Something About Mary (2)

[sculleywr]

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".

Actually, it says both. One passage says infant, one says young child.

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.

And your evidence that it was written in 150 is what experts say. Those same experts you quote say it because they claim Justin Martyr references it. They also say the gospels weren't written until 160, because they aren't explicitly referenced until Irenaeus of Lyons.

1. You claim it excludes the afterbirth, cord, water, and blood. So do the gospels. Could you please find where, in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, it speaks of the cord, placental discharge, or any of that?
2. You claim it was used by Marcion. Even IF it was used (as no references in the writings of Marcion actually are made to the PoJ), Marcion also used the gospel of Luke. We know this because the Gospel of Luke (or rather, a truncated version thereof) was the only gospel included in the canon which Marcion made. Marcion never included the PoJ.

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.

Please, explain to me how a non-physical brain would create physical chemicals to cause contractions. The PoJ contains no mention of a gate in the vicinity of the mention of contractions. Besides that, it was not a Jewish custom even in 150 to come down from a donkey simply because of entering a gate, except it were an exceptionally small gate, which we have no reason to think such.

Right now, claiming it is a gate is a non sequitir, since a gate is not mentioned.

However, to claim that Mary had a normal birth and that her virginity was healed is to neither deny a human birth, nor to deny the virginity of Mary. As this was the accepted view of Athanasius and John Chrysostom (as proven much earlier), I will follow with them. Considering that your canon is based on the words of Athanasius, I think you should either re-evaluate your canon, or your stance on the doctrine upon which he based the formulation of your canon.

 

[Thekla]

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".

You'll find the same variation in terminology in the Gospels (infant/young child).

 

[Standing Up]

You'll find the same variation in terminology in the Gospels (infant/young child).

Not because of a theological question, like in PoJ.

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, it says both. One passage says infant, one says young child.



And your evidence that it was written in 150 is what experts say. Those same experts you quote say it because they claim Justin Martyr references it. They also say the gospels weren't written until 160, because they aren't explicitly referenced until Irenaeus of Lyons.

No, I've already quoted Justin Martyr who is quoting Isaiah about the cave/rock. He does NOT reference PoJ. No one but you maintains this false association. Again, quote Martyr, don't just give us your opinion of Martyr, especially since I've quoted him saying explicitely otherwise.

1. You claim it excludes the afterbirth, cord, water, and blood. So do the gospels. Could you please find where, in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, it speaks of the cord, placental discharge, or any of that?
2. You claim it was used by Marcion. Even IF it was used (as no references in the writings of Marcion actually are made to the PoJ), Marcion also used the gospel of Luke. We know this because the Gospel of Luke (or rather, a truncated version thereof) was the only gospel included in the canon which Marcion made. Marcion never included the PoJ. -snip-

1 Jn 5 " This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. "

Again, please understand the nature of the argument back then. The PoJ excludes any water and blood at birth. Remember it is the only way the midwife thought she was still a virgin. No evidence of any birth---only a young child. Clement of Alexandria KNOWS this, referencing and rejecting the same idea from the PoJ that Mary remained in the childbirth (puerperal) state (no afterbirth), (although she did not remain in that state he says). The Trullo council also maintains the PoJ idea---no afterbirth.

That was the argument back then. It's no good to apply 2000 year old mariology ideas to what THEY were thinking/teaching/believing.

 

[Thekla]

Not because of a theological question, like in PoJ.

Don't know that this is so; it would be helpful to have the Greek, and/or to know of variant texts (copyists, etc).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Don't know that this is so; it would be helpful to have the Greek, and/or to know of variant texts (copyists, etc).

That could take awhile to accomplish...

 

[sculleywr]

No, I've already quoted Justin Martyr who is quoting Isaiah about the cave/rock. He does NOT reference PoJ. No one but you maintains this false association. Again, quote Martyr, don't just give us your opinion of Martyr, especially since I've quoted him saying explicitely otherwise.

