/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>2646

Mary's perpetual virginity still seems more likely, unless you disregard the divinity of Christ. I find it unlikely that someone who just gave birth to God in the flesh, would wish to defile their womb with the birth of other children. The people that take the latter view usually also take the view that Jesus was just some hippie mystic teacher, and so it was no big deal when he was born, and therefore his mother most likely had more children.

>>2647

What does Mary's virginity after Christ was born have to do with Christ's divinity?

>The people that take the latter view usually also take the view that Jesus was just some hippie mystic teacher, and so it was no big deal when he was born, and therefore his mother most likely had more children.

poisoning the well

strawman

>>2647

>would wish to defile their womb with the birth of other children

Bearing her husband's children does not defile a woman. What kind of Cathar bullshit is this?

Mary is one of the heroes of the Christian faith, but the grand conspiracy to steal glory from Christ is absolutely of the devil.

It takes way more mental gymnastics to justify the catholic position on this one. I just saw someone in a different thread try to use Ezekiel 44:1-3 to justify it, and while the symbolism is there when you look through the catholic lens it's definitely a stretch from what's on the page.

>44 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2 Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 3 It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

It especially falls apart when you look at the last bit: "he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same". If the catholic interpretation is correct, that this is symbolic of Mary, then that would mean Jesus was born of and killed by Mary.

>>2649

It's gnostic influence on Romanism through monkery

The Holy Ghost is a loyal husband, and it's also likely that Joseph died early on.

>>2666

>blasphemy post

>666

Like pottery

>>2666

>The holy spirit married Mary

?????

>>2657

The ironic thing is the earliest clear statements against Mary's perpetual virginity is Nag Hammadi documents. The Valentinian Gospel of Philip is one example of this where Mary is not virgin but through Joeseph, made Jesus. In another one, there's a clear indication of James as Mary's biological son.

The earliest document to say that Mary didnt have other children is the Protoevangelium which itself is not Gnostic in nature at all and is widely considered orthodox.

Of course Tertullian might be the first non gnostic to deny this. But, the way he does it leaves room for the view that Mary didnt have children, as just the mere act of giving birth is seen as one that will cause women to lose their virginity. If this is what most mean when they say they deny Mary's perpetual virginity, sure why not. But it is not, then ironically this is the same view some Gnostic sources took

>>2647

I stand on this too because for one, the earliest source on this subject is clear that Jesus' brothers are those who are from Joseph's former marriage.

Second is that the most comprehensive study to date done on this in Mary in the New Testament ends up seeing it as more likely that Joseph died early on.

Third is that the word for "brother" in the NT can be used to also denote step siblings like with Herod's step brother in Mark for instance so that possibility is always there and strengthened by the earliest sources on the subject saying so.

Fourth is that popupar reasonings like "firstborn" or "until" in Matthew just dont stack up. We have evidence that "firstborn" can be used even if there is one child. An epipath of a woman who died shows this. "Until" in Matthew is used in the aorist tense which means the focus is on the frame of time in that instance, not what happens after. Even the surrounding context shows we shouldnt push whether it implies Mary isnt virgin later, as Matthew was concerned with showing how the OT prophechies are fulfilled and establishing Mary's innocence. What happens after isnt his concern.

Fifth is that Mark's reference to Jesus' brothers is used in the same manner OT genealogies use to denote half brothers from a different mother as Bauckham shows. So that could very well be the clear biblical virdict

Sixth is that the identities of the other Marys in the NT can be used to account for Jesus' brothers which Brant Pitre does.

So ironically the simpliest is to say that more is in favor of Mary not having other children not what OP said

>>2672

What are the specific studies and sources and evidence that you keep bringing up in a general non-specific fashion?

Ironically, you are proving OP's point (especially by bringing up stuff that OP already covered.)

>>2647

>Mary's perpetual virginity still seems more likely, unless you disregard the divinity of Christ.

> I find it unlikely that someone who just gave birth to God in the flesh, would wish to defile their womb with the birth of other children.

Once again, as >>2648 said: how does Mary not being a perpetual virgin after birth, and giving birth to children, reneges on Jesus' divinity?

If anything, the various Catholic and/or Orthodox doctrines on Mary seem more designed to bolster her supposed "divinity": Immaculate Conception; Perpetual Virginity; Sinless life; Assumption; Intermediary Between Men and Jesus from Whom Grace Flows; etc. It all seems intent on reinforcing her cult by turning her into a de facto goddess.

>>2673

1)Jude and the Relatives of Jesus- Richard Bauckham

2)The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier- Richard Bauckham

3)Mary in the NT- Raymond Brown et al.

These are the three main studies and the only ones that deal with this issue in detail in NT Scholarship.

And here are examples from the Gnostic sources

1)Gospel of philip

>Philip the apostle said, "Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross." But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelphilip.html

Here we see that the author of this Gnostic document indicating that Joseph's offspring is Jesus which by implication, makes Mary not a virgin. Now one may argue that since earlier the text says Mary was not defiled by any power, this entails a Gnostic witness to Mary's perpetual virginity but as Lundhaug notes in his book on this document, it does not given that Mary being undefiled is only by "power", instead of the earthy sense(page181)

https://brill.com/view/title/17903

Also

From the 2nd Apocyphon of James

>"Once when I was sitting deliberating, he opened the door. That one whom you hated and persecuted came in to me. He said to me, "Hail, my brother; my brother, hail." As I raised my face to stare at him, (my) mother said to me, "Do not be frightened, my son, because he said 'My brother' to you (sg.). For you (pl.) were nourished with this same milk. Because of this he calls me "My mother". For he is not a stranger to us. He is your step-brother […]."

That is Mary speaking to James in context. The fact that Mary said that the docetic Jesus called him his brother due to sharing the same milk shows that this gnostic author denies Mary's perpetual virginity

>>2674

The issue with this is that you have to deal with the early Christians even before Constantine who do the same. The Martyrdom of Polycarp is a prime example of a mid 2nd century veneration of a martyr another is Acts of Paul and Thelca. So if that is corruption to you, then you must concede is dates back very early.

>>2677

Why is it challenging to think that there was heresy in the ante-nicene period when the Bible identifies heresy even in the New Testament period? This is where sola scriptura trumps all other methods, since we don't have to dig around and justify contradictions between authoritative ancient figures.

>>2683

Ok. Stick to scripture on this issue. You just end up with some of what I said earlier. Unless somehow biblical scholarship is bad

>>2648

>>2674

Just applying Ockram's razor myself. A woman whose womb has become the Ark, the Holy of Holies, by housing God and giving birth to Him so that he may die for us, redeem us, and conquer death for us, would then decide to have more children after all she was a part of and witnessed? Sorry just got to go with a big fat no. It makes far more sense that she would keep her womb sanctified as a testament and sacrifice to the Lord.

>>2686

that's called a presupposition

>>2684

Scripture never says that Mary was a perpetual virgin though.

