fifth part is a catalogue of the 'apocrypha' and other writings which are to be rejected. The canon catalogue gives 26 books of the New Testament (Parts 1, 3, and 4 are not relevant to the canon.)

 

[sculleywr]

Here's the midwife talking to Salome: "Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not"

What is the only reason that the midwife thinks a virgin brought forth? There's the baby, but how did it get there? What is unique about this birth that she thinks a virgin brought forth?

That the baby presses forth doesn't necessarily mean what we think of as contractions. Why does the midwife think Mary still a virgin? Her nature (being pregnant) allows not. What should have happened, but didn't, according to the PoJ? You quoted it with Clement of Alexandria ...

Ok, think of this, does nature typically allow for virgins to give birth?

What is the typical sign of being a virgin?

The typical sign of being a virgin is an intact hymen. Nothing to do with birthflux or anything. What is unique about this birth is that when Salome checked her "parts", as described IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.​

What parts do you think she was searching for? Does birthflux prove virginity? Would birthflux be found in the "parts"? No. She was looking for what a virgin would have that would be unique to a virgin: an intact hymen.

 

[Standing Up]

Ok, think of this, does nature typically allow for virgins to give birth?

What is the typical sign of being a virgin?

The typical sign of being a virgin is an intact hymen. Nothing to do with birthflux or anything. What is unique about this birth is that when Salome checked her "parts", as described IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
​

What parts do you think she was searching for? Does birthflux prove virginity? Would birthflux be found in the "parts"? No. She was looking for what a virgin would have that would be unique to a virgin: an intact hymen.

We're not talking about Salome, but about the midwife.

The young child (some "mistranslate" the word infant) appears. The midwife says, wow, a virgin has brought forth; something her nature allows not. Why does the midwife believe her a virgin? She doesn't check anything. What does she see or not see? She's looking at the outside of Mary (not the inside like Salome). A baby appears. What else would the midwife expect, that doesn't appear, hence a virgin brought forth?

Clement of Alexandria speaks to this c200ad. Ambrose speaks to this (born from the east gate; Mary's side) c392ad. Trullo speaks to this 692ad. John of Damascus speaks to this c792ad.

 

[SolomonVII]

Being "Apocrypha" doesn't mean it's to be avoided.

Alas and alack.
If you had only read the link to the papal decree that I have already posted, you would see that that was the exact language used in that

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:

By your own publication of the KJV with Apocrypha, if it was to be avoided, it shouldn't be there. It means "of questionable authenticity". The root word means "not canonical". So what?

You give me too much credit. KJV was not my own publication. I am no where near that old.
These are not the apocryphal works that the pope was talking about either though.
KJV is not your authority after all. I can only assume that the infallible authority that you spoke of had something to do with the popes.

You know what's really funny? You take Tertullian's writing in one point, but not in another. For that writing, the Decretum Gellasium, says this as well:
"3. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE HISTORIES: Jobone bookTobitone bookEsdrastwo booksEsterone bookJudithone bookMaccabeestwo books"

Well two points.
First, we are talking about what YOU list as your own infallible authority that guides you, not mine.
Second point, Tertullian is used by referred to here by most posters not as an infallible authority, but as a historic testimony to the faith of the apostles, and how that was understood by the man who is as much the Father of Latin Christianity as any other man.
It is not as you are doing, using a book that your own authority advises you avoid, and thereby understanding your Marian doctrines according to that pseudo-epigraphical fiction.
I presume no dogma from Tertullian, and only a perspective on what Christianity was before the apostolic faith became the apostolic faith as retold by the ecclesiastics.

I make no argument either for or against the Deuterocanicals being a part of the Scripture, by the way. That is a tangent to the discussion, and of course has nothing to do with a thread about Mary, since she is not a part of those books at all.

 

[sculleywr]

We're not talking about Salome, but about the midwife.

The young child (some "mistranslate" the word infant) appears. The midwife says, wow, a virgin has brought forth; something her nature allows not. Why does the midwife believe her a virgin? She doesn't check anything. What does she see or not see? She's looking at the outside of Mary (not the inside like Salome). A baby appears. What else would the midwife expect, that doesn't appear, hence a virgin brought forth?