Either trust your experts, or don't trust them. I'm not saying something that isn't said by your own sources. You can't have both. If you're going to trust their dating of the PoJ, you need to trust the reason they say it was written then.

Your version of logic is this:

John Brainiac says that the PoJ was written in 150 AD. I agree with him because he has a Ph.D. in Textual History.

John Brainiac says his reason for this dating of 150 AD is because of references in the writings of Justin Martyr. I disagree with him because I don't like that idea.

1 Jn 5 " This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. "

Again, please understand the nature of the argument back then. The PoJ excludes any water and blood at birth. Remember it is the only way the midwife thought she was still a virgin. No evidence of any birth---only a young child. Clement of Alexandria KNOWS this, referencing and rejecting the same idea from the PoJ that Mary remained in the childbirth (puerperal) state (no afterbirth), (although she did not remain in that state he says). The Trullo council also maintains the PoJ idea---no afterbirth.

That was the argument back then. It's no good to apply 2000 year old mariology ideas to what THEY were thinking/teaching/believing.

I thought we were comparing the gospels, let me make it real plain and simple, and apparently big enough for your vision impairment (or are you using selective reading?):

The gospels do not record the afterbirth! Neither does the PoJ. If it's wrong for not including it, then so are they!!!

Please, quit repeating arguments against statements which are not at debate. It hasn't been asked for 3-4 pages if the Scriptures reference water and blood. It has been asked if any of the physical nature of the birth in the gospels is left out of the PoJ. And, by the evidence, it is not.

So, is it your standards of judgment that are wrong? or the Gospels? Because your standard for judging the PoJ would cause a logical man to exclude the Gospels.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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".



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.



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.

Regarding the highlighted, you've got to be joking. The Catholic and Orthodox churches look more to the apostolic teachings than any other Churches. Our liturgies are ancient. Our doctrines are all ancient.

 

[Standing Up]

Either trust your experts, or don't trust them. I'm not saying something that isn't said by your own sources. You can't have both. If you're going to trust their dating of the PoJ, you need to trust the reason they say it was written then.

Your version of logic is this:

John Brainiac says that the PoJ was written in 150 AD. I agree with him because he has a Ph.D. in Textual History.

John Brainiac says his reason for this dating of 150 AD is because of references in the writings of Justin Martyr. I disagree with him because I don't like that idea.

Except, no one but you, connects PoJ and Martyr. Even Martyr doesn't make the connection; he clearly says he's referencing Isaiah.

"
Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language and the fact that the author is apparently not aware of contemporary Jewish customs while James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (not written by the person it is attributed to).[3] It apparently embellishes what is told of events surrounding Mary, prior to and at the moment of Jesus' birth, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter", was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[4]
"
Gospel of James

I thought we were comparing the gospels, let me make it real plain and simple, and apparently big enough for your vision impairment (or are you using selective reading?):

The gospels do not record the afterbirth! Neither does the PoJ. If it's wrong for not including it, then so are they!!!

Please, quit repeating arguments against statements which are not at debate. It hasn't been asked for 3-4 pages if the Scriptures reference water and blood. It has been asked if any of the physical nature of the birth in the gospels is left out of the PoJ. And, by the evidence, it is not.

So, is it your standards of judgment that are wrong? or the Gospels? Because your standard for judging the PoJ would cause a logical man to exclude the Gospels.

John (1 John) does record the afterbirth. Christ came in the flesh. Christ came by water and blood. That's the account of the afterbirth.

PoJ says no afterbirth (remained a virgin).

You can't have it both ways (lukewarm). Either virginity is over or no childbirth.

 

[Standing Up]

Regarding the highlighted, you've got to be joking. The Catholic and Orthodox churches look more to the apostolic teachings than any other Churches. Our liturgies are ancient. Our doctrines are all ancient.

Not the thread to generalize about more falsehoods.

 

[sculleywr]

Except, no one but you, connects PoJ and Martyr. Even Martyr doesn't make the connection; he clearly says he's referencing Isaiah.

