The Normal Birth

[Standing Up]

In a different thread (see Midwife in Mariology), I quoted the Protoevangelium of James about the birth of Christ. In this thread is Tertullian arguing against that docetic notion. (These two sources were written about the same time.) Tertullian is speaking against Marcion, who appears to be a candidate for the author of PoJames (or Apelles, disciple of Marcion, who posited normal flesh, but also not a normal birth).

"Come now, beginning from the nativity [of Christ] itself, declaim against the uncleanness of the generative elements within the womb, the filthy concretion of fluid and blood, of the growth of the flesh for nine months long out of that very mire. Describe the womb as it enlarges from day to day, heavy, troublesome, restless even in sleep, changeful in its feelings of dislike and desire. Inveigh now likewise against the shame itself of a woman in travail which, however, ought rather to be honoured in consideration of that peril, or to be held sacred in respect of (the mystery of) nature. Of course you are horrified also at the infant, which is shed into life with the embarrassments which accompany it from the womb; you likewise, of course, loathe it even after it is washed, when it is dressed out in its swaddling-clothes, graced with repeated anointing, smiled on with nurse’s fawns. This reverend course of nature, you, O Marcion, (are pleased to) spit upon; and yet, in what way were you born? You detest a human being at his birth; then after what fashion do you love anybody? Yourself, of course, you had no love of, when you departed from the Church and the faith of Christ."
ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

That's the normal birth of Christ. In fact, Tertulian describes it as the tradition of the Church and faith of Christ.

 

[Thekla]

This is a response to Marcion.

 

[Standing Up]

Yep it is. Most likely Marcion or Apelles wrote the Proto of James. The contrast is striking between the "no flesh" or "no nativity" idea (PoJ) and the historic Church tradition (see also thread in GT about Elusive Tradition--Mary conceived as a virgin and carried the Infant 9 months until a normal birth)?

Scripture/tradition
The filth of fluid and blood.
The sacredness of the woman in travail.
The accompanienments from the womb.
The infant in swaddling clothes.

VS

PoJ
Light disappears and young child appears
No afterbirth
No blood
No infant

 

[Thekla]

Yep it is. Most likely Marcion or Apelles wrote the Proto of James. The contrast is striking between the "no flesh" or "no nativity" idea (PoJ) and the historic Church tradition (see also thread in GT about Elusive Tradition--Mary conceived as a virgin and carried the Infant 9 months until a normal birth)?

Scripture/tradition
The filth of fluid and blood.
The sacredness of the woman in travail.
The accompanienments from the womb.
The infant in swaddling clothes.

VS

PoJ
Light disappears and young child appears
No afterbirth
No blood
No infant

Is there any literature to support your view/s ?

The PoJ doesn't make the claims that you do for it.

 

[Cappadocious]

The PoJ is often linked, accidentally in the minds of secondary readers, to other infancy narratives about Christ and about the Theotokos.

But in reality, while the PoJ is an odd midrash, and was not canonized for a reason, it is not nearly as docetic as ol' marcion.

And the translations we have, I would wager, are 19th century garbage.

Marcion writing the PoJ? Well, that's rather reaching. Surely there were, you know, many other people living during that time period besides those historical figures studied in evangelical seminaries.

 

[Standing Up]

The PoJ is often linked, accidentally in the minds of secondary readers, to other infancy narratives about Christ and about the Theotokos.

But in reality, while the PoJ is an odd midrash, and was not canonized for a reason, it is not nearly as docetic as ol' marcion.

And the translations we have, I would wager, are 19th century garbage.

Marcion writing the PoJ? Well, that's rather reaching. Surely there were, you know, many other people living during that time period besides those historical figures studied in evangelical seminaries.

Marcion is one candidate. Apelles, Cerdon, Samosota, Valentinus, or others.

Anyway, sounds like you've rejected PoJ as garbage. I'd agree for other reasons.

 

[Cappadocious]

Marcion is one candidate. Apelles, Cerdon, Samosota, Valentinus, or others.

Anyway, sounds like you've rejected PoJ as garbage. I'd agree for other reasons.

Nah, I don't reject it as garbage. I think it's an interesting midrash. It's important to remember not to make texts the "original" source for their information after the manner of a biblicist. The PoJ contains various beliefs and traditions which arose orally at some point; the authors didn't just come up with them themselves. Some are good and, I would say, theologically true; some are strange.

