Posted on 03/21/2017 9:16:13 AM PDT by metmom
Then why didn't the JEWS include it in the OT?
Or even the ROMANS in the NT!!
Ever hear of Abraham?
Rome has no problem with words or intents; why should you?
Ever hear of Abraham?
Yep, I am sure Abraham's picture would be there too, along with all the rest of the old guys, in the OT, who were having children for 6 or 700 years.
On the other hand, to say that Joseph was 90 years old, and Mary was given to him, is just a load of bunk. We don't know how old he was. The scriptures are silent about it.
I am sure it wasn't the stork who brought Mary's other natural born children to her. She and Joseph did the "evil deed," (sex) and had a bunch of kids, one of which, was James, who I think was the leader of the Jerusalem Church.
Not bad, I would say, for him and his siblings, to be born from a woman who remained a virgin for her entire life. 😀😆😄😃😂
To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Of the Second Eve the 'church' says, “I will make your pains in childbearing non-existant; laborless you will give birth to only one child. And Leviticus 15:19-33 will be a meaningless set of verses.
You're imagining you can take something said in one context and apply it to a wholly divergent subject.
From #30
Book of James, or PROTEVANGELIUM Origen mentions the Book of James (and the Gospel of Peter) as stating that the ' brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.
That's not to say either above are completely accurate, but it is a source of information on the matter apparently from the 2nd century, and carries for more weight than "some opinion", by someone who doesn't care enough even to research the matter further, and that same someone who would dismisses evidence without a thought.
There may even be other substantiating documents out there, as to the relative ages of Mary and Joseph.
Maybe you and Rome aren't searching for the truth as I and others?
Of course, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything. The next step is to look for additional evidence which collaborates or disproves the story.
Because if YOU had ever read IT, you'd know that it is a very detailed OT, though never affirmed by Jewish scholars, it's a damn good read, and offers quite a bit of insight into areas the OT skips through.
You are "remembering" from "Scripture" what does not exist in Scripture, but which is from apocryphal Gospel of James, one of many fake pseudonymous (it lies about being written by James) wannabe gospels, a fantasy which even Catholicism rejects as Scripture despite her idolatrous hyper-"hyperdulia" of their Mary.
Aquinas, responding to the the Protevangelium of James teaching that that midwives were present at Christ's birth, states, "Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings." (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm)
Of course, Aquinas does so because he want to exclude Mary from suffering pain during childbirth, which would mean she was a sinner, which exceeding exception to the norm the Holy Spirit would characteristically, state, as He did with much less notable exceptions to the norm.
There was no 90 year old (which is only in your memory) axe swinging, building contractor, journeying Joseph, or vestal virgin Mary in the temple, but what you are basically remembering is from the Protevangelium of James/Gospel of James, a
"pseudepigraphal (noncanonical and unauthentic) work written about the mid-2nd century ad [possibly composed in Egypt] to enhance the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Christian tradition. TThe story of Mary’s childhood as given in the Protevangelium has no parallel in the New Testament, and reference to a nine-year stay in the Temple of Jerusalem contradicts Jewish customs. - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protevangelium-of-James
The majority of scholars argue for a non-Jewish milieu given the author’s apparent ignorance of Palestinian geography (e.g., Joseph prepares to depart from Bethlehem to Judea, 21:1) and aspects of Judaism (e.g., Mary’s residency in the Temple and Joachim’s marginalization for childlessness are both suspect, and Mary is said to be of the “tribe of David”). However, the author has sufficient knowledge of the Septuagint to borrow phrares and use its characters as models for Anna and Joachim and, unlike the majority of early Christian writers, he does not portray Jewish leaders negatively. - http://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/uploads/dictionary-entry-samples.doc
And besides the fanciful additions, you have real contradictions btwn this and the gospel accounts, as detailed by Bodie Hodge of answersingenesis.org:
Table of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible:
| Protoevangelium of James4 | The Bible | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gabriel is called an archangel (Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.) | The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century. | |
| 2 | Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12).5 [Another translation of this work is available at http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/protevan.htm. Mary’s reply is rendered differently in this version, in which she replied, “What! By the living God, shall I conceive and bring forth as all other women do?” The angel responded, “Not so, O Mary, but the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” This version makes better sense, since the angel corrects her thinking that this would occur via natural means. Walker’s translation (Alexander Walker, Esq., in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers,) makes little sense.] | Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’” | |
| 3 | Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3). | Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15). | |
| 4 | Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31). | Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1. | |
| 5 | The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (Chapters 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3). | Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife. | |
| 6 | Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2). | Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14). | |
| 7 | Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2). | Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1). | https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/is-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-a-biblical-view/ Some invoke certain statements from the the Babylonian Talmud (with its superstitions and fables) and or the apocryphal 2 Maccabees for support of temple virgins, neither of which are reliable sources as to what is Scriptural, nor does it make Mary a temple virgin, a vow which would require her father's assent. |
Excellent review and summary as to why the Protevangelium of James that so many catholics hang their hat on is to be rejected.
Mentioning or even quoting from a historical source, which even can include pagan authors, (Acts 17:28) does not make such all of it Scripture/thus saith the Lord. And besides the false attribution, there are clear contradictions/error in your Gospel of James source.
The main point being: The ages given for both Mary and Joseph. What's needed is evidence that contradicts those "specific" ages given, something I see as quite striking in itself, otherwise, we're fully aware of the controversy surrounding these texts, and what you've cut and pasted offers nothing toward the above (i.e. the relative ages of Mary and Joseph), other than your attempt to further muddy the waters, that, and your need to spout off.
Upstream, there is mention of texts that support Yeshua's siblings were in fact from Joseph's previous wife. So there is perhaps possible collaboration of Joseph being a bit older than Mary.
Well genius, you might want to let authors in the OT, who mention the book of Jasher at least twice, know about that, and also Paul who writes in Timothy that ALL scripture/texts should be used to understand the Word - paraphrasing.
Thanks Dan, for your post 53. I think Jude quoted from the Apocrypha too, but, as you say, that does not make it scripture. It also contains false doctrines, like purgatory, and salvation by works.
The only REAL purgatory, is a ski resort in Colorado, and salvation is either by grace, or by works, but it is in no way, a combination of the two.
If we were to accept the apocrypha as inspired by God, then the followers of Joe Smith, Charles Taze Russell, and Mary Baker Eddy, would have a case, for considering their writings to be inspired as well, and I don't accept ANY of their writings to be God's words.
A sound hermeneutic is that unless an exception to the norm is stated, then the norm is to be accepted. The Holy Spirit characteristically records extraordinary aspects of even far less persons in Scripture, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), hair (Esau) strength (Samson), prolonged celibacy (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and the uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, to the virgin birth of Christ and Him being single and sinless.
But while stating her virgin status before Christ was born, nowhere is Mary stated to be a perpetual virgin.
For while the Spirit specifies that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS," (Matthew 1:25) firstborn normally is used with distinction from latter born, and the Greek for "till" almost always indicates a terminus and change or allowing for it.
In addition, marriage is described from the beginning as sexual cleaving, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:3-5) and there is only one possible exception to that, which was that of a very infirm old man, David, with Bathsheba. (1Kg. 1)
Furthermore, a Messianic prophecy states "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children," (Psalms 69:8) which corresponds to His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judæa, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. (John 7:3-5)
Here again, there is no warrant or need for reading an exception to the norm, that brethren meant other children of Mary.
And since this would require the assent of her head, then if perpetual Marian virginity (PMV) was the case, and since this would normally be more difficult for the male, then Joseph would deserve more honor.
Good day sir.
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.