Midwife: Remained a Virgin

[Thekla]

It is up to the people who are holding EV up as authentic apostolic belief to show where these church fathers got their information from, whether from an apostle or not.

It really ought to be an easy matter, if the information actually existed. Until then it is all about Salome's finger.

The information I give is what I know. For Origen, pseudo-apostles were his source.
Stnading Up's information checks out.

Origen gives his opinion; what is the proof of his opinion ?

The ECFs, like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others have as their source what was known and received - which is how the New Testament and the Faith once received was passed on as well.

 

[SolomonVII]

Origen gives his opinion; what is the proof of his opinion ?

He offered up his testicles as proof that he was under the influence of the Spirit.

The ECFs, like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others have as their source what was known and received - which is how the New Testament and the Faith once received was passed on as well.

Yes, that is your opinion. That has been established.

What is the proof of your opinion?

 

[Standing Up]

Origen gives his opinion; what is the proof of his opinion ?

The ECFs, like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others have as their source what was known and received - which is how the New Testament and the Faith once received was passed on as well.

Too funny. Why do you doubt Origen? Why do you trust your own contradictory to Origen interpretation? In the same breath that Origen gives us the source of e-v (the PoJ), he also contrasts what scripture says (not e-v). We choose scripture that gave birth and remained virgin. They chose PoJ.

 

[Standing Up]

"We" and "us" are similar pronouns:

Do you read what people post or just use it as a reply mechanism? I've already said we/us.

I have provided an accurate analysis; to wit, he contrasts the belief of the "many" to the "some" and identifies himself and those he addresses ("to us") with the "some".

If he identified with the "many", his parallel of the Scriptures with remaining virgin would not be ... parallel.

In order to create a parallel with the "many" (instead of the "some") and the Scriptures, instead of :
Now such (adj. describing the idea of remaing a virgin) to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin,

the statement would be:
Now such (adj. describing the idea of remaing a virgin) to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and do not remain/continue virgin,

To summarize:
Many - not remain virgin
Some - remain virgin
Us - Scriptures - remain virgin

Let's see if we can make this easier. Here's Clement's argument.

The parallel idea is e-v. The contrast is between them and e-v and us and e-v. IOW, e-v is the same idea, but the two groups are differentiated.

The many/they say X is YZ because some/they say X is YZ. But no. Such to us is A that remains YZ.

 

[Standing Up]

It is okay to disagree.
If the claim though has been that it takes two written sources in order to establish whether or not John Chrystosom drove the Easter heretics out of his churches, then integrity behooves that that same standard be applied to the one's own claims that EV is in fact based in established historocal methodology


In terms of Christian claims, what is required is that EV be in some way tied back to the apostles. Apostles are the eyewitness account of the biography of their personal friend, Jesus.
This cannot be done for EV, except through fictional literature.

Therefore, the claim that EV is historic is simply not a credible historic claim. People that insist that it is historic though, arguing from the silence of evidence that is just not there, are not remaining true to their own historical standards that they apply to criticism of their denomination, and therefore such methodology lacks integrity.

It is a huge problem when people are asked to actually prove their ties-to-apostles and are found lacking. Yes it happened with the easter issue. Post after post, month after month, it was shown that Irenaeus sourced the current Easter tradition to presbyter Xystus I and Polycarp's tradition to apostles.

With this issue, Origen sources the e-v idea to the PoJ and not apostles/scripture. Scripture/apostles taught the 9 months that's found in tradition through Tertullian, Clement of A, and Cyril of Jerusalem.

People just can't believe their own reading eyes.

 

[Dorothea]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, “Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?”52635263 Matt. xiii. 55, 56. They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter,52645264 The Gospel of Peter, of which a fragment was recovered in 1886 and published in 1892. as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,”52655265 Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 9. that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.
ANF09. The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, The Apocalypse of the Virgin and Sedrach, The Te - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
​

Right on. SAME with PoJames. In fact the church said PoJ shouldn't be used by anyone in the church.

Actually, they weren't measured as exactly the same.

 

[Dorothea]

Oh pooh.

All Marian dogma, save Mary conceiving through the overshadowing of the HS, do not show any evidence from having arisen organically from pre-existing historic understanding based in biography, but to have 'developed' progressively out of the kernels of popular fables and tales. It is all about theology feeding upon itself to grow into the the surreal

As far as actual apostolic testimony, there is none.
Zilch.
Nada.
There is only PoJ, and blind faith.

Everybody knows that.

We have no Marian Dogma. Please cease in confusing us with our Roman Catholic brethren.