>>2686

That is hard to say. But after looking at it a while, I am much more open to believing that Mary remained virgin or at least without other children. I dont deny that Mary is portrayed like the Ark of the Covenant, at least in Luke but this seems to me to only apply to the birth of Christ. After this, that portrayal is no longer used.

>>2688

Because it isnt a key issue the authors address. But there's not that much denying it either. This weight only gets heavier when early Christian views are considered

>>2675

>1)Jude and the Relatives of Jesus- Richard Bauckham

Okay, going to have to read this.

>2)The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier- Richard Bauckham

Having trouble finding this book. The closest thing I've found is this Youtube video which I plan on watching later:

https://youtu.be/IDb_TFTaePA

Perhaps you are referring to a scholarly work, which I might find at the local library on something like JSTOR?

>3)Mary in the NT- Raymond Brown et al.

From early searches, also seems like either a scholarly work, or something I'm going to have to track down via inter-library loan.

(the closest links I could find):

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/horizons/article/div-classtitlemary-in-the-new-testament-edited-by-brownraymond-e-donfriedkarl-pet-alphiladelphia-fortress-press-1978-323-pages-395-paperdiv/BD7810ABCC7A041B624963EDC38144C7

https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/11720905

Nevertheless, I did find an article in which Father Brown's scholarship is considered up for debate, even on grounds that both Catholics and Protestants agree on, within the Catholic community:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=525

As for this:

>>2676

Just as I would be skeptical of Gnostic texts contriving Jesus being born of Joseph, like in the Gospel of Phillip that you brought up, I would also be equally skeptical of an Apocryphal text contriving the opposite extreme.

>>2677

I am aware of the the surrounding details of The Martyrdom of Polycarp, as well as the fact that the earliest known Marion prayer is from roughly 250 AD.

Still I find these unconvincing for various reasons. There were already heresies running amok as early as the the 1st century, when all of the Gospels and epistles of the NT were written (hence why a good chunk of the epistles consist of Paul trying to quell such heresies.) Considering that pagan practices such as ancestor/hero worship were, and to an extent, still are deeply ingrained into fallen humanity, the early church members falling into such practices does not shock me. The fact that Alexandria was a center for Egyptian style goddess worship also casts some suspicion on the the earliest Marion prayer originating from there, especially considering the ultimate fruit of such things.

>>2691

continued:

And that's the thing: you ultimately judge a tree by it's fruits. What are the fruits of Saint and Marion "veneration"? You have Saints, that in terms of patronage, essentially function as pagan gods. Literal pagan gods who have been absorbed by the church and made into saints. Orthodox prayer corners, that in terms of the number of icons of saints, and figures venerated outside of Jesus, becoming essentially Christainized pagan private home altars. Mary going from merely being blessed and respected, to being a literal part of how one is supposed to commune with Jesus, in a manner that flies in the face of the closing of the chasm between God and Man that was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Extra-biblical decrees and scripture stretched to it's breaking point to backwards rationalize Mary's "Queen of Heaven" status. Individuals who view Man's relationship with God akin to a classical pagan hierarchy, like so:

>>2553

>>2555

>>2557

>>2559

Marion apparitions, who want temples dedicated to them rather than God, Marion apparitions who want more prayers and worship dedicated to them than Jesus….

All of this adds up to a disturbing subtext:

That Jesus' sacrifice and blood on the cross was not enough to repair the division between God and Man. That tales in the NT of lowly individuals seeking out Jesus directly for help meant nothing. That the priesthood of the OT, that was necessary for mankind to interact with God on some level due to the division between God and Man being very much intact, have just been replaced with Mary, Saints, and the Catholic/Orthodox priesthood (in fact, there are some Catholic/Orthodox practices, to this day, that strongly imply that the Judaizers that Paul railed against, ended up making some headway into the church after all; such as my Aunt being denied from being present at her daughter's infant baptism due to it being "That time of the month" for her. Something that would have made sense in the OT, but not under the New Covenant.)

On top of this, is the fact that throughout the Old Testament, when the Isrealites were more strictly monitored and punished by God, there is no indication of veneration of individuals who would be considered Saints, such as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc. Anytime in the OT, there was even a "hint" of the glorification of anything other than God, bad things tended to go down.

>>2686

Luke 11:27-28 have Jesus saying that Mary's obedience and faith (and subsequently the obedience and faith of all Christians) was far more important than her body. And once again, you're subtextually falling back on "Sex within mariage and bearing more children is defiling and bad."

There's also the fact that at one point, Joseph was going to quietly divorce her when he first found out about what he doubted as her divine pregnancy. That does not sound like the mentality of a man intending to protect her virginity forever as some extra-biblical doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox churches indicate.

>>2690

So do you really think it's something that should be taught as infallible doctrine if it's insignificant enough to not be included in the Bible? Early Christians had heretics too, so just claiming that some early Christians believed it isn't enough evidence to justify it either. That'd be like saying some other heresy is correct just because it's early. We must be like the Berean Jews and compare our doctrine to scripture, if it's found in scripture it's sound but otherwise it shouldn't be dogma.

>>2692

I almost forgot: Jesus' reaction to the requests of Mary and his brothers in Mark 3:31-35, places a much stronger emphasis on those following Jesus being his spiritual brothers, mothers, etc., than on Mary's status as intercessor. Jesus literally valued teaching and interacting with believers on a direct and personal level, more than acquiescing to his mother and family's requests on a dime.

Even Luke 2:41-49 indicates that he placed "His Father's business" of interacting with the populace directly, over the populace going through Mary to get to him.

>>2691

>>2692

>>2704

That's some high quality exegesis, friend, thank you.

>>2671

>the earliest clear statements against Mary's perpetual virginity is Nag Hammadi documents

Anachronism. There was no doctrine of perpetual virginity for them to make statements against

>The Valentinian Gospel of Philip is one example of this where Mary is not virgin but through Joeseph, made Jesus. In another one, there's a clear indication of James as Mary's biological son.

Let me clarify: specifically, docetic gnosticism.

>The earliest document to say that Mary didnt have other children is the Protoevangelium which itself is not Gnostic in nature at all and is widely considered orthodox

Now I'm glad you brought that up because the Protoevangelium of James is most certainly a gnostic work because it shows that Mary was a virgin solely because it was unconscionable to the author that Jesus should be flesh. This is what that work of repugnant heresy specifically says about Christ

<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.

Now, notice that in this book, Jesus Christ is not born. He is not a man born of woman, He is a spirit being that "appears" near her. By the test of 1 John 4:2-3, this book and its doctrine are heresy.

>>2675

>Now one may argue that since earlier the text says Mary was not defiled by any power, this entails a Gnostic witness to Mary's perpetual virginity but as Lundhaug notes in his book on this document, it does not given that Mary being undefiled is only by "power", instead of the earthy sense(page181)

When it says Mary was not defiled by any power, it obviously means that nothing induced her to be pregnant, because it attacks the Christian doctrine that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and asks how a woman could be conceived by a woman (arguing that the Spirit is some sort of feminine thing, and therefore the virgin birth would be impossible, as if though we believe He was conceived naturally) and then broadly declares that no power defiled Mary. The docetic meaning of this passage is further proven by authorial usage, as defiled woman is contrasted with virgin in the line "A bridal chamber is not for the animals, nor is it for the slaves, nor for defiled women; but it is for free men and virgins". This unnatural interpretation you're pushing is pure mental gymnastics.

