Something About Mary (2)

[Standing Up]

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.

Yep. Blinded by the light indeed.

The light disappears. The child is there. The midwife says, wow, a virgin has delivered. She is still in the childbirth state. She still has the water, blood, cord, afterbirth in her.

That's the PoJ POV. But a few years later Clement of Alexandria counters the PoJ myth saying, " 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

PoJ says Mary remained a virgin, remained in the puerperal state (childbirth state). ALTHOUGH SHE WAS NOT. Why do they say it? AFTER she brought forth, she was still a virgin. The only way to still be a virgin is no normal birth, no breaking of water, no normal delivery with water and blood and cord and placenta.

BUT such to us are the scripture---they give birth and remain virgin.

 

[SolomonVII]

That's the PoJ POV. But a few years later Clement of Alexandria counters the PoJ myth saying, " 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. "

The Virgin that Clement speaks of having giving birth to truth, while still remaining virgin is Scripture.

The original theological point, devoid of the PoJ influence, is about a purely metaphorical, allegorical kind of virginity. It is not all about Mary, but about Scripture giving birth to the Word.
Clement makes that quite clear, and discounts the PoJ fiction of virginity being all about intact hymens.
Of course Mary would not have been left in the puerperal state, for that would have been sickness and death to her.
Instead, Clement shows that Scripture contains the meaning of Mary's virginity—which is a virginity not of conjunction....

con•ju•ga•tion (ˌkɒn dʒəˈgeɪ ʃən)
3. the state of being joined together; union; conjunction.

Of herself then, and not of herself and Joseph, not of a sexual conjoining whatsoever.

PoJ represents a corruption of the theology of metaphorical virginity, which is about purity and wholeness, of the truth being brought forth out into the world, while at the same time remaining complete and whole within the passages that give birth to the truth.

The spiritual truth is about the miracle of Scripture. By making it about a woman's physical virginity being preserved during the birthing process, the spiritual truth remains hidden. Instead of being something about Scripture, the PoJ makes it something about Mary.

remaining true to Scripture as the source of Christian truth, and the theology remains pure and virginal, unstained by the corruption that PoJ subjects the truth about Mary and the truth about Scripture to.

Clement warned against this too, but his brethren failed to heed the warning.

 

[sculleywr]

Yep. Blinded by the light indeed.

The light disappears. The child is there. The midwife says, wow, a virgin has delivered. She is still in the childbirth state. She still has the water, blood, cord, afterbirth in her.

That's the PoJ POV. But a few years later Clement of Alexandria counters the PoJ myth saying, " 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

PoJ says Mary remained a virgin, remained in the puerperal state (childbirth state). ALTHOUGH SHE WAS NOT. Why do they say it? AFTER she brought forth, she was still a virgin. The only way to still be a virgin is no normal birth, no breaking of water, no normal delivery with water and blood and cord and placenta.

BUT such to us are the scripture---they give birth and remain virgin.

Wow, you ignore the fact that she is a MIDWIFE. Apparently, the midwife is the most incompetent midwife this world has ever seen, because she didn't take a look at the vaginal passage.

Please, do the world a favor, go take a midwifery class, or stop talking about midwives altogether. You're making the entire medical world do this:

 

[Standing Up]

Wow, you ignore the fact that she is a MIDWIFE. Apparently, the midwife is the most incompetent midwife this world has ever seen, because she didn't take a look at the vaginal passage.

Please, do the world a favor, go take a midwifery class, or stop talking about midwives altogether. You're making the entire medical world do this:

That's what Aquinas, Jerome, and Popes did because the PoJ contradicts scripture. In scripture there is no midwife. But believe what you want.

 

[Standing Up]

The Virgin that Clement speaks of having giving birth to truth, while still remaining virgin is Scripture.

The original theological point, devoid of the PoJ influence, is about a purely metaphorical, allegorical kind of virginity. It is not all about Mary, but about Scripture giving birth to the Word.
Clement makes that quite clear, and discounts the PoJ fiction of virginity being all about intact hymens.
Of course Mary would not have been left in the puerperal state, for that would have been sickness and death to her.
Instead, Clement shows that Scripture contains the meaning of Mary's virginity—which is a virginity not of conjunction....

con•ju•ga•tion (ˌkɒn dʒəˈgeɪ ʃən)
3. the state of being joined together; union; conjunction.

