Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
I’ve become willing to ask Catholics as to their personal views as their personal views but not as what is dogma and doctrine of the Catholic church.
Sounds like a wise move. Less likelihood of being called a liar for relating what another Catholic told you about church doctrine that they disagree with.
There's lots of room for personal opinion (interpretation) within the Catholic belief system.
So point out the contradiction (I responded to some alleged contraditions on the Protoevangelium thread already).
Listen to this statement of what you termed “poetic liberty” in the Evangelium:
“But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me? And she remained three months with Elizabeth; and day by day she grew bigger. And Mary being afraid, went away to her own house, and hid herself from the sons of Israel. And she was sixteen years old when these mysteries happened.”
An angel from God visits and announces one of most momentous events in human history to Mary and....oops! she forgot! AND SHE FORGOT! FORGOT AN ANGEL'S VISIT AND HIS MESSAGE!
Shall I go dismantling this fraud? It's like a one legged table, stand back from it and it will fall over on its own.
Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Hey, you!!
What are you doing on this forum making sense?
I hope that by the time we reach # 5,000 the conflict will be resolved!
No one’s perfect.
Well, we all slip once in a while.
It’s understandable.
Carry on.
Romans 3 speaks in very general terms of the state of man before the coming of Christ. According to Romans 3:11-16 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God", "there is none that doth good", "The venom of asps is under their lips", "Their feet swift to shed blood", etc.
Whom did Mary murder?
Besides, the entire passage is a quote from Psalms 13 (in your numbering 14), but the scripture also contains the next psalm that speaks of righteous people.
Read the scripture with attention and you will begin to understand it and you will become Catholic, and learn to love it.
It agrees with the scripture though. It disagrees with the false ideas about the scripture prevalent among the Protestants. See, for example, the common misunderstanding that Romans 3 (or the Psalm from which that passage is a citation) teaches of sinfulness of Mary.
And your statement is false logic. All historical literature reflects some bias, but it is evidence of facts nevertheless. It should be read critically, but it cannot be dismissed altogether either because it has inaccuracies, or because it is not inspired scripture.
I prefer you not jump threads but post your specific questions about the Protoevangelium on the thread dedicated to it. Also calling it "fraud" does not make it so.
The conjecture that Mary "had forgotten" the "mysteries" of the Annunciation is indeed a psychological elaboration that rings false. It is an artistic attempt to give a background to Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), which it proceeds to quote in part. It does not discredit the factual content of the book.
Let us also remember that Mary is not free from human weakness; she did, for example, forget her child in the Temple. According to the Protoevangelium, she did not forget about the Annunciation altogether, but "of the mysteries". Her subsequent speech explains that her perplexion is not of her mission, but of the fact that it is she who was chosen for it. It is a reasonable and humble attitude, same as when she is rebuked by St. Joseph and answers obliquely.
Does it? Mary had a son named Jesus, she and Joseph married.
Is that the degree to which it agrees with Scripture? I've already pointed out how the Evangelium contradicts Scripture but if I error you have not said in what way, saying, “it agrees with scripture though” doesn't present any real argument.
If Protestants or I misunderstand Romans 3 and Paul's statements about all persons sinning, what is the misunderstanding and what is the error?
“All historical literature reflects some bias, but it is evidence of facts nevertheless”
So the Evangelium is evidence of what facts? What is the support for the things is asserts?
Are there better, more reliable sources available that agree or contradict?
“It should be read critically, but it cannot be dismissed altogether either because it has inaccuracies, or because it is not inspired scripture.”
Fair enough...You posted the Evangelium in whole, what parts would you dismiss as inaccurate, false, etc.? If any?
So take your editorial blue pencil and give me just those parts you see as accurate or on the other hand those parts you would pencil out as inaccurate and bias.
I don't dismiss the Evangelium because it is not Scripture any more than I would Josephus but rather because it contradicts Scripture which I regard as inspired by God. I regard it much like you might regard that movie with Tom Hanks in it about Templar Knights and stories of Jesus having children.
“I prefer you not jump threads but post your specific questions about the Protoevangelium on the thread dedicated to it...” agreed. Meet you there.
It agrees with the scripture in providing a narrative where behavior of Mary and Joseph begins to make sense. I gave you one example: the phrase “I know not man” is not understandable unless you realize that the nature of her betrothal to Joseph was that of a temple virgin not intending to have children. That is a single most important fact not directly contained in the Bible.
Nowhere in YHvH commandments nor Temple virgins ONLY occur in PAGAN Very interesting statement.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
followers are there "temple virgins".
religions such as the Roman "church"
What temple virgins? Mary’s comment at Luke 1:34 was a statement that she had not had intercourse, had carnal knowledge, with a man so how was this pregnancy to occur. Her question has nothing to with imaginary temple virgins despite Marshall’s blog and misinformation (to be gentle).
Both Mary and Joseph’s conduct is quite understndable without resorting to these tales like the Evangelium. Mary as some sort of temple virgin is a fable pulled from the air. Not one word in the inspired account suggests such a thing. But temple virgins did exist for the pagans.
What temple virgins? Mary’s comment at Luke 1:34 was a statement that she had not had intercourse, had carnal knowledge, with a man so how was this pregnancy to occur. Her question has nothing to with imaginary temple virgins despite Marshall’s blog and misinformation (to be gentle).
Both Mary and Joseph’s conduct is quite understndable without resorting to these tales like the Evangelium. Mary as some sort of temple virgin is a fable pulled from the air. Not one word in the inspired account suggests such a thing. But temple virgins did exist for the pagans.
5,000
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.