B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
No, but the document does support it.
- Status
G
Ginger2
Guest
Obviously you haven’t read it or you simply didn’t read it carefully enough to spot the errors because you were so thrilled at at it stating the things you wanted to believe.
Let me quickly dig out my old Catholic Bible and the Protoevangelium of James and I’ll get right back to show you the most obvious error.
don’t go away, I’ll be right back!
:coffeeread:
I won’t take much longer…
please be patient…
almost done…
C
Cachonga
Guest
Tantum ergo:
Tantum ergo:
Tantum ergo:
Tantum ergo:
According to Scripture, Mary “gave birth” to Jesus; according to the Protoevangelium of James, Jesus “beamed out” of Mary. Sounds like a contradiction to me! According to the Protoevangelium of James, James, Joses, Simon and Judas (and the sisters) were children of Joseph by a previous marriage. If that was true, Jesus would not have an undisputable claim to the throne of David (wouldn’t this be a contradiction?). According to the Protoevangelium of James, the angel called to Mary while she was out getting water, but she didn’t see him until she got back home. Does Scripture confirm this? I could go on, but I think the point is made - the Protoevangelium of James does contradict Scripture!.
Tantum ergo:
Again, focusing on the word “until” is a red herring. Michal could not have a child after her death because dead people don’t conceive. However, Joseph and Mary could have had marital relations after Jesus was born. Scripture makes it clear that Joseph “took Mary as his wife”, but that he did not have marital relations with her while she was pregnant. Nothing is said about what came after, and I suggest that since there was no clear command for Joseph to refrain for marital relations (and no clear indication that he did), then they most certainly could have engaged in them!
Tantum ergo:
Heresy and false teaching were creeping into the church while the Apostles were still alive! I would suggest that any teaching that cannot be traced back to an Apostle (or someone they taught directly, such as Matthew or Luke), should not be taught as doctrine (far less made into a dogma). A prayer appearing more than 200 years after Jesus ascended to heaven is not proof that the doctrine was taught by the Apostles. If this is the earliest prayer (which you claim that it is), then I would suggest this is proof that the idea crept in from non-Biblical, non-Apostolic sources and is, therefore, a tradition of men.
Tantum ergo:
Since they split with the Church over issues other than Mary, I am not surprised that they held onto what they had been taught (BTW - this was centuries before the dogmas of her immaculate conception or bodily assumption, which I am sure they would have disagreed with). However, since they are no more infallible than me (or you, the president, the ECF’s, or even the pope), then I don’t have to be concerned when they express a belief in something without Scriptural support.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Here is one instance:
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David,** fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife**: …
PJ 17:1 And Joseph said how shall I enroll her? As my wife? I am ashamed to do that.
Why would Joseph be ashamed to enroll Mary as his wife when the angel specifically said, " fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife…"
Also, Luk 2:5 calls Mary Joseph’s espoused wife after she is found to be pregnant: “To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.”
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David,** fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife**: …
PJ 17:1 And Joseph said how shall I enroll her? As my wife? I am ashamed to do that.
Why would Joseph be ashamed to enroll Mary as his wife when the angel specifically said, " fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife…"
Also, Luk 2:5 calls Mary Joseph’s espoused wife after she is found to be pregnant: “To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.”
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No I didn’t.
No, our beliefs are founded on God’s revelation. Writings are a result of beliefs and faith, not the other way around.
You should; truth is important.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Then tell me plainly, who received this revelation and when, because this very Website gives no source other then Protoevangelium of James. All other cite this pseudo work as proof.
And while you’re at it, explain this:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.
It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed …
Ginger
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Church received it. It’s not a matter of this or that person at this or that specific moment.
If you’re a Christian, I assume you believe Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity? And that Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully divine, one person with two natures?
Yet we can’t point to one person at one time who received this revelation. Christians still believe it’s true. You can point to this or that Christian Ecumenical Council that authoritatively taught these doctrines/dogma, but the beliefs existed before they were formally defined at a Council. Ditto for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity.
A
adrift
Guest
But the Catholic Encyclopedia says more. The paragraph before this quote
To continue what you left out
You bolded falsely ascribed for what purpose? Especially since you didn’t complete the sentence.
D
Des
Guest
False. Unless you figure that while still in the womb of His mother, John The Baptist was found unworthy in the eyes of men.
C
Cachonga
Guest
And how can I trust the Church without documentation to confirm their claim? Even the Berean’s checked what Paul taught against the Scriptures (and they were commended for doing this).
I can find many Scriptures that affirm the humanity and divinity of Jesus, as well as showing clearly the Trinty (even though the word is not in Scripture). Based on the Scriptures, I can see these things clearly whether or not any “ecumenical” council said so. However, I can find nothing in Scripture to even hint that Mary remained virgin after the birth of Jesus.