Of herself then, and not of herself and Joseph, not of a sexual conjoining whatsoever.

PoJ represents a corruption of the theology of metaphorical virginity, which is about purity and wholeness, of the truth being brought forth out into the world, while at the same time remaining complete and whole within the passages that give birth to the truth.

The spiritual truth is about the miracle of Scripture. By making it about a woman's physical virginity being preserved during the birthing process, the spiritual truth remains hidden. Instead of being something about Scripture, the PoJ makes it something about Mary.

remaining true to Scripture as the source of Christian truth, and the theology remains pure and virginal, unstained by the corruption that PoJ subjects the truth about Mary and the truth about Scripture to.

Clement warned against this too, but his brethren failed to heed the warning.

I hope lots of people read this and the light goes on ... well said.

To add my 2cents, you've also sourced the whole disagreement and subsequent schisming between those who rely on bishop opinion (aka Tradition) and God's word (aka Scripture).

 

[sculleywr]

That's what Aquinas, Jerome, and Popes did because the PoJ contradicts scripture. In scripture there is no midwife. But believe what you want.

In Scripture, there is no description of the birth. And you avoided the question. You claimed a midwife wouldn't make a routine inspection that would reveal pregnancy.

 

[sculleywr]

That's what Aquinas, Jerome, and Popes did because the PoJ contradicts scripture. In scripture there is no midwife. But believe what you want.

Also, recording things that weren't in scripture wouldn't be contradicting scripture. Contradiction would be if the scripture actually said there was no midwife.

 

[Standing Up]

In Scripture, there is no description of the birth. And you avoided the question. You claimed a midwife wouldn't make a routine inspection that would reveal pregnancy.

There was no midwife.

Lk. 2:7 And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

 

[sculleywr]

There was no midwife.

Lk. 2:7 And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

I don't happen to see "And there was no midwife". Your argument is invalid.

The Bible also doesn't mention that it is possible to visit the moon. Or that Luke actually wrote those words.

If you're able to exclude things solely based on their nonexistence in the Bible, do us a favor and exclude the titles of the gospels, and don't ever look at the amazing photo below taken on the moon, because the possibility of it isn't mentioned in the Bible:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/62297main_neil_on_moon_full.jpg

 

[Standing Up]

I don't happen to see "And there was no midwife". Your argument is invalid.

The Bible also doesn't mention that it is possible to visit the moon. Or that Luke actually wrote those words.

If you're able to exclude things solely based on their nonexistence in the Bible, do us a favor and exclude the titles of the gospels, and don't ever look at the amazing photo below taken on the moon, because the possibility of it isn't mentioned in the Bible:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/62297main_neil_on_moon_full.jpg

Umm, you're thinking you're the expert on midwives. Don't they deliver, wrap, and lay the baby in a crib? But the bible says, Mary did those things.

Basically, you're arguing from silence. You're assuming something that isn't there based on a book (PoJ) that contradicts scripture and is rrejected by the very church your group was once part of.

Frankly, I think the conversation has run its course.

 

[SolomonVII]

I hope lots of people read this and the light goes on ... well said.

To add my 2cents, you've also sourced the whole disagreement and subsequent schisming between those who rely on bishop opinion (aka Tradition) and God's word (aka Scripture).

I have learned much in my time here.
Thanks.

I think it was Mark R. that was rolling his eyes when I entered into yet another ride on this merry-go-round about this kind of doctrine.

However the nature of the debate has also changed considerably. The evidence of PoJ as the first source of this kind of Marian doctrine was initially met with stiff resistance, then grudging acceptance, and then by outright defence of PoJ as people more and more began to become aware of the logic of that argument and the logic of the nature of the evidence.
Finally, only the most obstinate and most un-scholarly who stick around and continue that argument, for there is a real conundrum to be the ones who are advocating a writing that their own Church and their own Tradition has rejected as apocryphal centuries and centuries ago.

Good sounds, the sound that idols make as they tumble and shatter against the hard ground of truth.

Full understanding of the methods of the fathers of the early church however do offer themselves to the correct allegorical understanding of the virginity of Mary as it applies to the virginity of the Gospel of Christian Scripture.

If it can't be historical—and it simply is not historical, but the product of a different time period than the apostolic one altogether—then it must be metaphorical, allegorical, literary, a purely spiritual understanding from the religious imagination.

