K
KrazyKat
Guest
Yes, this is the answer. No one knows.
- Status
K
KrazyKat
Guest
M
Mike30
Guest
If that is the case then do we also accept all of the other accounts found in that partucular book? Or do we accept some and dismiss others? Seems kind of a slippery slope to be on.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Polish princess is correct. Your example in scripture supports the idea that Jesus had siblings since there are other passages that refer to Jesus’ brothers.
St Jerome states: The Mary which in Mark and Matthew is called the mother of James and Joses was the wife of Alpheus, and sister of Mary the mother of our Lord: which Mary John here designates of Cleophas, either from her father, or family, or for some other reason. She need not be thought a different person, because she is called in one place Mary the mother of James the less, and here Mary of Cleophas, for it is customary in Scripture to give different names to the same person.
You cannot take one isolated verse on let it stand on it’s own.
God Bless
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
D
DaveBj
Guest
I did not “take one isolated verse on [sic] let it stand on it’s [sic] own.” My conclusion that Salome (not Mary of Cleopas) was the sister of the Blessed Virgin is based on an analysis (from the Greek) of the crucifuxion accounts in all four Gospels. Also, I did not offer my conclusion as solid fact; rather, I stated that I was 95% certain.
The idea that parents would have two daughters named Mary is just silly. Are there any other instances in Scripture or the secular history of that period where parents had multiple children with the same name?
C
concretecamper
Guest
Davebj: tradition does not support your conclusion…neither does Blessed Anne Emerich
S
Steveabrous
Guest
O.k I am going to try to make this clear.
The Protoevangelium of James IS:
- Not scripture
- Not without error
However: - Is an early writing and reflective of what the early church believed about Mary
- Not irrelevant
- Not completely unreliable
- Which is evident since many Catholic apologists refer to it when defending Marian doctrine ( For the 4th time)
- since the subject is Mary’s early childhood, and apologists refer to it in discussing Mary’s early childhood (for the fifth time) I think it is worth considering what it says on the subject.
-It is absolutely right on the subject
-Or that it over rides any other source
Since:
-the bible is silent on the matter( It does say she had a sister but it also says Christ had brothers so we can’t exactly say “The bible says so!”)
- And it is not in contrast with church teaching ( As one poster erroneously said)
-And it is referenced constantly in Catholic apologetics (for the 6th time) - I believe it is worth looking at on this subject.
Are you saying we shouldn’t consider early church sources like, the shepherd, the writings or Oregeon, Ignatius, Justin, Ireanaeus, etc. on this or other subjects the bible, or the magisterium or not clear on?
It is these writings that are responsible for massive conversions the Catholicism.
And, again for the 7th time, It is these writtings that Catholic apologists refer to to prove Catholicism.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Sacred Scripture says what it says, and that will always trump private interpretations, lower-case tradition, private revelations, and personal guesswork.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Your quote is true…I do not believe I suggested otherwise. But scripture does not support your claim either.
D
DaveBj
Guest
There’s where you and I differ. It’s not “my claim;” it is a conclusion supported by the evidence of Sacred Scripture.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
M
Mike30
Guest
I would think that a source that explicitly states that the Blessed Mother was raised in the Temple and that an angel came down from Heaven every day to feed her should be considered at best to be highly legendary.
S
Steveabrous
Guest
I have read the Protoevangelium a few times. I remember it saying she was raised in the temple, an event I have heard Catholic apologists say really happened, and I don’t remember an angel coming down everyday to feed her but I will read it again.
S
Steveabrous
Guest
Does that mean we should regard the biblical accounts of angels visiting Mary Legendary.
We can’t say that- because it says an angel visited her it must be legend, but then believe when the bible says an Angel visited her it really happened…
C
concretecamper
Guest
I would be careful here. Just because something is not scripture does not mean there is error.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Exactly, only one writter uses this book. Besides that writer ask any priest about it and they all will yell you you cannot rely on aprocrypha precisely because of this problem.
K
KrazyKat
Guest
When the Apostle Matthew mentions an “event” ,and the other gospel writers do not, that does not mean that it is untrue
M
marymary1975
Guest
And a source that states that Jesus was performing miracles when he was a child.
M
Mike30
Guest
** Now I, James, which wrote this history in Jerusalem, when there arose a tumult when Herod died, withdrew myself into the wilderness until the tumult ceased in Jerusalem**
One of the last lines in this wonderful account.
Depending on which Herod, the guy that wrote the book is referring to,it would mean he is trying to say he wrote this account sometime between 4 CE, which was when Herod the great died to as late as 100CE when Herod Agrippa 2 died. I will go out on a limb here and say that he is referring to Herod the Great, but I could be wrong… We know the book wasn’t written until sometime between 145 and 175 CE, which would put the author at somewhere in the vicinity of at least oh lets say 150-200 years of age.
It was generally thought or still is thought that the writer is claiming to be James the brother of Jesus, ot at least strongly hinting in that direction, which would make him even older.
Now, if the guy writing the account is willing to lie about when it was written and who is actually writing it, then what credence can you put into it at all?
Hey it is a nice narrative. A good story like many of these legendary stories floating around… And if you want to accept it as truthful and believable go for it.
But realize, it has way too many holes in it to really be much more than a curiosity from antiquity.
M
marymary1975
Guest
** Now I, James, which wrote this history in Jerusalem, when there arose a tumult when Herod died, withdrew myself into the wilderness until the tumult ceased in Jerusalem**
One of the last lines in this wonderful account.
Depending on which Herod, the guy that wrote the book is referring to,it would mean he is trying to say he wrote this account sometime between 4 CE, which was when Herod the great died to as late as 100CE when Herod Agrippa 2 died. I will go out on a limb here and say that he is referring to Herod the Great, but I could be wrong… We know the book wasn’t written until sometime between 145 and 175 CE, which would put the author at somewhere in the vicinity of at least oh lets say 150-200 years of age.
It was generally thought or still is thought that the writer is claiming to be James the brother of Jesus, ot at least strongly hinting in that direction, which would make him even older.
Now, if the guy writing the account is willing to lie about when it was written and who is actually writing it, then what credence can you put into it at all?
Hey it is a nice narrative. A good story like many of these legendary stories floating around… And if you want to accept it as truthful and believable go for it.
But realize, it has way too many holes in it to really be much more than a curiosity from antiquity.
S
Steveabrous
Guest
In my opinion to say it is “not without error” simply means it is not scripture and my have errors.
Read the thread I have been defending it
- Status