Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

[hope]

Well, it has been opinionated by most scholars, if not all, that it is spurious. And more than a few find it quite anachronistic (a Greek or Roman cultured gentile, ignorant of Jewish customs, writing it)…making it to a list of books “to be avoided by Catholics” (Gelatious Decree).

Understand that many share your opinion of the book, many.

Better. I don’t like the ambiguous of most scholars. I want to know who even if only a few. I also dispute your claim that even most scholars believe it is spurious. It is your claim and your obligation to prove it. I understand why you want to discredit it. The Decree you mention doesn’t do that it doesn’t show that it wasn’t written at the time or that what was in it was untrue. Since it follows that latter it was used as support shows that the early Fathers believed that it was true if not inspired or not a true Gospel. Don’t mix up that because it wasn’t inspired writing than there fore it contains no truth.

 

[hope]

I don’t know which of his writings would be Orthodox and which weren’t. I believe however what you quote was from when he accepted heresy and no longer espoused Catholic thought at least that is the way I read the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[mcq72]

don’t like the ambiguous of most scholars. I want to know who even if only a few. I also dispute your claim that even most scholars believe it is spurious. It is your claim and your obligation to prove it

Well nothing ambiguous about “most”, being a mathmatecial adjective. But I quibble , and know you mean “in error” at least. By spurious I mean not written by the person who says is writing it, James, and therefore not an eye witness account, and even more not at time it says it was written, around Hero’s death (39ad).

But you are right, not sure of the hundreds of scholars over the centuries how many believe it to be written when it says, or if was just any old James or the apostle, brethren of Jesus etc. All I know from the little reading I’ve done haven’t read one who says it was an eye witness (written when it says it was). I am not doubting that there may be some who take it as genuine author (apostle) and date as written.

 

[Crocus]

With caveat that some do consider Tertullian to have some writings worthwile,

You continue to call on Tertullian to support your argument, without showing any references (he may have made, anywhere) to uterine brothers of Jesus.

 

[hope]

Ambiguous in the sense that it doesn’t name names. What scholar?

is an apocryphal gospel probably written about AD 145 most of what I have read they consider that a correct date. I don’t believe the Church believes that James Apostle wrote it. It is regarded as apocryphal. Does it say when it was written? The consensus of your scholars is 145 AD. Like I said I understand why you wish to discredit it but your objections do not have any bearing on the point that it was written in 145. It is the first written record of the belief of Mary being ever virgin. Something with which other Orthodox writers agree. You do not have anything from that time period that disagrees. You don’t really have anything until the time of Jerome. Just like other heresies you don’t see them at first but then you see them being refuted. Just as some of what you posted was a refutation of Jesus not being human.

 

[mcq72]

not sure, thought author says he wrote around the time of herod’s death, which was 39 AD , not a hundred years later…at the end , last paragraph, of text

 

[mcq72]

By most? No that won’t do who? I am sorry I cannot make out who or what was spurious and what many find wnchronistic? Typing on a phone? that could cause the confusion.

yep …phone…“Well, it has been opinionated by most , if not all, that it is spurious. And many find it quite anachronistic”…sorry

 

[mcq72]

The Decree you mention doesn’t do that it doesn’t show that it wasn’t written at the time or that what was in it was untrue.

OK what most cite here is the decree, which has five "lists’ books of ot then Nt and one of the list, the last one i believe is "books to be avoided by catholics’…one of the books had heading of:“the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife”, and it is thought by some that it is the james book, which i have seen under several names, or titling

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

 

[hope]

I will have to read it but it is dated by everything I found 150. Could you give me one link that it is spurious. I cannot find it. I cannot find it being rejected by the Church either. In another thread, this was written - However, these books were never deemed “wrong” or even “fake”, they were simply deemed to be not inspired Scripture from God.

 

[hope]

As far as I can make out, this was translated from German. What this document is the declaration of what is Scripture and what is apocryphal. It isn’t a list of what Catholics should avoid.