>>2691

1)Anything in scholarship can be debated and one of the articles from Bauckham I listed is literally a reply to a Catholic scholar who rejects perpetual virginity. A problem with saying "Catholic scholars opppe Brown" is that this does not give any reasons to oppose his work "Mary in the NT" which mind you was a collaboration between him, some Catholics and Protestants on the issue. The objection to him in your link is also summed up as "muh mordernism" rather than providing reasons to reject Mary in the NT for instance which I might add, is not mentioned nor addressed at all. Only Gabriel's appearance to Mary is due Brown saying it's "highly doubtful". But my argument doesnt rely on his views on this but on a work which is essentially a collaboration with others

2)on the Gnostic texts what exactly is your skepticism? Skepticism about trusting them as sources of truth? My point is the earliest sources that do take a stand on this issue follows those who denies the perpetual virginity. I never said those are trusted for doctrine. Hence the fact that the earliest external NT mention of the perpetual virginity of Mary that denies it remains that of Gnostic documents, not orthodox Christian

3)For your last point, I take this as essentially accepting my remark that the anon I was speaking to must accept corruption as coming in very early on.

>>2712

1)It doesnt have to. All they need to do is say Mary has another biological child or Joseph is Jesus' biological father and we can know where they stand. So "anarchonism" is not a good point here

2)Practically no scholar says that the Protoevangelium is Gnostic or docetic at all. In fact the text is very clear on this

>11. And she took the pitcher, and went out to fill it with water. And, behold, a voice saying: Hail, you who hast received grace; the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women! Luke 1:28 And she looked round, on the right hand and on the left, to see whence this voice came. And she went away, trembling, to her house, and put down the pitcher; and taking the purple, she sat down on her seat, and drew it out. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood before her, saying: Fear not, Mary; for you have found grace before the Lord of all, and you shall conceive, according to His word. And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And shall I bring forth as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow you: wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of the Most High. And you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold, the servant of the Lord before His face: let it be unto me according to your word.

Here we see Mary is gonna conceive and something holy will be born from her. Not something to stress had docetism be in mind. In fact the text even lay stress on Mary's own stomach growing bigger right after the meeting with Elizabeth. Hardly docetic.

The text deciding to make the birth more miraculous with light is no excuse here. In fact it makes Joseph seeking a midwife to be rather silly.

3)Firstly the context is the denial of Jesus as conceived by the Holy Spirit on grounds that two females cannot conceive. Secondly the text later identifies Jesus as Joseph's own offspring. In fact

the text is very clear that Mary is Jesus' mother. Had docetism be the intention of this document like the Second Acrocryphon of James, which I also provided but was ignored, then such details of Jesus as Joseph's offspring or lineage be silly, or Jesus as man because docetic Christology denies that. Also anyone who has read about Gnosticism even just merely from Irenaeus knows that docetism is not the only Gnostic position on Christology. It is amongst a variety of views.

As Lundhaug himself points out as well, the text only states "power" and is simply focused on saying Mary was not conceived by the Holy Spirit. A spiritual true Jesus entering into the animal Jesus who is man is a Christology amongst Gnostics. So your whole point essentially fails out of your ignorance.

>>2698

Which only leaves one in an uncertain position at best. Because now reception history is exclusively out. So no one can even deny it either. That said, if Bauckham is correct then the Biblical evidence stacks more in favour of Mary not having other children. And Bauckham doesnt believe in perpetual virginity.

>>2692

>And once again, you're subtextually falling back on "Sex within mariage and bearing more children is defiling and bad."

No, not at all. I am just realizing the magnitude of the miracle that just took place.

https://www.goarch.org/-/the-ever-virginity-of-the-mother-of-god

>>2716

>The objection to him in your link is also summed up as "muh mordernism"

Did you…even read the article at all?

>Fr. Brown again put the Virgin Birth — a central dogma of the Catholic faith — in the category of "doctrines for which there is slender basis in Scripture."

Being just shy of denying the Virgin Birth, period, as mythology, goes far beyond just "muh modernism."

The rest is artful dodging that I'm not going to bother with.

>>2720

Same recycled canned arguments in OP's post.

>>2721

I read it and that's literally what the article itself said. Read my reply again, I made it clear the article mentioned Brown's statement about the announciation of Gabriel to Mary as doubtful. But as I made it clear, nothing in that article says anything against Mary in the NT which is a collaboration between Catholic and Protestant scholars. In fact Brown's modernism serves my argument, as even someone who sees some dubiusness in the birth narratives can see that there are some holes in the arguments of those who deny prepetual virginity. And this is not bias as Mary in the NT denies many Catholic Marian exegesis

The rest is just excuses to not address my points which well, were never addressed in the first place.

Also just to note, the martyrdom of Polycarp would definitely be idolatrous by the standard of many Protestants. There is no getting around his use of "fellowship"/sharing with the dead flesh of Polycarp and how the text show awareness of outsider misunderstanding of the honour Christians give to martyrs which reflects a satiritical work written by Lucian near that period too where Peligrinus was worshipped by Christians

>>2722

Alright, seeing as how it's going to be awhile before I'm able to get my hands on "Mary in the New Testament", what are the arguments in favor of perpetual virginity in this work? (other than the usual Catholic/Orthodox word/concept plays already outlined in the OPs post.)

As for point 2, you're subtextual argument is basically "Gnostics denied perpetual virginity first, making arguments against it invalid/less valid, and perpetual virginity valid/more valid."

I already addressed the Polycarp issue: yes it's idolatrous, and once again, just because it happened early on does not give it a automatic license to truth. I'm not repeating the rest of my points again.

>>2724

See Bauckham's response to Meier(a Catholic),"The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier"

I should add that Mary in the NT takes an agnostic view of this subject but a key importance for my own point is the concession that adelphoi in the NT is also applicable to step siblings. Second is that firstborn can be used even for mothers with only one child which contemporary archeological evidence provides.

You are correct about point 2. Indeed the first people to take views against it are Gnostics. This serves to lump your position with the heretics and this is why your argument must therefore reject reception history

>>2729

>See Bauckham's response to Meier(a Catholic),"The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier"

I've got to admit, from the Youtube video I watched on this (since I'm having trouble finding the document, and will more than likely have to go to my local library and fire up JSTOR), Bauckham's reasoning that Jesus' siblings act in a manner that is culturally indicative of older siblings, and thus indicating they are from Joseph's previous marriage, is the most plausible theory I've heard so far. Though their behavior could also be linked to their unbelief (John 7:1-5) in his radical teachings, and a desire to protect him from a hostile mob that was calling him mad (Mark 3:20-35). Regardless of whether they were older or younger siblings, I seriously doubt they would just sit by and allow Jesus to remain in what they perceived to be in danger of being arrested, assaulted or killed by a mob, or blindly allow him to go along with what they perceived as crazy talk, simply because he was their supposed senior brother. Would any of us just sit back and allow a relative to engage in potentially life threatening behavior and/or making an embarrassing spectacle of themselves and bring shame upon the family, simply because they were our senior/elder? But I concede that is my own conjecture/speculation.