For many Catholics who already accept that the truth about Adam and Eve is best expressed in those terms too, it would be no stretch for them to come to the same kind of understanding about the role that Mary plays in the imagination of their Traditions.
Be that as it may, except for the most obstinate, anti-rational, and anti-scholastic, believing in the literal perpetual virginity of Mary as an apostolic teaching is no longer a valid option.
And the light of that, no doubt, has begun to dawn on more and more people, as they have gone around and around and around in these discussions with us.

 

[sculleywr]

Umm, you're thinking you're the expert on midwives. Don't they deliver, wrap, and lay the baby in a crib? But the bible says, Mary did those things.

Basically, you're arguing from silence. You're assuming something that isn't there based on a book (PoJ) that contradicts scripture and is rrejected by the very church your group was once part of.

Frankly, I think the conversation has run its course.

No. A midwife manages the delivery of a child. These tasks include:

1. Keeping track of time between contractions
2. Making sure that the dilation is ample by making physical observations of the vaginal tract.
3. Aiding the mother in the delivery of the child. Ultimately, it is the mother who delivers the child, even if there is a doctor present. The presence of the midwife does not mean that the mother does not do the work of delivering.
4. Since the advent of the C-Section, it is the midwife who preps the mother. However, the C-Section had not been invented in the time of Christ, so that point is moot. This is, however, the only time in which a mother would not be delivering a child.


In the time of Christ, it was the common custom of the midwife to work on a catch and release system. She caught the child as the mother delivered him. She would then hand the child over to the mother to be clean, snip the cord, and wrap the child.

In short, there is nothing in the PoJ which contradicts Scripture. Even were there a team of doctors with modern tools to help, the person who ultimately would have delivered the child would be Mary. The PoJ does not record WHO wrapped the child, and so that point is moot.

The conversation is the topic of whether or not the PoJ contradicts the Scripture. And you have YET to provide a concrete evidence of this. You are woefully uninformed on the job of midwives, both in history and modern time. Even today, a midwife is only to do what the mother allows. A midwife will not wash, snip, or wrap without the mother's consent.

 

[jackmt]

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.

But that is just "higher criticism" that allows one to place his own judgment above Scripture. "Yeah, hath God said...?"

There is plenty of evidence internal to the Scriptures that they were wriiten by the people of the time. Matthew, for example, was written to the Jews prior to the diaspora. There is no mention of the diaspora in it. The time frame is that of the Jewish day in 2 twelve hour watches. John was written later to the Roman world. The time frame is that of the Roman clock with 2 twelve hour watches beginning at midnight. There are many such internal evidences.

 

[sculleywr]

But that is just "higher criticism" that allows one to place his own judgment above Scripture. "Yeah, hath God said...?"

There is plenty of evidence internal to the Scriptures that they were wriiten by the people of the time. Matthew, for example, was written to the Jews prior to the diaspora. There is no mention of the diaspora in it. The time frame is that of the Jewish day in 2 twelve hour watches. John was written later to the Roman world. The time frame is that of the Roman clock with 2 twelve hour watches beginning at midnight. There are many such internal evidences.

The thing is, the evidence is purely coincidental evidence, as far as logical premises go. There is no real concrete evidence of it. Especially in the case of John-Mark, whose Scriptural description is quite short, we would not be able to conclusively identify Mark as the author without bringing in the extra-scriptural information about Mark.

 

[Standing Up]

The thing is, the evidence is purely coincidental evidence, as far as logical premises go. There is no real concrete evidence of it. Especially in the case of John-Mark, whose Scriptural description is quite short, we would not be able to conclusively identify Mark as the author without bringing in the extra-scriptural information about Mark.

Is it odd you that you argue for PoJ that has even less evidence, even more doctrinal issues, and even outright church rejection, but presumably accept Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn? For what?

Maybe you're like John of Damascus whose NT consisted of 28 books. IIRC, EO never has formalized a NT canon. So, yeah, I suppose it could.

 

[Standing Up]

I have learned much in my time here.
Thanks.

I think it was Mark R. that was rolling his eyes when I entered into yet another ride on this merry-go-round about this kind of doctrine.