 

[Dorothea]

Here, from CCEL is the actual quote:



It's the difference between an adjective (Eve)
and a proper noun (Mary)

A proper noun is a name; an appellation is the condition of the person rendered as that person's name.

Proper nouns are always capitalized in English.
General nouns are not capitalized.
The usage demonstrates (per Irenaeus) that Eve ceased to be a virgin, Mary did not cease to be a virgin.

Yes, and this should be common, elementary knowledge to anyone reading who has completed grade school.

 

[Dorothea]

He offered up his testicles as proof that he was under the influence of the Spirit.


Yes, that is your opinion. That has been established.

What is the proof of your opinion?

We have the Church Fathers who put together the books of the bible that you read. They were guided by the Spirit and accepted as holy Christians by you all, but apparently, if they were to write anything you didn't agree with, they all were apostates.

Again, we have the proof of 2000 years of preserved history both oral and written. You have nothing but your opinion and a real itch to make sure to harass us for your amusement. That equates to nothing.

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, they weren't measured as exactly the same.

How's that? What measure did they use? Why reject gospel of peter but accept proto of james?

 

[SolomonVII]

We have the Church Fathers who put together the books of the bible that you read. They were guided by the Spirit and accepted as holy Christians by you all, but apparently, if they were to write anything you didn't agree with, they all were apostates.

Your statement about me is based in pure sarcasm and nothing at all about anything I have said.
Origen accepts PoJ as Scripture. I don't call him an apostate on those grounds. I only note that he sees PoJ as a scriptural apostolic source of EV. Thereby, I prove my point that Salome's finger is one source for the Dogma of EV.
It is a false source, as far as any apostolic or historic content goes, because its claims are not substantiated by any respected historian, not by the early church which rejected these books as non-apostolic.

The challenge for you therefore is to come up with an actual apostolic source that would somehow tie EV dogma to the accounts of the friends of the biographical Jesus. Without that, it is all about Salome's finger, which is fiction.

Again, we have the proof of 2000 years of preserved history both oral and written. You have nothing but your opinion and a real itch to make sure to harass us for your amusement. That equates to nothing.

No. What we have is a sequence where early Christians believed in virginal conception, and EV theology following Salomes finger, as the theology was developed under such influences.

 

[Standing Up]

Your statement about me is based in pure sarcasm and nothing at all about anything I have said.
Origen accepts PoJ as Scripture. I don't call him an apostate on those grounds. I only note that he sees PoJ as a scriptural apostolic source of EV. Thereby, I prove my point that Salome's finger is one source for the Dogma of EV.
It is a false source, as far as any apostolic or historic content goes, because its claims are not substantiated by any respected historian, not by the early church which rejected these books as non-apostolic.

The challenge for you therefore is to come up with an actual apostolic source that would somehow tie EV dogma to the accounts of the friends of the biographical Jesus. Without that, it is all about Salome's finger, which is fiction.


No. What we have is a sequence where early Christians believed in virginal conception, and EV theology following Salomes finger, as the theology was developed under such influences.

Exactly. It's the contrast between all the things human (cord, blood water, placenta) that accompanies a normal human birth and the theology of e-v (Christ as phantom, Mary as channel, still in the puerperal state, birth from her side/east gate).

 

[SolomonVII]

Exactly. It's the contrast between all the things human (cord, blood water, placenta) that accompanies a normal human birth and the theology of e-v (Christ as phantom, Mary as channel, still in the puerperal state, birth from her side/east gate).

The idea that the belief is the same as the Church taught from the very beginning remains without substantiation. The miraculous virginity of Mary was an accepted belief from the very beginning. The Ever-virginity of Mary was nowhere to be found in the earliest discussions.

So rather than constant teaching on this, there was controversy. Christians like Origen and the Gnostics as well, were only too glad to accept the ideas of the pseudo epigraphia as true accounts of the birth, while others like Tertullian disagreed vehemently. What emerged was an official church that held onto the EV concept, while rejecting the phantom birth that was at the source of the EV theology in the first place.
At the same time, the Tertullian insistence on the full humanity of Jesus was accepted, while the underlying logic behind this fully human concept, of a normal human birth, and family with brothers and sisters, was rejected.

The idea that "we have the church fathers" while "you only have your opinions" is patently false. The Church fathers simply were not all saying the same things. People arising from the same bishopric as James, such as Cyril, most certainly understood that James was a real brother of Christ, like Aaron and Moses. Others not so familiar with who James was, such as Origen, were more open to false accounts of the life of James as first born, and thereby saw PoJ as authentic.