 

[mcq72]

V. The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:

LIKEWISE A LIST OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

 

[hope]

I have told you that it was apocryphal and not inspired but that does not mean that what was written is not what was taught. What the Pope was doing was establishing a canon of the Bible. It didn’t make the cut for a number of reasons but nothing in it was against the faith. So really posting that the pope said that it wasn’t inspires does not take a way from the fact that Mary ever virgin was taught from the beginning. The didache is not inspired but it is accepted as to the early Christians.

 

[mcq72]

What the Pope was doing was establishing a canon of the Bible. It didn’t make the cut for a number of reasons but nothing in it was against the faith.

Yes, as i also posted, the decree comes in 5 sections, and yes dealing with canon, but the last section plainly states, they are to be avoided, apocryphyl or not…this has been done by popes in our time also(listing books to be avoided)…do you agree that the book is listed in the last section by that title I posted…lets first make sure we are on same page…does not say book of "James "or “protoevangelium” but “birth of our saviour and the mid wife.”

It certainly did not make the list preceding the to be avoided one, that is was not included with books of holy fathers, writings by Jerome, augustine, etc…did not see either by title or author.

 

[mcq72]

The didache is not inspired but it is accepted as to the early Christians.

Understand, but the Didache, and Clement’s letter to Corinthians, which was also very highly regarded…neither of them are in that last list, to be avoided…interestinglyTertullian is (to be avoided).

 

[hope]

Protoevangelium of James Facts
Written around 150
not to be classed with the Gnostic writings
It is apocryphal
This early work reflects at least some ancient traditions, held by at least some substantial part of the early Church.
it is still part of Christian history and reflects some accepted tradition
The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen
The work is Pseudepigraphical
That Fact that a Pope put it on a list a list that was intended to show what wasn’t scriptural which I have already stated, does not contradict the above. It doesn’t change anything that I have said about it. It is evidence against your statement that The ever virgin Mary was not taught before Jerome.

 

[hope]

Doesn’t surprise me. Tertullian was unorthodox and did not espouse the traditional teaching on Mary.

 

[hope]

Maccabees 3 and 4 is regarded as Apocrypha. But it does show the history of the Jews. Maccabees really existed.

 

[mcq72]

That Fact that a Pope put it on a list a list that was intended to show what wasn’t scriptural which I have already stated, does not contradict the above.

well, kindly disagree. The decree is quite specific. it lists book that are not scripture and you can still read, and lists books that are not scripture and one should avoid them.pretty simple.

The decree is for its time period maybe. That is, sentiments toward books can change, especially as doctrine develops. So perhaps it is ok to read today or 500 years ago., but it was not after the decree in 6th century.

But one should at least acknowledge what was once a Catholic directive, a decree for its time. I would think the understanding is inescapable, and only an anachronistic view would miss it.

 

[mcq72]

Protoevangelium of James Facts
Written around 150
not to be classed with the Gnostic writings
It is apocryphal
This early work reflects at least some ancient traditions, held by at least some substantial part of the early Church.
it is still part of Christian history and reflects some accepted tradition
The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen
The work is Pseudepigraphical
That Fact that a Pope put it on a list a list that was intended to show what wasn’t scriptural which I have already stated, does not contradict the above. It doesn’t change anything that I have said about it. It is evidence against your statement that The ever virgin Mary was not taught before Jerome.

ok, on all except pope decree comment. Apocrphyl and pseudepigraphical mean same as spurious term that I used.

 

[hope]

I would think the understanding is inescapable, and only an anachronistic view would miss it.

I am disappointed in this statement. The understanding is not what you want it to be. I do believe that you are miss using anachronistic. The question would be who had that type of view? The facts are there They can’t be manipulated by presenting that a Pope said they were not scriptural. All Popes have said that Mary was ever Virgin. So why aren’t you accepting that as well? If you are going to accept one pope, why not all of them?
Let us just say right now you are right the book was condemned by the Church however the Protoevangelium of James provide us with an insight into the mind of the earliest Christians is still a fact that no evidence to the contrary has been provided. Saying it was condemned does not prove otherwise. It has been accepted by most that this document was written in 145. Unless you have proof of it not being real you just have to accept that your theory is wrong.