G
Ginger2
Guest
God Himself has revealed His nature through the Holy Bible. Several prophets wrote under divine inspiration. How do we know they received the revelation form God? Their prophecies came true.
Jesus stated he is God. The Jews reaction demonstrate they understood Jesus was claiming to be God and his miracles, but especially his resurrection testifies he was indeed God.
The word “Trinity” was coined much later to help explain the nature of God, which it does miserably considering many people mistakenly think Christian worship three gods.
Yet, you can’t point to even one legitimate claim for the perpetually virginity. But insist it is fact.
Do Not Exceed That Which Is Written 1 Corinthians 4:6
I believe Jesus is God because he said so in the Holy Scriptures and the Scriptures have been proven true.
In contrast you believe in the perpetual virginity based on false documents. :tsktsk:
G
Ginger2
Guest
To continue what you left out
Notice these “genuine” writings are based on the false writings and don’t appear until centuries later!!! Not until the 7th and 8th centuries do we find any legitimate writings.
“genuine” writings based on false writings. And you wonder why Protestants don’t trust Catholic opinions.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
What did God do before the Bible?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Trusting the Church, like trusting God, is a matter of faith. Faith is not reducible to “documentation” that would objectively prove anything. Documentation (e.g. the Bible) can be responded to in faith, or not. It’s up to each of us to choose how to respond.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Your correct you can find nothing in the Scriptures that specifies the BVM had any other children, but there are some passages that suggest that she did not. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth not the Bible. To be useful against this a passage of Scripture would have to specifically oppose a teaching of the Church. “Even the Berean’s checked what Paul taught against the Scriptures”, the Old Testament Scriptures!
C
Cachonga
Guest
I have faith in God, but I have no faith in your Church. God thought it was important enough to give us His inspired, inerrant word in the Scriptures, and He made it clear that to go beyond what Scripture says is dangerous (see Proverbs 30:6).
Br. Rich SFO:
If it’s something we need to know, wouldn’t God make it clear? Why wouldn’t God just come out and tell us in His word that Mary was a perpetual virgin rather than “suggest” this was the case? Doesn’t God love us enough to tell us what He considers important? I believe He does!
As far as being the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (you forgot to include “the”), what does it say about your concept of truth when you rely on spurious documents for some of your doctrines (and dogmas)? Doesn’t a pillar and foundation hold something up (like “the Truth”)?
If the Bereans checked Paul’s teaching against the OT Scriptures, then how much more should we rely on the NT (and all of Scripture) to check out and verify Church doctrines and dogmas?
A
adrift
Guest
Notice these “genuine” writings are based on the false writings and don’t appear until centuries later!!! Not until the 7th and 8th centuries do we find any legitimate writings.
“genuine” writings based on false writings. And you wonder why Protestants don’t trust Catholic opinions.
Where does it say that these writing are based on false writings? Please read the sentence carefully. It says it is found in the book De Transitu Virginis which is said falsely to be written by St Melito this does not mean that the book itself was false. What you ignored is that it was apostolic tradition. In other words, it was taught by the apostles.
I
It doesn’t say these writings were based on false writings but that they are genuine writings.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I keep hearing, “spurious documents” based on some very ‘manipulative’ editing here, as though it was ONLY through a ‘spurious document’ that the teaching existed. . .which is manifestly not the case.
As was shown by others, there is no ‘point trace’ whereby one can point at Scripture and say, “this is where God explicitly stated that He is Father, Son, and Spirit, Three Divine and Equal persons in one God.” It is implicit in the texts but it is not explicit. Therefore, a teaching need not be found ‘explicitly’ in the Scripture to be accepted as authentic teaching.
Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture does it say that all teachings will be ‘found’ in Scripture and in Scripture alone. Gee, ladies and gents, point me to that important piece of Scripture which says, “Pray ye the Sinners’ Prayer and ye shall be saved for everlasting.” That ‘sinner’s prayer’ is not a part of Scripture --the first half of the Hail Mary so scorned by some (not all) Protestants IS found directly in Luke but oh the screams of “non Scriptural” hurled at “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death”!! It’s ‘not in the Bible’ that she was holy, mother of God, or could ‘pray for us’ (even though Christians including our so often neglected Orthodox brethren and even revered Protestants such as Martin Luther accepted every single one of those as authentic Christian teachings.
