Doesn’t that come from the false gospel of the Protoevangelium of James from the late second century? Rather late tradition, especially since it is falsely authored.There is a church tradition that says a suitable marriage partner was needed for Mary. That is, a husband was needed to protect her choice to remain a Virgin. And it was known that Joseph would respect her choice on that going into the marriage.
And you also have guys who claim 2nd Peter wasn’t written by Peter. I’m not saying that the Protoevangelium is Scripture. I’m saying it has roots in Christian traditions at the time.Doesn’t that come from the false gospel of the Protoevangelium of James from the late second century? Rather late tradition, especially since it is falsely authored.
But those “guys” who claim 2 Peter wasn’t written by Peter are liberal “scholars” who are oblivious to antiquity. The epistle of Jude was also written in the first century, states he received his info from the apostles, and cites 2 Peter extensively. Plus, second Peter has internal evidence it was God-breathed (lack of errors and contradictions with prior and later Scripture, used in early liturgy, first century apostolic authorship, etc.).And you also have guys who claim 2nd Peter wasn’t written by Peter. I’m not saying that the Protoevangelium is Scripture. I’m saying it has roots in Christian traditions at the time.
The following is just logical deduction from the Gospels.Jesus in Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels? Does this have to do with your previous post about Joseph’s father dying and being adopted by Joachim (aka: Eloichim, aka: Eli, aka: Heli)?
It was acknowledged as dubious not false. However, many Fathers of the Church go with the doctrines espoused, such as the virginity of Mary, and Jesus brothers being stepbrothers.it contains errors and contradictions with prior inspired Scripture, and it was acknowledged early in the church as a false gospel.
And that’s all that matters. What matters is that since Joseph was Jesus’s legal father, Jesus is a son of David.Both claim they represent Joseph’s lineage.
I have an idea that probably explains Hegesippus’ expression “according to the flesh” as well.What matters is that since Joseph was Jesus’s legal father, Jesus is a son of David.
I would consider a simple mispronunciation of a word, or a slip of the tongue between the divided kingdom reason to discredit an argument. Rather, I would listen to the entire argument to see if it has any merit.• The verb “prophesy” misused in place of the noun “prophecy”
• “The northern kingdom of Judah” and “the southern kingdom of Israel.”
…which they base it on the Protoevangelium of James, as Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers admits is the earliest source for it, falsely claimed to have been written by James the Just who had been DEAD for over a century. Prior to this, church history is silent on the topic of the PVM. So, shouldn’t we be cautious in trusting in a falsely authored writing on topics that have no previous reliable testimony or validity? Just sayin’.many Fathers of the Church go with the doctrines espoused, such as the virginity of Mary, and Jesus brothers being stepbrothers.
You, my friend, are espousing a post hoc fallacy. Just because we find the Protoevangelium of James espousing the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother, doesn’t mean the belief came from that book. In fact, the opposite is true. In Jerome’s defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, he states that it goes all the way back to Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp, a student of John the Beloved. But let’s get back on topic.which they base it on the Protoevangelium of James, as Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers admits is the earliest source for it,