Nevertheless, since Bauckham is responding to Meier, I want to track down and get the latter's side of the story as well too.

Mary in the NT sounds like it just utilizes the same "brothers" and "firstborn" argument, which while having some basis, is somewhat strained in terms of the amount of times Mary and Jesus's siblings/step-siblings/etc. are mentioned at a group (as well as that verse of Mary being the mother of two of them being written of off a just another Mary.)

Considering I've read reception history that extols some of the more questionable at best, and at worst, some of the more out there and unbiblical aspects of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, your assessment of my argument is correct.

>>2729

Also, I've got to say I'm bothered by the fact that Bauckham utilizes Gnostic texts that say Joseph had children from a previous marriage, as a smoking gun, but you also imply that since Gnostics were the first to believe in Mary's cessation of virginity, after Jesus' birth, that such a concept is not to be believed. So the Gnostics are to be believed in one way that supports your argument, but not the way that opposes your argument?

There's also the fact, that from what research I've done, the perpetual virginity doctrine didn't really start getting legs among the non-Gnostics until around the 4th century, with Helvidius' non-perpetual virgin theory being brought up first in the latter part of the 3rd century, with Jerome and Epiphanius countering in response after (and is the origin of some of the more questionable aspects of the perpetual virginity doctrine.)

I have the same opinion as St. Basil the Great on this subject.

>"We must not debate inquisitively about this subject – whether after she had given birth to the Saviour Mary again contracted a marriage or, on the other hand, remained a virgin – because this has no application to the mystery of faith."

>>2743

That was a perfectly acceptable position to hold right up until the pope condemned to hell everyone who doesn't believe it

>>2744

It was but most(maybe all)of the fathers of that age agree on perpetual virginity. Conflict of course did happen over the virginity of Mary but wait for it, within the context of her veneration. People like Heldivius deny it(and this could be just that birth makes women no longer virgin) because virginity entails Mary as solely for monks and ascetics. It was ironically within context of her cultus

>>2746

https://www.academia.edu/2428119/Helvidius_Jovinian_and_the_Virginity_of_Mary

Made a mistake, it was Jovinian I meant. But Heldvius also denies perpetual virginity though in a manner where she has other children.

>>2740

Bauckham utilizes similar arguments Mary in the NT uses at least in Jude and the Relative of Jesus. But in his reply to Meier, he argues for the possibility of Mark following OT genealogies in naming children who have different mothers. Since my argument doesnt rely on the way the NT presents the siblings of Jesus as acting, the conjecture you constructed here does not shift the argument in any direction. My main points are how adelphoi can denote non uterine siblings which the BDAG also records such usage too beyond just an adopted or non uterine brother and the weakness of the "until" and firstborn arguments usually leveled against perpetual virginity. From this reception history comes to play to shift the argument even more in favour of perpetual virginity, or at least Mary as not having other children besides Jesus.

You say that the siblings and Mary referred to as a unit weakens the force of the step brother or cousin argument. But it doesnt have to. Paralleling your conjecture, a family can still be a family even if some children are from a past marriage. Your point can work however if you can show how in the ancient world, adoptive and non uterine siblings are somehow treated as an "other" to the family. But I doubt this.

Third, given that there's plenty of uncertainty in identifying the various Maries to the point that Brant Pitre, a Catholic can argue for the Jerome view of the siblings as cousins show that is not a good place to start.

>>2741

He also utilizes the Protoevangelium which is orthodox. The use of other gnostic source, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does not oppose my view because I can just say it utilizes canonical traditions which the author of the orthodox Protoevangelium also used which is sometimes seen as an apologetic work in response to criticisms of Christians. In fact if I may conjecture as you did, the author was aware of Gnostics disbelieving in Mary's perpetual virginity(in the sense that she has other children) and so uses the Epiphanian view as a way to counter them. So my point still stands. In response to groups like some Valentinians, the affirmation of Jesus' siblings as coming from a former marriage is used.

>>2741

I agree. But earlier sources show us the belief was known amongst orthodox groups. The 4th century only saw a controversy over this issue because of issues of claiming Mary which ironically for you, is tied to Marian devotion as David G Hunter notes. And before you use him, dont think I am unaware of his works. I read them and he agrees that virginity in partu is not something early but against virginity post patrum, that's where he says nothing.

Virginity in partu is adiaphora to me as I can still hold the Epiphanian view even if that is the case and that is more substainable than conventional Protestant arguments against perpetual virginity

>>2746

>>2744

>>2747

So, "veneration", is ultimately what made the perpetual virginity doctrine, go from speculation at best, to Law, essentially.

>>2748

The problem is that there are some weaknesses in the Jerome argument from some modern scholarship standpoints:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/11/the-brothers-and-sisters-of-jesus

>Against Jerome’s view, he points out that only “seldom if ever” does the Greek word adelphos mean “cousin.” Second, Jerome assumes that “Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus,” and Witherington does not find this assumption to be warranted by any textual evidence. Third, Jerome’s view “entails the belief that James the brother of the Lord was one of the Twelve, which contradicts the plain sense of Mark 3:21, 31–35, which distinguishes Jesus’ physical family members from the Twelve.”

>Even if Pedrozo is right that no theologian prior to Helvidius in the 370s held that Mary had other children, does not Witherington’s basic point still stand, namely that the burden of proof rests upon those who argue that the references in the New Testament to Jesus’ brothers and sisters are not children of Mary and that no such proof can be given? Since the kind of proof required by Witherington is unavailable, one would have to hold, as Witherington does, that Jesus was the firstborn of Mary’s large family.

The article ultimately concludes, that at best, the Church ultimately decided what Mary was in regards to her virginity. based on what they wanted her to be, especially in light of the "veneration" aspect from earlier.

>>2749

>He also utilizes the Protoevangelium which is orthodox.

But it's not, it's Apocryphal. To the point of not being used in either the Catholic or Orthodox biblical canons due to direct condemnation by Pope Innocent I and Thomas Aquinas, and also has some problems of consistency as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

>The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem."The purported author is thus James, the brother of Jesus, but scholars have concluded that the work was not written by the person to whom it is attributed (a pseudepigraphon), but was composed some time in the mid- to late 2nd century.

>That conclusion is based on the style of the language and that the author describes certain activities as contemporary Jewish customs that probably did not exist. For example, the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, similar to the Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome, but that is never directly stated to have been a practice in mainstream Judaism.