So, next time I hear y’all anathematizing Catholics with their ‘spurious documents’ and practices, I’ll be waiting to hear you doing the same regarding the Sinner’s Prayer. Also, since so many of you have absolutely oppositional beliefs, I’ll be looking forward to seeing y’all duke it out over whether John 6 is literal or **figurative. **
I mean, y’all are so convinced that we Catholics use ‘spurious documents’ and practices, I would think you would be **just as concerned **that your own **fellow Protestants **are using ‘spurious documents’ and practices themselves. Because, hey, what you teach must be what the Bible says, right? And if somebody is saying that your belief is wrong. . .your fellow Protestant who says John 6 is literal, while you say figurative, or vice versa. . .well boy oh boy, they are using ‘spurious documents’ and practices and denying the Bible, and you’ve got a million times ‘better’ case against them than you do against Catholics, on account of you are using the Bible and can “Prove” that your interpretation is right. . .and because they’re Protestants, they use the Bible too and don’t talk about “Church” or “tradition”. Heck, we Catholics are just waiting with bated breath for y’all to come out and tell us which of you is the authority on Scripture, so that we can all throw away our ‘idols’ and join the undisputed ‘real’ Church which you’ll be able to ‘prove’ by demolishing your Protestant opponent.
(Sits back and waits patiently for the ‘winner’ to explain why his or her Protestant belief represents the ‘true’ Scriptural interpretation and why the Protestants arguing the opposite question read Scripture ‘incorrectly.’)
As was shown by others, there is no ‘point trace’ whereby one can point at Scripture and say, “this is where God explicitly stated that He is Father, Son, and Spirit, Three Divine and Equal persons in one God.” It is implicit in the texts but it is not explicit. Therefore, a teaching need not be found ‘explicitly’ in the Scripture to be accepted as authentic teaching.
Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture does it say that all teachings will be ‘found’ in Scripture and in Scripture alone. Gee, ladies and gents, point me to that important piece of Scripture which says, “Pray ye the Sinners’ Prayer and ye shall be saved for everlasting.” That ‘sinner’s prayer’ is not a part of Scripture --the first half of the Hail Mary so scorned by some (not all) Protestants IS found directly in Luke but oh the screams of “non Scriptural” hurled at “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death”!! It’s ‘not in the Bible’ that she was holy, mother of God, or could ‘pray for us’ (even though Christians including our so often neglected Orthodox brethren and even revered Protestants such as Martin Luther accepted every single one of those as authentic Christian teachings.
So, next time I hear y’all anathematizing Catholics with their ‘spurious documents’ and practices, I’ll be waiting to hear you doing the same regarding the Sinner’s Prayer. Also, since so many of you have absolutely oppositional beliefs, I’ll be looking forward to seeing y’all duke it out over whether John 6 is literal or **figurative. **
I mean, y’all are so convinced that we Catholics use ‘spurious documents’ and practices, I would think you would be **just as concerned **that your own **fellow Protestants **are using ‘spurious documents’ and practices themselves. Because, hey, what you teach must be what the Bible says, right? And if somebody is saying that your belief is wrong. . .your fellow Protestant who says John 6 is literal, while you say figurative, or vice versa. . .well boy oh boy, they are using ‘spurious documents’ and practices and denying the Bible, and you’ve got a million times ‘better’ case against them than you do against Catholics, on account of you are using the Bible and can “Prove” that your interpretation is right. . .and because they’re Protestants, they use the Bible too and don’t talk about “Church” or “tradition”. Heck, we Catholics are just waiting with bated breath for y’all to come out and tell us which of you is the authority on Scripture, so that we can all throw away our ‘idols’ and join the undisputed ‘real’ Church which you’ll be able to ‘prove’ by demolishing your Protestant opponent.
(Sits back and waits patiently for the ‘winner’ to explain why his or her Protestant belief represents the ‘true’ Scriptural interpretation and why the Protestants arguing the opposite question read Scripture ‘incorrectly.’)
S
Steven_John
Guest
Please note i said maybe not is, on CAF this doc is dated 120AD other sources put it up to 200AD
I only offered it as it was some thing like a name, the other poster had not offered a specific document.
This doc from another poster is strangely worded and does get the thoughts going for hidden message.
Whilst i dont know i lean toward this opinion, the spirit told him to take her as a wife with the great until clause. Joseph must have understood this in the Jewish sense of a wife. The spirit could have easly said be gaurdian over her, not uncommon practice from what i can work out.
I have nothing to argue against this but offer it is dangerous to assert such words as your own unless He gave you the revelation. The word warns even the dark one appears as the light. Given the lack of evidence and if Mary (bbhn) did not remain a virgin you will have used His name in vain.
Not to argue against you or your position but brother to brother in love, it maybe better for you to argue a position of “The Church teaches, The source is God” You can still support you argument and be safe, just a suggestion.
Amen
I dont think so, it just means the author is not as stated, his was common and not fraudulent in days of old, if you stdied under me when i die you would write in my name. I have been told some of the 66 books are the same.
A1 advice for gaining true faith with acts though if we look at the bible quotes i posted we could see that translation may involve bias.
It is worth be open to dig deep if you really want to know what was conveyed or at least pray no man leads you astray and b guided by the spirit.
Amen
Dot Dot Dot
C
Cachonga
Guest
Seems to me we’ve all gotten a bit off topic. I think it would be fair to sum up by stating that there is no way to prove Mary was a perpetual virgin from Scripture.
- Status