However the nature of the debate has also changed considerably. The evidence of PoJ as the first source of this kind of Marian doctrine was initially met with stiff resistance, then grudging acceptance, and then by outright defence of PoJ as people more and more began to become aware of the logic of that argument and the logic of the nature of the evidence.
Finally, only the most obstinate and most un-scholarly who stick around and continue that argument, for there is a real conundrum to be the ones who are advocating a writing that their own Church and their own Tradition has rejected as apocryphal centuries and centuries ago.

It has been a fun ride. Origen sources the PoJ for the ever-virgin doctrine. Too bad, for the sake of those who continue to believe the myth, that he couldn't cite any apostles or lineage or scripure for it.

I'd still suggest Marcion or Valentinus or someone from their camp as the author. The PoJ is far too docetic to suggest the literally physical "James brother of the Lord" (same mother, different father) as the author, but myth begs for authority.

Good sounds, the sound that idols make as they tumble and shatter against the hard ground of truth.

Full understanding of the methods of the fathers of the early church however do offer themselves to the correct allegorical understanding of the virginity of Mary as it applies to the virginity of the Gospel of Christian Scripture.

If it can't be historical—and it simply is not historical, but the product of a different time period than the apostolic one altogether—then it must be metaphorical, allegorical, literary, a purely spiritual understanding from the religious imagination.

For many Catholics who already accept that the truth about Adam and Eve is best expressed in those terms too, it would be no stretch for them to come to the same kind of understanding about the role that Mary plays in the imagination of their Traditions.
Be that as it may, except for the most obstinate, anti-rational, and anti-scholastic, believing in the literal perpetual virginity of Mary as an apostolic teaching is no longer a valid option.
And the light of that, no doubt, has begun to dawn on more and more people, as they have gone around and around and around in these discussions with us.

Quite so. It is enough that the virgin conceived and bore a Son, who came in the flesh, who came by water and blood. We don't need the two women (the midwife and Salome) to teach us contradiction to what God-breathed scripture has plainly said.

 

[sculleywr]

Is it odd you that you argue for PoJ that has even less evidence, even more doctrinal issues, and even outright church rejection, but presumably accept Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn? For what?

Maybe you're like John of Damascus whose NT consisted of 28 books. IIRC, EO never has formalized a NT canon. So, yeah, I suppose it could.

You apparently missed the whole Athanasian Canon, that the Eastern Orthodox Church has accepted as its canon. I never said the PoJ was Scripture. There aren't any major doctrinal issues at all with it.

Our modern knowledge of medicine renders the argument that it presents a non-physical birth obsolete and inapplicable, as the best understanding of "that which is in me presses to come forth" is of a labor contraction, and the picture of a midwife saying that a virgin has "given birth" implies the actual action of giving birth. Notice that the midwife did not say "the child appeared", but rather that "she gave birth."

 

[Standing Up]

You apparently missed the whole Athanasian Canon, that the Eastern Orthodox Church has accepted as its canon. I never said the PoJ was Scripture. There aren't any major doctrinal issues at all with it.

Our modern knowledge of medicine renders the argument that it presents a non-physical birth obsolete and inapplicable, as the best understanding of "that which is in me presses to come forth" is of a labor contraction, and the picture of a midwife saying that a virgin has "given birth" implies the actual action of giving birth. Notice that the midwife did not say "the child appeared", but rather that "she gave birth."

We can go through it again, but it won't do any good.

" that which is within me presseth me, to come forth"

Okay, but as Ambrose would say, the east gate. Or as John of Damascus would mention, her side.

" and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary. And the midwife cried aloud and said: Great unto me to-day is this day, in that I have seen this new sight.

3 And the midwife went forth of the cave and Salome met her. And she 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. "

In the first place, the midwife did nothing and saw nothing, except a light. Simultaneously with the light disappearing, a young child appears. Not an infant or a baby. It takes the breast.

Like I said, I believe the conversation has run its course. We're repeating ourselves.

 

[sculleywr]

We can go through it again, but it won't do any good.

" that which is within me presseth me, to come forth"

Okay, but as Ambrose would say, the east gate. Or as John of Damascus would mention, her side.

" and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary. And the midwife cried aloud and said: Great unto me to-day is this day, in that I have seen this new sight.

3 And the midwife went forth of the cave and Salome met her. And she 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. "

In the first place, the midwife did nothing and saw nothing, except a light. Simultaneously with the light disappearing, a young child appears. Not an infant or a baby. It takes the breast.