Virgin Mary was the teaching from the very beginning, and apostolic, such as legitimate apostolic works such as Scripture very clearly and unequivocally inform us. Ever-virgin Mary was taught only from a later date. If pseudoepigraphia like PoJ and Peter were not the sole source of this theology, it is the only source that is known.

Stating the truth plainly is only harassment for those who have fallen in love with the fiction.

 

[Thekla]

There is ample evidence that holding to the e-v does not equate with holding to "phantom birth, Christ not fully human, adoptionism, gnosticism, and numerous other 'heretical' positions.

In fact, the chief detractors of these heresies over the millennia indeed also held to the e-v; ie, the equivalence that is being made between the e-v and heretical belief is demonstrably false.

Nor can it be demonstrated that the understanding of the e-v originated with the PoJ, anymore than it can be demonstrated that the Gospel authors started a fiction - a mythos - about a Jesus Christ that actually did not exist.

It is clear that agreement is not forthcoming re: the (at least) two sides of this issue. Yet I also do not think disagreement must necessarily lead to denigration of those holding the opposing view.

 

[SolomonVII]

The challenge for you therefore is to come up with an actual apostolic source that would somehow tie EV dogma to the accounts of the friends of the biographical Jesus. Without that, it is all about Salome's finger, which is fiction.

 

[Thekla]

The challenge for you therefore is to come up with an actual apostolic source that would somehow tie EV dogma to the accounts of the friends of the biographical Jesus. Without that, it is all about Salome's finger, which is fiction.

Why ?

We have record of unanimity beginning with the earliest writers on - including for ex. Irenaeus - whose knowledge was received from the Apostles, who are from vastly separated regions, who all kept the Gospels and professed the same faith of Christ.

We have roughly the same amount of verification for the authenticity of the NT writings.

Though your "line" about Salome is "clever", its use is not only a debased characterization, it does not reflect the text it is purported to refer to.

 

[Standing Up]

Why ?

We have record of unanimity beginning with the earliest writers on - including for ex. Irenaeus - whose knowledge was received from the Apostles, who are from vastly separated regions, who all kept the Gospels and professed the same faith of Christ.

We have roughly the same amount of verification for the authenticity of the NT writings.

Though your "line" about Salome is "clever", its use is not only a debased characterization, it does not reflect the text it is purported to refer to.

Irenaeus calls scripture the ground of our faith, not so poj.

But you are right about one thing. The two sides, those who agree with e-v and those who agree about a normal human birth with all the tokens thereof (cord, water and blood, placenta), won't be getting together in agreement anytime soon.

 

[Thekla]

Irenaeus calls scripture the ground of our faith, not so poj.

Non-sequitur.
He refers to Mary by the appellation "the Virgin" - which he could not do if he did not believe she remained a virgin (unless he was irrational or silly ...)

But you are right about one thing. The two sides, those who agree with e-v and those who agree about a normal human birth with all the tokens thereof (cord, water and blood, placenta), won't be getting together in agreement anytime soon.

And you still haven't provided your source for "no placenta, cord" etc.

I don't recall anyone but you making that claim.

 

[Standing Up]

Non-sequitur.
He refers to Mary by the appellation "the Virgin" - which he could not do if he did not believe she remained a virgin (unless he was irrational or silly ...)



And you still haven't provided your source for "no placenta, cord" etc.

I don't recall anyone but you making that claim.

I say the Virgin also.

Read the OP.

 

[Dorothea]

Your statement about me is based in pure sarcasm and nothing at all about anything I have said.
Origen accepts PoJ as Scripture. I don't call him an apostate on those grounds. I only note that he sees PoJ as a scriptural apostolic source of EV. Thereby, I prove my point that Salome's finger is one source for the Dogma of EV.
It is a false source, as far as any apostolic or historic content goes, because its claims are not substantiated by any respected historian, not by the early church which rejected these books as non-apostolic.

The challenge for you therefore is to come up with an actual apostolic source that would somehow tie EV dogma to the accounts of the friends of the biographical Jesus. Without that, it is all about Salome's finger, which is fiction.


No. What we have is a sequence where early Christians believed in virginal conception, and EV theology following Salomes finger, as the theology was developed under such influences.

That is what you choose to believe. I am just coming in here to say I'm unsubscribing from this thread and any threads like it. There's no point in continuing these conversations. There are more important and vital things going on in this world, and I need to spend more time in prayer and less time here.

Have a good day to you and SU and all here. God bless.