"
Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language and the fact that the author is apparently not aware of contemporary Jewish customs while James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (not written by the person it is attributed to).[3] It apparently embellishes what is told of events surrounding Mary, prior to and at the moment of Jesus' birth, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter", was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[4]
"
Gospel of James

Nobody except me, eh?

The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr - Google Books

Infancy Gospel of James

The Virginity of Mary

St. Joseph Apocrypha flashcards | Quizlet

One book, one article, one college resource, and one student's flashcard set. I could draw more from the 43,200 results google finds connecting the two. I'm glad to be named among priests, men with doctorates in history on both secular and Christian sides of the fence, and normal every day people.

Care to revise your absolutism statement in light of the fact that there are a number

John (1 John) does record the afterbirth. Christ came in the flesh. Christ came by water and blood. That's the account of the afterbirth.

Considering that I John was not being compared to here, but the Gospel of John, your argument is still invalid. Find a GOSPEL. A GOSPEL! DO YOU HEAR ME???

PoJ says no afterbirth (remained a virgin).

Funny, I don't see it say the afterbirth didn't occur before the healing of the hymen. I don't see it saying anything ABOUT the afterbirth. I only see you reading it into the text when the text doesn't say what you WANT it to say. How about you go make a translation of it yourself, adding in the text you so obviously want it to have. I can put that translation right next to the Queen James Version on the special shelf labeled "Stuff that is never going to be in my house".

You can't have it both ways (lukewarm). Either virginity is over or no childbirth.

No, you can't tell me that it contradicts the gospels without adding in words and phrases. I love the hypocrisy of it though. You avoid the fact that the gospels don't record the afterbirth at all. But apparently, the lack of mentioning in the gospels doesn't mean it wasn't there. But the lack of mentioning in the PoJ is so obviously meaning it says there was no afterbirth that you accept it as fact without logically questioning your own double standard:

The Gospels do not record the afterbirth.
The PoJ does not record the afterbirth.

The afterbirth is necessary to the doctrine of the Church.

Therefore, the lack of mentioning afterbirth in any document recording the birth of Christ is grounds for declaring it non-canonical.

On these grounds, I declare the PoJ non-canonical.

Therefore, I must declare the gospels non-canonical.​

The above is the only logical way to go about it without having two-faced double standards.

Either accept the conclusion of your standards, or change your standards.

 

[Standing Up]

Nobody except me, eh?

The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr - Google Books
-snip-

After taking a look, I find nothing about PoJ. Perhaps you have a page #?

See it now. But nothing about a cave. You'll have to go deeper. Besides, I've already quoted Justin quoting scripture (isaiah). Not PoJ.

 

[sculleywr]

Not the thread to generalize about more falsehoods.

They're more ancient, honestly, than most Protestants could dream of being. Aside from Trinitarian theology, and the occasional branch that agrees on soteriology, there is a whole lot of new stuff Protestantism invented for itself.

What he says is the truth. The services the Orthodox have? One of them is from the first and early second century (some of the prayers in it were likely penned by the Apostles, while others came from later dates). The one we normally do is from the 4th and 5th century: The Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom. With the exception of certain prayers for specific people, such as the President, and prayer for those traveling by air, there isn't a whole lot new in our services, except for the languages.

 

[sculleywr]

After taking a look, I find nothing about PoJ. Perhaps you have a page #?

See it now. But nothing about a cave. You'll have to go deeper.

I gave four sources. In that one, it was the bottom of page 1

 

[Standing Up]

I gave four sources. In that one, it was the bottom of page 1

Got it.

 

[SolomonVII]

Got it.

They pick and choose which Tradition, according to their opinion.
They pick and choose which scholar is 'scholarly' enough too.

Fair enough.


Either way, a date of 145 is still according to the best evidence of all scholars.

 

[sculleywr]

They pick and choose which Tradition, according to their opinion.
They pick and choose which scholar is 'scholarly' enough too.

Fair enough.