Like I said, I believe the conversation has run its course. We're repeating ourselves.

Why do you imply the midwife in the "we"? She was within the cave, wherein the light was shining. Whereas the "we" seems to imply those without the cave.

Only a few sentences later:

And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will have safety and joy.

It seems infant and small child can be, like in English, used interchangeably. In all technicality, an infant is a small child.

As to the "appearance", no amount of time is given for how long the light shined. And it would certainly appear that, to an outsider who had seen them with no child before the light, and with a child present after, that the child had appeared. Either way, the lack of a narrative of the birth itself is shared by all four of the gospels.

Finally, I have never seen a gate press, and the whole body is involved in contractions in labor. You might construe that they were Braxton-Hicks contractions, but that still requires a physical infant. Throughout the PoJ, the physicality of her pregnancy is evident:

13. And she was in her sixth month; and, behold, Joseph came back from his building, and, entering into his house, he discovered that she was big with child

And he turned, and saw that Mary was with child.

Were it an incorporeal birth, why would the corporeal signs of a physical pregnancy be needed?

 

[Standing Up]

Why do you imply the midwife in the "we"? She was within the cave, wherein the light was shining. Whereas the "we" seems to imply those without the cave.

Only a few sentences later:

And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will have safety and joy.

It seems infant and small child can be, like in English, used interchangeably. In all technicality, an infant is a small child.

I already mentioned that interpreters translate the word differently in order to fit their centuries later doctrine. From the same work I quoted:

" 3 And lo, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Salome, Salome, the Lord hath hearkened to thee: bring thine hand near unto the young child and take him up, and there shall be unto thee salvation and joy. "

"Young child" doesn't fit your theology, hence you have a translation that says "infant".

As to the "appearance", no amount of time is given for how long the light shined. And it would certainly appear that, to an outsider who had seen them with no child before the light, and with a child present after, that the child had appeared. Either way, the lack of a narrative of the birth itself is shared by all four of the gospels.

I also keep saying one has to read the PoJ as those c150ad wrote it. It contrasts with scripture (born by water and blood) and Tertullian (born with all the afterbirth, cord, water, and blood) and Clement of Alexandria (did not remain in the childbirth state).

The PoJ is docetic. Just like Hermas (the Shepherd) is docetic. These things are not scripture or apostolic for a very good reason.

Finally, I have never seen a gate press, and the whole body is involved in contractions in labor. You might construe that they were Braxton-Hicks contractions, but that still requires a physical infant. Throughout the PoJ, the physicality of her pregnancy is evident:

13. And she was in her sixth month; and, behold, Joseph came back from his building, and, entering into his house, he discovered that she was big with child

And he turned, and saw that Mary was with child.

Were it an incorporeal birth, why would the corporeal signs of a physical pregnancy be needed?

What was inside her pressed to get out. But unless you agree with scripture, tertullian, and clement that it was a normal, virginity ending human birth, it wasn't through the "east" "gate", but the "south gate".

Again, the idea of a phantom birth or "did not come in the flesh", is NOT to say people couldn't see him or touch him. It was the idea (at that time) that he passed through Mary only. She was a straw, a conduit, through which he passed to appear on earth.

Again, look at it for the arguments at that time. Not 1800 years removed with the full-blown mariology. But back then. The argument was between a normal human by water and blood birth, and the docetic, conduit, remained in the birthlike state without cord and placenta. IOW, as John says, it was between the two contrasting ideas that Christ came in the flesh or anti-christ (did not come in the flesh). That was the issue they fought over.

Centuries later as they hammered it out, they ended up maintaining both ideas. Mary remained a virgin (somehow) and Jesus came in the flesh (somehow). The Trullo council spelled it out finally (no afterflux, Mary remained a virgin); the council simply rubber stamped what Marcion and Valentinus and PoJ had been saying, while yet maintaing the Christian message of Christ as God-with-us (Emmanuel).

John emphasizes the Word became flesh. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (and Cyril of Jerusalem) witnessed to that fact. If Mary gave birth normally (water and blood and cord and placenta (all the human things)), then her virginity is gone, but we will maintain God-with-us. For them, it was two diametrically opposed ideas, it was Christ or anti-christ.

Mary was a normal person who was blessed, chosen by God to bear Christ. She did. Her relationship with Joseph thereafter is frankly none of our business. What is our business is to proclaim Emmanuel.