>Although a number of Church councils condemned it as an inauthentic writing of the New Testament, this did little to diminish its popularity. Pope Innocent I condemned this Gospel of James in his third epistle ad Exuperium in 405 AD, and the so-called Gelasian Decree also excluded it as canonical around 500 AD. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, rejects the Protevangelium of James teaching that midwives were present at Christ's birth, and invokes Jerome as contending that the words of the canonical gospels show that Mary was both mother and midwife, that she wrapped up the child with swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger. And thus concludes, "These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings."

Thus, ironically, if you are arguing from a standpoint of the Authority of the Church, you cannot even utilize the Gospel of James in you argument, or you're effectively a heretic.

>The use of other Gnostic source, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does not oppose my view because

You're proving my point: you're taking what you want, and rejecting what you don't from the Gnostics. You also, once again, fall back on an apocryphal work that was condemned by the Church, well before The Great Schism. So it does not matter if you are Catholic or Orthodox.

So ultimately, arguments in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity boil down to:

1)The burden of proof resting upon those who argue that the references in the New Testament to Jesus’ brothers and sisters are not children of Mary and that no such proof can be given.

2) An apocryphal text that even the early Church condemns, and that another Gnostic text rests on.

3) That the Church Fathers were moved by the Holy Spirit, and not what they wanted Mary to be based on "veneration."

This makes perpetual virginity shaky ground at best, and outright speculation at worst.

>>2752

Anyone who read Hunter's argument can see that even the side that wasnt for Mary's virginity is still one that venerate her. That comment shows a strawman of Hunter's view which is that the conflict was over ascectism and non ascetics who see Mary as perpetual virgin as turning her into a model only suited to monks and ascetics. In fact Jovinian's denial is simply that once Mary gave birth, she aint virgin anymore which is also Tertullian's point on this. As I stated this sort of non perpetual virginity is adiapora to me. Only Heldivius' form is dubious.

Secondly is even Bauckham critiques Jerome's view on the subject and I never used him as a witness to argue for Mary's perpetual virginity at all. So bringing him in here is essentially red herring. I already stated what the main thrusts of my argument are.

Third, Levering's article concludes that it was dogmaticism or that things arent so clear and the Church settled on perpetual virginity. Him saying the Hedivian view is dominant in NT Scholarship for instance doesnt entail my points as weak or somehow refute them. To begin with such an issue is not as widely explored as it is by Bauckham, Meier or Brown et al. Notice also that Bauckham's view is not critiqued either. Only the Hieroymian view.

Fourth, it is. Citing later objections by Latin figures wont work here, as a Catholic could simply say the rejection is due to the dubious details in the text in the first place. In fact this is what Jerome did according to your wiki article but here an issue is, Jerome also see Joseph as an ascetic and him having children prior is against his view. Naturally he would reject it.

Of course however based on something like the Gelasian decree, one could simply just view the Protoevangelium akin to how one read Tertullian because Tertullian is considered under the same category.

http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

So thanks to this, even your point here dont stand as Tertullian despite his Montanism is seen as someone who has a lot of theological benefit and the same can be likewise said of the protoevangelium. Hence this point falls flat because nowhere did I say the work is true, only that it is meant to show how the earliest testimony we know for something close to perpetual virginity is orthodox. Well, it is close with known orthodox Syrian texts, as Lily Vuong shows in her book about it. Even Stephen Shoemaker who considers the Assumption of Mary to have origins in heterodox circles accepts the Protoevangelium as orthodox. Origen espouses doubt but he accepts the perpetual virginity view it conveys.

>>2754

Firstly, it's pretty obvious what the tipping point for perpetual virginity going from "this isn't important, it's hard to prove or disprove, and shouldn't be exhaustively debated on" to "essential core doctrine" was: that perpetual virginity shores up her cult and worthiness of "veneration." The ending of Levering's article points in this direction, by the Church just basically settling on this in the face of mixed, at best, evidence.

Secondly, you brought in Jerome first, saying his arguments can be argued for, and thus capable of weakening the non-perpetual virginity position: >>2748

The fact that the burden of proof ultimately rests on those who argue for perpetual virginity does at least entail doubt on your points.

Finally, with all due respect, you're dancing all over the place. First you shored up on the Protoevangelium as evidence and orthodox, now you're saying that you never said it was true, but that this earliest testimony is orthodox. Except, once again, the Church itself declared it apocryphal and dubious (right down to it's authorship and time period.). It's either orthodox or apocryphal and dubious, you can't have it both ways. You're even comparing the theological weight of Tertullian to a non-orthodox document, that you keep saying is orthodox. Just waving off a condemnation and exclusion by the Church as just "objections by later Latin figures" (apparently the 4th and 5th century are "later") is not sound, unless I am mistaken and you are referring to Aquinas. Even waving away Aquinas, you can't just sweep the condemnation and non-canonization under a rug, and just keep saying "it's orthodox."

>>2757

You are a stellar apologist. How long have you been doing this? How did you get this way?

>>2757

As Hunter's article shows, it's the issue of Mary as model that is the driver for the rising importtance of the issue. Veneration is something already there since the 2nd century or even 1st given Irenaeus on the Apostolate. The only difference was earlier veneration focuses on martyrs or in Ignatius, the Apostles too but a high view of Mary is seen in the 2nd century in Irenaeus even without concern for perpetual virginity. Irenaean scholars like Steenberg and Stephen Presley (Baptist) note how in Irenaeus, Mary functions essentially as co-recapitulator with Christ. Coincident with Irenaeus' time the presence of the Protoevangelium which is clearly written also to honour Mary.

Note also how I refered to Jerome. He was never the core part of my argument. His view was raised as an example used by Brant Pitre to sort out the identities of the Marys in the NT which is essentially something difficult and only the first audience would know. This was my point, anyone can argue either way on this here but if other issues are settled first, then something may be said.

Your last point doesnt address anything. In fact it shows you dont even understand the point I am making at all. First off the Gelasian decree also included in apocryphal works, those of Tertullian too. Yet his contribution to theology is well known and Catholics today also use him as an important early Christian figure despite his later montanism. The status of Origen is also quite similar in this respect. Condemnation by later decrees like the Gelasian is done only because of spurious grounds but many later figures grant some truth in some popular apocryphal documents in the first place, just tainted. A Catholic could had easily used the same position and see the Protoevangelium as how Origen and Tertullian are. Notice also I never said the Protoevangelium's content is somehow on par with Tertullian's theological prowless. This is a strawman. The point is simply that if Tertullian despite apocryphal by the Gelasian decree can be not just discarded and be mined for benefits, so can the Protoevangelium. I noted scholar Lily Vuong's points about the affinities with orthodox Syriac documents like the Didascallia.

>>2757

Also note by true I meant that as historically true. The lacking in this department alongside an adoption of the Hieroymian view is why the document was apocryphal by later Latin fathers. The failure to account for its treatment in the East where contents of it end up appropriated in the Byzantine liturgy or even retained popularity in the West(scholars often mention this) only weakens the force of your use of the apocryphal declaration by bishops later on. But given how Tertullian could be seen as a Montanist and still be appreciated, one can follow this attitude to the Protoevangelium and hence the apocryphal status by decrees loses its force here

>>2768

>As Hunter's article shows, it's the issue of Mary as model that is the driver for the rising importance of the issue.