I think a lot of the quasi-translations of the 19th century, especially patristic translations, are utter garbage and can't even be rightly called translations into the English of the day.

We don't know who wrote the PoJ. It's absurd to pick various known historical figures and speculate which one of them wrote it, as if they are "the choices". We have no idea who wrote the PoJ. We probably never will.

 

[Standing Up]

Nah, I don't reject it as garbage. I think it's an interesting midrash. It's important to remember not to make texts the "original" source for their information after the manner of a biblicist. The PoJ contains various beliefs and traditions which arose orally at some point; the authors didn't just come up with them themselves. Some are good and, I would say, theologically true; some are strange.

I think a lot of the quasi-translations of the 19th century, especially patristic translations, are utter garbage and can't even be rightly called translations into the English of the day.

We don't know who wrote the PoJ. It's absurd to pick various known historical figures and speculate which one of them wrote it, as if they are "the choices". We have no idea who wrote the PoJ. We probably never will.

Yep, lots of pagan things made it into explanations of events that were unexplainable. Most things are oral before they're written down. We do know the PoJ wasn't apostolic, so we search for answers elsewhere. The closest candidates to that type of information (docetic and mixed with scripture) would be those in the church (like Bishop Marcion) who subsequently left. It's not to say his influence, however, departed with him.

 

[Cappadocious]

Yep, lots of pagan things made it into explanations of events that were unexplainable.

Oh, yes. "Paganism". It just appears wherever convenient in a historical narrative, no evidence required.

Most things are oral before they're written down. We do know the PoJ wasn't apostolic

Okay?

so we search for answers elsewhere. The closest candidates to that type of information (docetic and mixed with scripture) would be those in the church (like Bishop Marcion) who subsequently left.

So you think PoJ is a "docetic" document (as if docetism were a coherent movement or something).

That has yet to be adequately demonstrated.

Even if it were a "docetic document" (as if any document is totally docetic), it doesn't at all imply that the author is someone we know. That's absurd. We don't even know that much about Marcion himself, anyway.

 

[Standing Up]

Oh, yes. "Paganism". It just appears wherever convenient in a historical narrative, no evidence required.


Okay?


So you think PoJ is a "docetic" document (as if docetism were a coherent movement or something).

That has yet to be adequately demonstrated.

Even if it were a "docetic document" (as if any document is totally docetic), it doesn't at all imply that the author is someone we know. That's absurd. We don't even know that much about Marcion himself, anyway.

Well the church per popes gelasius and hermosa? banned the infancy gospels for some reason. Pagan. Too docetic. Source unknown. Contrary to doctrine. Take your pick.

If we agree, then it leaves us with a choice about the nature of the Lord's birth. Fully normal or not. If not, there's no viable source for that.

But you tell me, do you agree with Tertullian's account? If not, why not? Based upon what?

 

[Cappadocious]

Well the church per popes gelasius and hermosa

So you're a Roman Catholic?

Pagan. Too docetic. Source unknown. Contrary to doctrine. Take your pick.

You already made your choice.

If we agree, then it leaves us with a choice about the nature of the Lord's birth. Fully normal or not.

No.

The choice is: Fully human or not. And certain ideas expressed in the PoJ (birth without travail) are just fine and human, if you understand human correctly. Obviously Christ was born through his mother's birth canal with fluids and whatnot. It's also worth noting that Tertullian's criticism extends to pre-birth pregnancy as well, but that hasn't been addressed in this thread.

But you tell me, do you agree with Tertullian's account?

Almost entirely, even though he joined the sulfur huffer's club later on.

Why? Because Jesus didn't LARP.

 

[Standing Up]

So you're a Roman Catholic?

No. The point was the church at that time, that would devolve into EO and RC, rejected the PoJ.

You already made your choice.

No final choice, just possibilities as to its author.

No.

The choice is: Fully human or not. And certain ideas expressed in the PoJ (birth without travail) are just fine and human, if you understand human correctly. Obviously Christ was born through his mother's birth canal with fluids and whatnot. It's also worth noting that Tertullian's criticism extends to pre-birth pregnancy as well, but that hasn't been addressed in this thread.



Almost entirely, even though he joined the sulfur huffer's club later on.

Close enough agreement then. Tertullian was saying fully human birth with everything that implies.