Either way, a date of 145 is still according to the best evidence of all scholars.

They're the same scholars. Heck, even university courses in secular colleges include it. The same scholars what date the 150 on the PoJ, say that reasoning.

If you reject the PREMISE, then reject the conclusion that is BASED ON THE PREMISE.

It's called observing the evidence. The evidence, according to this date, is saying that the cave element, mentioned in the PoJ, is parallel to the writings of St. Justin Martyr.

Would you like to posit some DIFFERENT evidence?

What evidence do you have that Marcion wrote it? Your personal interpretation of it lining up with Marcion? I can make my personal interpretation of Scripture line up with him, too. It doesn't mean that Scripture agrees with him. Unless you have the PoJ quoting Marcion's writing, then you don't have anything.

The only evidence proposed, thus far, of Marcion's authorship, is a part of the birth being omitted by the author. This part, however, was omitted by every gospel.

It is a logical double standard. And it's an obvious one at that. You hold the gospels to a lower standard than any other writing? Perhaps your standards need revision. The gospels MEET a higher standard than any other writing. Therefore, the standards of other writings should be equal to, or less than, the standards set for the gospels.

As the standards you and Standing have set are standards the gospels do NOT meet (the inclusion of the afterbirth being the standard), I must reject your standards, because accepting your standards would require my logic to reject the gospels.

 

[Standing Up]

John, we believe, wrote the gospel of John and 1,2,3 John. So you ask for the gospels telling us that Christ was born normally, the author does.

In addition, when Mt. says "begat", everyone knows what that means. A normal human birth.

What we have with PoJ is no afterbirth. We know this because the midwife tells us and then Tertullian explains it and Clement of Alexandria says the same and then the Trullo council asserts the same idea.

Again, at that time, that was the contrast between scripture (came in the flesh, God with us) and docetic type teachers (PoJ, Marcion, Valentinus, etc).

Given this contrast, it makes sense that it was written early. No problem. But not by apostles and not by apostolic to bishop lineage teaching.

 

[SolomonVII]

Re Post 177:

It is just ironic that you mock me for referencing scholars, when you reference the same for your own conclusions.


One scholar notes that it is likely that Justin read PoJ. Fair enough. That is hardly a good reason for you to call me flat out wrong for noting that the first mention of PoJ does not go to Justin in 150 but to Origen 50 years later.
Cave birth has already been discussed. The text does not make not of PoJ. It overtly makes mention of Isaiah. It is conjecture to state that this is from the PoJ then.

It is your measured opinion that this is based in PoJ, just as it is Standing Up's measured opinion that Marcion is a likely candidate for having written the PoJ.

It is possible to make the case against prevailing scholarly opinion (including the one that you now refer to in your defense of PoJ influence on Justin per cave birth) that PoJ was written earlier by the Apostle James somewhere before 63 AD.

But nobody has done that yet. Given what every serious student has had to say on the matter, there is every reason to believe that that is a ludicrous stand, and no reason to believe that it is not.

 

[Thekla]

John, we believe, wrote the gospel of John and 1,2,3 John. So you ask for the gospels telling us that Christ was born normally, the author does.

In addition, when Mt. says "begat", everyone knows what that means. A normal human birth.

What we have with PoJ is no afterbirth. We know this because the midwife tells us and then Tertullian explains it and Clement of Alexandria says the same and then the Trullo council asserts the same idea.

Again, at that time, that was the contrast between scripture (came in the flesh, God with us) and docetic type teachers (PoJ, Marcion, Valentinus, etc).

Given this contrast, it makes sense that it was written early. No problem. But not by apostles and not by apostolic to bishop lineage teaching.

Technically, begat is used to refer to the entire span of the childrearing as well as discrete time periods within the span. (It is used, for example, to refer to the childrearing of the 'children' of Michel, who was barren.)

Just as "conceived by the Holy Spirit" does not inform us of how precisely the conception occurred, likewise 'begat' is not precise enough to give the information you assume from it.