In other words, a model of "veneration" for all, not just monastics….

>Irenaean scholars like Steenberg and Stephen Presley (Baptist) note how in Irenaeus, Mary functions essentially as co-recapitulator with Christ.

I am aware of Irenaeus' recapitulation theory being utilized to bolster the "co-redemptrix" narrative (when it was meant to bolster Jesus' true humanity, in the face of contrary Gnostic teachings at the time.) That a dubious document would arise to further reinforce a dubious concept is, as usual, tragically unsurprising.

As for your continued defense of the Gospel of James (I prefer to use this name, as the other name can cause confusion, as it can also be used to reference Genesis 3:15) There is a big difference between mining some of the good aspects of Tertullian's non-Montanist works, vs. mining a work that is a train wreck of historical inaccuracy, questionable authorship and condemned as inauthentic. Origen's writings have also already been sorted out, in terms of what is acceptable, and what is not (like the preexistence of souls.) "Sure, this condemned document is historically inaccurate, and claims false authorship, but this one aspect totally supports the position I like, so I'll focus on it and ignore the rest. Totally comparable to Theologians who have definitive wheat from chaff that have been sorted." I am sorry, but the mental gymnastics are starting to become ridiculous at this point.

That the Byzantines adopted aspects of the Gospel of James really does little to convince me, as they've also adopted such things as Toll-Houses, Particular Judgments, and can't even give a straight answer on if fasting is salvific or not (i.e. "Fasting is just training, not necessary to salvation at all…. but you will be denied salvific communion if you break it… oh yeah, and the Toll House/Particular Judgement demons can totally drag you to temporal Hell over that. Hope you got people to pray you out of that one.").

The fact is that part of the reason why the Gospel of James was condemned in the first place is because of it's growing popularity, in spite of it's dubiousness. Prosperity gospel is pretty popular among the people these days, in spite of more reputable Protestants decrying it.

What are Lily Vuong's points about the Gospel of James in comparison with the Didascallia that supposedly lends more credence to it (which also claims false authorship and time period and was discovered in use among Syrian heretics)? Why does Stephen Shoemaker consider the Gospel of James as orthodox, despite evidence to the contrary?

>>2788

1)You are just repeating what I said about Jovinan and Heldivius. My point is veneration cannot account for the rise of importance. Rather the debate over the virtues of monasticism is.

2)Irenaeus' co-recapulation view being meant to boister Christ's humanity isnt incompatible with a high view of Mary or her being venerated. If any the typological logic Irenaeus used simply acts as a boost giving a higher view of Mary. Remember, some Catholics simply see co-redemptrix as Mary's obedience to God.

3)Your first statement on my use of the Protoevangelium fails. Because a Catholic can say what is truthful and beneficial from that document has been extracted, what isnt is left out, analogous with High Church Lutherans and Anglicans(like me) on the Mass and elements of Catholicism. So making that statement is essentially a non argument. Given this is your argument, it is simply ridiculous at this point.

4)Whether what the Christian east does isnt convincing to you is a non argument. The point is the Protoevangelium enjoyed reception there without the same level of condemnation the Latin West provides. Why? Because in the West as I mentioned, the view of Jerome is the main whereas in the East it is Epiphanius'. All this does is show that your attempt to use the Gelasian Decree which as I pointed out includes Tertullian's work as well to be of no impact. I provided a further point on how some apocryphal documents are taken as condemned but recognized for truth in them where it isnt altered. Wheat from chaff isnt just for Origen and Tertulliam alone.

5)Comparing reception of the Protoevangelium to the Prosperity gospel fails, because even higher ups recognize elements of truth in them and take them. Just because prosperity Gospel is wrong does it entail for instance the accumulation of wealth as a moral evil all because Prosperity Gospel emphasize wealth! The comparison fails again

6)Asceticism is one thing recognized in early Syriac Christianity. This focus gives affinity with the Didscallia since both have ascetic focus, both also dont condemn marriage like Encharites(this weakens Hunter's proposal that Protoevangelium is Encharite). It also has similar notions of purity if I recall too. Also why Shoemaker says it's orthodox? It's because at best earlier mentions of the document just says its dubious like Origen(but he also accepted its reasoning) and apologetical concerns against critics of Christianity. Inconsistency inside the document or it disagreeing with your worldview is no excuse to say it is heretical

>>2788

And to add more the Acts of Thomas, another apocryphal work is also condemned. But guess what? The orthodox Tradition of Thomas in India clearly relies on its narrative and can be a pointer in establisbing the historicity of Thomas' mission there, as Johnson Thomaskutty does in "Saint Thomas the Apostle: New Testament, Apocrypha, and Historical Traditions"

>>2796

1) If they wanted to spread "veneration" to all, by tearing down the air of "monastic exclusivism" surrounding the perpetual virginity concept, then yes, "veneration" is still a major factor.

2) Jesus taking flesh from Mary, and going through temptation and struggle, wanting to not go through with crucifixion if possible but ultimately surrendering his human will to his divine will, in order to undo the actions of Adam and thus sanctifying mankind's corrupted flesh, puts a bit of a damper on Mary being born sinless and perfect, and living a sinless life, since Jesus would inherit flesh not subject to sin or in need of purification. Recapitulation does not bolster Mary being an intermediary of graces between men and Jesus either.

3) You're literally just reaffirming my argument that you will just take what works for your argument without regard to other factors, which is further reinforced further on.

4) You cite it's popularity in the East as a subtextual reinforcement of it, then only now bring up Ephiphanius' popularity in the East to further reinforce it.. What does Epiphanius' popularity in the East (who supported the perpetual virginity in the first place) have to do with the historical and authorship dubiousness of the Gospel of James? Which is what 5) was about, with more mental gymnastics and goal post shifting - this time shifting the fact that dubious beliefs can become popular, to a subtext of "Even the Prosperity Gospel can be mined for good!" Why on earth would you want to metaphorically stick your hand in a garbage bag full used needles and diapers, for one still wrapped cheeseburger, when you don't have to? Only if that cheeseburger is that valuable to your argument. I can completely bypass and ignore the Prosperity Gospel and get direct truth from elsewhere; no need to sort through the surrounding debris.

6) They both share some asceticism? That's it? And Shoemaker just essentially argues against Origen's early thoughts, in spite of wider condemnation…. and it's orthodox? That's it?

>>2799

Another Gnostic text? This time docetic, with Thomas being Jesus' identical twin? A Christian group with Nestorian origins, syncretism with Hinduism, like astrology (but they're in communion with Rome! Whatever that means anymore…)

>>2801

1)Veneration is not the catalyst, issues monasticism and asceticism is as both sides venerate Mary. So no, it wasnt due to increasing veneration.