 

[Cappadocious]

No. The point was the church at that time, that would devolve into EO and RC.

lol

 

[Standing Up]

lol

yep

 

[Dorothea]

What is this fixation on Mary giving birth to Christ God? Can you not just believe it happened? Do you have to analyze and reason everything that has to do with our God? I feel like this is a court and a lawyer is trying to make some case about this issue, which seems to be beaten to death in this forum as well as GT. Why are you so hell-bent on this and her EV?

 

[Standing Up]

What is this fixation on Mary giving birth to Christ God? Can you not just believe it happened? Do you have to analyze and reason everything that has to do with our God? I feel like this is a court and a lawyer is trying to make some case about this issue, which seems to be beaten to death in this forum as well as GT. Why are you so hell-bent on this and her EV?

Oh I believe the virgin conceived and bore the infant. We call His name Emmanuel, Christ Jesus, God-with-us, born in the flesh.

 

[Dorothea]

Oh I believe the virgin conceived and bore the infant. We call His name Emmanuel, Christ Jesus, God-with-us, born in the flesh.

Ok, then why all this technical junk about how he was born? What are you trying to prove?

 

[Standing Up]

Ok, then why all this technical junk about how he was born? What are you trying to prove?

Part of the issue is how one defines virginity. There are two choices. One is whether you have sex (virginity gone) or not (virginity retained). Two is what happened at his birth. The symbols of virginity gone were blood, etc. or virginity retained (no blood, intact hymen). The Roman Catholic Church defined ever-virgin as virgin before, during, and after His birth. (which btw makes me wonder why EO goes along with their definition?)

About 1800 years ago, however, there were only two ideas about how he was born. Normally or not. If normal, then virginity (second definition) was gone. If not normal, virginity retained per RC.

At that time, these two contradictory ideas are discussed in a variety of terms. The "virginity retained" was spoken about as Mary-as-channel, not a real birth, Jesus wasn't really human, he was a phantom, made of star-dust, etc. OR we have people like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Africanus, etc all speaking that Christ was fully human, born normally, thus viriginty per RC definition, was gone.

So, if we look at scripture and tradition, and reject RC definition, then it's clear Jesus Christ was conceived by a virgin, carried by a virgin, and upon birth by a woman (per Paul Gal 4:4). Virginity, per RC definition, gone.

The question of more children (sex with Joseph) is unimportant at this point, if we agree with the above.

 

[Cappadocious]

About 1800 years ago, however, there were only two ideas about how he was born. Normally or not.

Not true.

 

[Thekla]

Part of the issue is how one defines virginity. There are two choices. One is whether you have sex (virginity gone) or not (virginity retained). Two is what happened at his birth. The symbols of virginity gone were blood, etc. or virginity retained (no blood, intact hymen). The Roman Catholic Church defined ever-virgin as virgin before, during, and after His birth. (which btw makes me wonder why EO goes along with their definition?)

About 1800 years ago, however, there were only two ideas about how he was born. Normally or not. If normal, then virginity (second definition) was gone. If not normal, virginity retained per RC.

At that time, these two contradictory ideas are discussed in a variety of terms. The "virginity retained" was spoken about as Mary-as-channel, not a real birth, Jesus wasn't really human, he was a phantom, made of star-dust, etc. OR we have people like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Africanus, etc all speaking that Christ was fully human, born normally, thus viriginty per RC definition, was gone.

Cyril of Jerusalem said Mary was not a "channel", and held to the e-v of Mary; you seem to have forgotten one "option".

Clement of Alexandria metaphorically expressed Mary as ever-virgin.

The EO never, nor the RC, make such statements that Christ was "phantom, made of stardust, etc". Implied correlation is as slanderous as an explicit statement.

So, if we look at scripture and tradition, and reject RC definition, then it's clear Jesus Christ was conceived by a virgin, carried by a virgin, and upon birth by a woman (per Paul Gal 4:4). Virginity, per RC definition, gone.

Yet you have not considered the "tradition" of Ignatios, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc. Nor have you ever demonstrated that Scripture states that Mary did not remain a virgin; Scripture does say born of a virgin. Born/tiktw/birthed.

The question of more children (sex with Joseph) is unimportant at this point, if we agree with the above.

Your 'sources' disagree with you - so there is more to do before moving on.