Clement of Alexandria speaks to this c200ad. Ambrose speaks to this (born from the east gate; Mary's side) c392ad. Trullo speaks to this 692ad. John of Damascus speaks to this c792ad.

Question: When a child comes out of the womb, does that not fit the idea of "appearing"? In that the child comes into sight, yes it does. Plus, there are other things that would happen. In today's world of technology, it is possible for us to actually know what happens when a person with an intact hymen gives birth, because there are methods of impregnation that do not involve sexual acts.

Perhaps it was the fact that any good midwife, even back then, would know to check obvious signs, such as dilation. Well, with a dilated opening, the hymen would be clearly visible, so she could easily have seen the hymen without "checking the parts." Remember, we are assuming a PHYSICAL BIRTH. As far as we know, the use of the word "appear" was a euphemism, instead of complex and graphic descriptions of childbirth. It is assumed that this writing was made for every person, which would mean that only those things which are readily known by all people, even those who have not seen childbirth, would be mentioned.

Secondly, the fact that she sends for ANOTHER woman to help indicates that Mary was in intense labor, because, back then, one midwife was normally enough.

Thirdly, by taking the quote out of the context, you have blinders on your horse, leading him into a bramble thicket instead of green pastures, by controlling what is seen. The surrounding context speaks to which nature she spoke of: the virginity of Mary.

 

[Standing Up]

Question: When a child comes out of the womb, does that not fit the idea of "appearing"? In that the child comes into sight, yes it does. Plus, there are other things that would happen. In today's world of technology, it is possible for us to actually know what happens when a person with an intact hymen gives birth, because there are methods of impregnation that do not involve sexual acts.

Perhaps it was the fact that any good midwife, even back then, would know to check obvious signs, such as dilation. Well, with a dilated opening, the hymen would be clearly visible, so she could easily have seen the hymen without "checking the parts." Remember, we are assuming a PHYSICAL BIRTH. As far as we know, the use of the word "appear" was a euphemism, instead of complex and graphic descriptions of childbirth. It is assumed that this writing was made for every person, which would mean that only those things which are readily known by all people, even those who have not seen childbirth, would be mentioned.

Secondly, the fact that she sends for ANOTHER woman to help indicates that Mary was in intense labor, because, back then, one midwife was normally enough.

The midwife hasn't sent for help.

Thirdly, by taking the quote out of the context, you have blinders on your horse, leading him into a bramble thicket instead of green pastures, by controlling what is seen. The surrounding context speaks to which nature she spoke of: the virginity of Mary.

" And she [midwife] said to her: Salome, Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not. And Salome said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I make not trial and prove her nature I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth. "

Without inspecting Mary, why does the midwife believe a virgin gave birth? What is the proof? The proof of a virgin in a marriage, is what? But when that appears, she is no longer a virgin. In the case of the midwife, what is still missing?

Again, you already know. You quoted Clement of Alexandria. You quoted Ambrose. I mentioned the Trullo council and John of Damascus. C'mon. It's okay to disagree with what you know I suppose, but what was it? I did mention you won't like the answer or was that to something else?

 

[sculleywr]

The midwife hasn't sent for help.



" And she [midwife] said to her: Salome, Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not. And Salome said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I make not trial and prove her nature I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth. "

Without inspecting Mary, why does the midwife believe a virgin gave birth? What is the proof? The proof of a virgin in a marriage, is what? But when that appears, she is no longer a virgin. In the case of the midwife, what is still missing?

Again, you already know. You quoted Clement of Alexandria. You quoted Ambrose. I mentioned the Trullo council and John of Damascus. C'mon. It's okay to disagree with what you know I suppose, but what was it? I did mention you won't like the answer or was that to something else?

Ok, just for the sake of the argument, please explain to the audience what a midwife is required to do.

Isn't a midwife SUPPOSED to "check the parts"? You know. Wouldn't it be normal for a midwife to be looking in the vaginal passage and directly observing the birth? Wouldn't this standard operating procedure bring her into visible sight of the hymen, which would only rupture after a person was almost fully dilated, assuming we aren't disagreeing with the fact that she was a pregnant virgin.

You are bringing in outside quotes in a place where common sense should tell you, what WOULDN'T be missing?