2)The problem is no one sees Mary as some required "checkpoint" needed to get Grace. So the argument fails. Irenaeus high view of Mary is due to her position in the Economy of Salvation as she undid Eve's knot, she becomes a cause of Salvation to the whole human race, analogous to Eve's disobedience causing the Fall. The key here is her role in the Economy and only her is accorded a role of co-recapulitator. One does not find in Protestant writings, save for some Caroline Divines, the level of description Irenaeus provides on this matter. My ex Evangelical pastor certainly dont, my Baptist friends certainly dont. The only Prots that do are Ecumenical leaning ones, like Maxwell Johnson who is a High Church Lutheran. Perhaps even Robert Jenson who is a ecumenist Lutheran. So your attempt to soften Irenaeus' Marian views fail.

3)This is false and shows yet again the same persistent strawmanning done. In fact given my explanations using reception of some apocryphal acts and Tertullian as examples that my position is beyond "muh pick and choose".

4)Thank you for proving my point. Nowhere did I say Epiphanius is popular as my argument. I only said the East followed his point on the issue of Jesus' siblings which is noted by Bauckham for instance in contrast to the West following Jerome. What is also explicit in my argument is that given popularity of the Protoevengelium's views in spite of condemnation, this shows the use of Gelasian decree or lists condemning the document as a non argument. As I said, the same Latins are happy to state that in some of these sorts of writings, there are truth that has been appropriated by those authors

5)Here again showing ignorance on reception history or even my basic point that though condemned such things can be mined or used by the same people who said they are dubious in nature. Note here dubious when I use the term and I have already been clear on this is simply ahistorical or not 100% historically accurate. The fact that you cant even understand this and the basic point of my analogy proves my point, you are simply misrepresenting my point to attack a strawman.

6)Well done for showing you made a strawman again. I didnt just solely say asceticism. I also said they dont condemn marriage(in fact it is good!) And Mary is just being a normal Jew in following ritual purity laws. They are no moral purity laws indicated in the Protoevangelium. Secondly, Origen just says it is dubious and accepted its view on Mary, he doesnt condemn the document. Shoemaker doesnt even say Origen condemned it either. So another proof you arent reading my points properly

Also good job showing yet again more ignorance on Acts of Thomas. It isnt Gnostic. At best it is Encharite. Encharites are just extreme ascetics. Western mentions of Thomas' mission to India are rooted in this text. And it is literally through that text we can verify knowledge from archeological evidence like coins to argue for historical plausibility of Thomas in India. And come on, Nestorian origins, really? Because all Syriacs are Nestorians am I right?

And also there are only some Indian Thomastines who are Unaites. The rest are Oriental Orthodox or Nestorian. You dont even know your basic history, cant even read my posts properly only to end up with plenty of misrepresentations such as on saying I argue that Epiphanius' popularity even though the point is that his view is followed(which is even the designation for views of Jesus' brothers as siblings from Joseph's past marriage), or better yet, ignoring the fact that I make no claim about the Protoevangelium's historicity(I even made clear it can be apologetical too).

And finally, there is a world of difference in using the Apocryphon of James or Gospel of Phillip and the Protoevangelium or Acts of Thomas. The former group are never touched on for benefit by anyone in the orthodox group, even early on. The latter have been and shows disparity in theology in contrast to texts of the former category. Notice Protoevangelium is not docetic even emphasizing Mary's stomach in pregnancy and doesnt say matter is evil or have Archons and Plemoras. The same for the Acts of Thomas which at best, implies marriage bad.

most scholars agree Thomas is more of a Spiritual twin as Bauckham notes, who is followed recently by Johnson Thomaskutty.

>>2805

1) Then why was the "monastic exclusivism" seemingly implied at the time by the concept of "perpetual virginity", viewed as such a barrier, that said concept needed to be pushed through?

2) Have you read the Catholic Catechism on Mary? Or are you trying to argue for the perpetual virginity of Mary from a purely Protestant point of view? Because honestly, until you said you were an Anglican, I viewed this debate as one between Catholic and Protestant viewpoints.

4) *Sigh* more semantic games. The fact that Epiphanius' viewpoint was more popular in the East, enough for the Gospel of James to get a pass, indicates his popularity over there. And, once again, your argument devolves into: "Gospel of James was popular, in spite of condemnations, therefore it's true." A real, non- argument, and a point I countered earlier with the popularity of the Prosperity Gospel.

6) What you added doesn't add anything to the veracity of said texts. You also imply that Shoemaker thought Origen's early views on the Gospel of James being dubious as being weak, and thus enough to have the Gospel of James considered orthodox, in spite of other misgivings. Once again, weak and inconsequential.

>>2806

>>2808

This is getting pathetic: Just extreme ascetics? Jesus is Thomas' identical spiritual twin, and Jesus appears before a wedding, to the bride to condemn intercourse even for procreation?

>>2807

Yes, they're all over the place, and Nestorianism took hold fairly early. And now you're just going into a tantrum over past points.

>>2808

Jesus does a bit more, than merely "imply" marriage is bad.

And now your arguments are devolving into "Strawman!" and "Questionable texts are still useful for what I want them to be, and because of general public popularity in the face of condemnation in spite of being questionable." The further we go down this rabbit hole, the more it becomes apparent that arguments in favor of perpetual virginity, rest on the popularity of some questionable texts, and scriptural speculation about the nature of Jesus' siblings.

>>2805

I'm just going to close with this quote:

>What is also explicit in my argument is that given popularity of the Protoevengelium's views in spite of condemnation, this shows the use of Gelasian decree or lists condemning the document as a non argument.

In other words: Popularity = Truth. Even if that truth is questionable at best, or worse.

With that, I'm officially done with this.

Good night and God Bless.

>>2809

1)This shows you didnt even read the article from Hunter which I linked. The exclusivism is because if Mary is perpetual in her virginity, then she is only a model for monks and ascetics. To some like Heldivius and Jovinian, this demonizes sex and speak badly of marriage. This is why they denied it. It is only making Mary for monks and why Jerome as a monk responded, sparking the earliest debate on the issue. Most fathers(if not all) take perpetual virginity as granted but not something to fuss about.

2)My view is the Epiphanian view but as I stated, a non perpetual virginity view like Jovinian's is adiaphora to me. If a Catholic thinks Jesus' other siblings are from a previous marriage, then they are free to take me on their side on this.

3)Once more a misrepresentation of my use of Epiphanius which is simply to designate his view which the East followed. Before him the Protoevangelium and possibly Hegeppius advocated it. By right other authors from the East note such a view too. Epiphanius isnt one giant, he simply repesents an already existing POV which the East has, contra to your strawman.

Moreover as I noted repeatedly and this hasnt even been addressed, the same people who condemn the documents can still see theological benefits in them. Hence why in some later copies of apocryphal works, redaction can be found. From the mouths of some authors too, those works taken from tradition. The fact that here you say "non argument" once morr shows you pulling off a strawman and not noticing the point. In a nutshell, condemnations of the document is not grounds for my point that the earliest witnesses against perpetual virginity are Gnostic is somehow incoherent, because the same people who does that recognize that there are that which are true in the documents. This is why I stressed Tertullian because he is condemned by them, yet he can be easily used by Catholics!