I could bring in John Chrystostom, Athanasius, and others if you like. We can always play "battle of the saints", but quite honestly, I find that extremely disrespectful.

The question is, how inept and stupid do you really think the midwife was? Apparently too stupid to do a routine inspection that is the normal operating procedure of midwives back then.

I should think you a little smarter than that. Please, go look up what the role of a midwife is, because, with the exception of certifications and licenses, the job hasn't changed in hundreds of years. Saying that a midwife wouldn't have a very good look at the vaginal passages is equivalent to saying that about your local Ob/Gyn. In other words, extremely oblivious to the reality of things.

 

[Standing Up]

Ok, just for the sake of the argument, please explain to the audience what a midwife is required to do.

Isn't a midwife SUPPOSED to "check the parts"? You know. Wouldn't it be normal for a midwife to be looking in the vaginal passage and directly observing the birth? Wouldn't this standard operating procedure bring her into visible sight of the hymen, which would only rupture after a person was almost fully dilated, assuming we aren't disagreeing with the fact that she was a pregnant virgin.

You are bringing in outside quotes in a place where common sense should tell you, what WOULDN'T be missing?

I could bring in John Chrystostom, Athanasius, and others if you like. We can always play "battle of the saints", but quite honestly, I find that extremely disrespectful.

The question is, how inept and stupid do you really think the midwife was? Apparently too stupid to do a routine inspection that is the normal operating procedure of midwives back then.

I should think you a little smarter than that. Please, go look up what the role of a midwife is, because, with the exception of certifications and licenses, the job hasn't changed in hundreds of years. Saying that a midwife wouldn't have a very good look at the vaginal passages is equivalent to saying that about your local Ob/Gyn. In other words, extremely oblivious to the reality of things.

The midwife delivers babies, makes sure everything is okay thereafter.

Like I said, you and I already quoted (Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, Trullo) the issue at that time. Those who thought Mary remained a virgin said there was no accompanying blood, water, cord, afterbirth. Those (Tertullian too) who thought Mary delivered normally agreed there was water and blood and cord and placenta; thus virginity necessarly over.

Tradition is a box of chocolates. Take your pick, but check the source of the package. It is either from apostles/scripture or somewhere else. In this case, the PoJ is from somewhere else.

 

[sculleywr]

The midwife delivers babies, makes sure everything is okay thereafter.

Like I said, you and I already quoted (Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, Trullo) the issue at that time. Those who thought Mary remained a virgin said there was no accompanying blood, water, cord, afterbirth. Those (Tertullian too) who thought Mary delivered normally agreed there was water and blood and cord and placenta; thus virginity necessarly over.

Tradition is a box of chocolates. Take your pick, but check the source of the package. It is either from apostles/scripture or somewhere else. In this case, the PoJ is from somewhere else.

How do you think a midwife would deliver a child WITHOUT looking at the place the child comes out of?

How many of the gospels record the afterflux? or the umbilical cord?

Your method of checking the story out is like saying that one chocolate isn't worth it because it doesn't have a cherry, but you like these four, despite the fact that there isn't a cherry in any of them, either.

If the Four do not record the afterbirth, why should the others?

 

[SolomonVII]

Question:
How do you think a midwife would deliver a child WITHOUT looking at the place the child comes out of.

And I Joseph was walking, and was not walking; and I looked up into the sky, and saw the sky astonished; and I looked up to the pole of the heavens, and saw it standing, and the birds of the air keeping still. And I looked down upon the earth, and saw a trough lying, and work-people reclining: and their hands were in the trough. And those that were eating did not eat, and those that were rising did not carry it up, and those that were conveying anything to their mouths did not convey it; but the faces of all were looking upwards. And I saw the sheep walking, and the sheep stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them, and his hand remained up. And I looked upon the current of the river, and I saw the mouths of the kids resting on the water and not drinking, and all things in a moment were driven from their course.
19. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither are you going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Are you of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not your wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit.
And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight.

Answer: Blinded by the Light


Manfred Mann - Blinded by the Light - YouTube

 

[SolomonVII]

Funny that the people who just love this text are usually the ones who show not even the slightest awareness that would come to them through actually reading it.