4)Again non argument as Origen accepted it as orthodox and even its stance on Mary's virginity is there to show positive early reception. This is contrast to the two Gnostic works that are clearly against perpetual virginity, the Apocryphon of James and Gospel of Phillip.

5)And another non argument and once more shows ignorance on Early Christianity. In fact even scholars agree the Acts of Thomas aint docetic at all as a simple commentary by Kjin notes how at one point at the beginning where Thomas prayed to Jesus in the text, a description used is the same way Syrians describe the incarnation. How that is docetic is beyond me and only shows ignorance and a hatred for deep study of early Christianity and its opponents.

6)Again false, as they are divided amongst Miaphysite and Oriental lines. Their connections to Syria are known and it aint just Nestorianism alone. Here you revel in ignorance once more. In fact given Johnson Thomaskutty's work on the subject, it cant even be Nestorians but a community that is quite literally preached to by Thomas and existed very early before the Nestorian controversy.

7)I noted the Encharite community of the text. So this is literally another non argument

8)Notice that each time I call you out on your strawman, I actually point them out. So this is essentially just you sperging out at this point

>>2812

And another strawman ignoring:

>Fourth, it is. Citing later objections by Latin figures wont work here, as a Catholic could simply say the rejection is due to the dubious details in the text in the first place. In fact this is what Jerome did according to your wiki article but here an issue is, Jerome also see Joseph as an ascetic and him having children prior is against his view. Naturally he would reject it.

Of course however based on something like the Gelasian decree, one could simply just view the Protoevangelium akin to how one read Tertullian because Tertullian is considered under the same category.

http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

So thanks to this, even your point here dont stand as Tertullian despite his Montanism is seen as someone who has a lot of theological benefit and the same can be likewise said of the protoevangelium. Hence this point falls flat because nowhere did I say the work is true, only that it is meant to show how the earliest testimony we know for something close to perpetual virginity is orthodox.

Notice this isnt "muh popularity" but how Tertullian is used positively despite him erring and being Montanist.

>Condemnation by later decrees like the Gelasian is done only because of spurious grounds but many later figures grant some truth in some popular apocryphal documents in the first place, just tainted.

Anyone familiar with comments on some of these apocryphal texts know that it is Bishops who denounce them but also acknowledge truth in them, just sprinkled with dubious details.

And also:

>5)Comparing reception of the Protoevangelium to the Prosperity gospel fails, because even higher ups recognize elements of truth in them and take them. Just because prosperity Gospel is wrong does it entail for instance the accumulation of wealth as a moral evil all because Prosperity Gospel emphasize wealth! The comparison fails again

Also for my own point, let Richard Bauckham speak on this:

>That the name Judas was actually Thomas* name is more probable than that he was so called in east Syria as a result of his identification as a twin of Jesus and therefore with Jude the Lord's brother. Considering him the twin brother of Jesus would not ne!cessarily identify him with]& rather than with another of the brothers. In any case, it is somewhat doubtful whether the notion of Thomas as Jesus' twin was originally intended to refer to a physical relationship at all.

>It is hard to imagine how the idea of a twin brother of Jesus could have been taken seriously in circles where the tradition of the virgin birth was current (cf. OdesSol 19).'13 In Acts of Thomas I 1-12 Jesus appears in the form of Thomas - i.e. as his identical twin - but this may be only one of his 'many forms' (48).u4 The real interest is in Thomas as the spiritual twin of Jesus, Jesus' 'twin and true companion' (BkThom 138: I), 'fellow-initiate into the hidden words of Christ . . ., fellow-worker of the Son of God' (ActsThom 39), the apostle who knows Jesus best and most resembles him. Even the depiction of Thomas as a carpenter like Joseph (ActsThom 2- 3), though no doubt inspired by the idea of literal brother- hood to Jesus, finds its real significance as a spiritual metaphor (cf. 17-24). It is possible that a tradition of Thomas' physical twinship to Jesus was later exploited theologically, but it is at least equally possible that an interpretation of his name as implying his spiritual twinship with Jesus later brought with it the idea of physical twinship.

From Jude and the Relatives of Jesus pg35-36

And from Kjlin's intro to the commentary on the text:

>It is not clear in which way Judas is supposed to be the twin of Christ. A few passages in the Acts of Thomas seem to be important. In ch. 11 it is said that a bridegroom sees Jesus “in the likeness of Judas”. In ch. 34 it is said about Judas that he has “two forms” and in ch. 45 one wonders why Judas is “like unto God”. According to ch. 57 and 151 people are astonished that Judas is met in a place where it is physically impossible for him to be.

>We are dealing with the idea that Jesus is able to appear in whatever body he likes.14 He adapts himself to the particular circumstances. Since one of the apostles was named the “Twin” according to an ancient Semitic tradition it was not difficult to consider him the twin of Christ in a special way

See: The Acts of Thomas. Introduction— Text—Commentary”, in: Supplements to Novum Testamentum V, pg. 7

I really did not want to do this but I am not one to hide behind ignorance and I am happy to show the truth of my statements or where my sources are.

>>2646

>Which of these options is more likely to be correct given Ockham's razor?

Occam's razor is completely irrelevant on this topic OP. The Bible explicitly states Mary had other children.

>>2672

Nice exegesis

>>2875

>Mary is also noted as the Queen of Heaven in Revelation

Where?

>>2912

Revelation 12. Aside from that, In ancient Israel whenever a woman was wearing a crown, she was a Queen. So, not the wife of the king but the mother - the Queen Mother. She is the Queen of all things because of her relation to Christ, who is King of Kings.

>>2917

The woman of revelation 12 is the church.

https://carm.org/catholic/revelation12mary

>whenever a woman was wearing a crown, she was queen, so if this is Mary then mary is a queen

Conjecture

>Mary is Queen because Christ is King

Conflation. Christ's role as king is unrelated to his birth mother.

>>2919

>The woman of revelation 12 is the church

The way Revelation is inspired by the Holy Ghost certainly allows for direct and indirect symoblism. She can represent the Church and tribes of Israel (and the 12 patriarchs of Israel, etc) while also being Mary–and the Catholic position that she is the new Eve (and was assumed) certainly lines up well with that passage. And you have to remember that the Apocalypsis was originally one free-flow writing, so it's undeniable that St John was showing this woman as the new Ark. Luke's Gospel also shows this, with the language he uses (see vid).

>Christ's role as king is unrelated to his birth mother.

I never said it was. She is Queen because of her relation to the King of Kings is what I said. And if you are a disciple of Christ, she is your mother.

The guy in this video is kinda queer but do watch it.

>>2928

Bad hermeneutics. Your reading violates the law of non-contradiction. In the single event of Rev 12:1-2, the woman can not be simultaneously Mary and the Church. Mary can be typologically related to the woman, but not the same as.

Video is similarly just a bunch of assertions.