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.
Extraneous sources not considered to be inspired.
Amazing how people want to disregard the clear meaning of the texts in the NT that indicate Jesus had brothers and sisters and they were from Joseph and Mary.
Why?
Hasn't COMMON SENSE shown how bogus they are?
What's needed is evidence that CONFIRMS those ages given; then perhaps your ';argument' might gain some reality traction!!!
HMMMmmm...
'A bit' is WAY different sounding than 76 years!!!
Why are the ages (90 for Joseph, 12-14 for Mary) so striking? If Joseph was 90 then it means you must read another exception to the norm into Scripture, that of a 90 year old quite-mobile man, traveling to Egypt no less, who, as said, is still actively working in construction:
And if Mary is only 12-14, then it is no surprise that she was a virgin, but which does not mean she would remain as one.
Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. (1:9; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm)
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.
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
It is not I who muddied the waters, as instead what i showed was that it is your stream that is muddy. And which requires recourse to a lying apocryphal source in the light of the fact that, as said, the Holy Spirit said nothing manifest that Joseph and Mary had a novel marriage without sexual cleaving, that she was a perpetual virgin, despite characteristically recording extraordinary aspects among even lesser persons, while stating Christ was the first born, and that Joseph knew not until she bore Him. And despite prophecy about Mary's children, with its apparent fulfillment.
You whole argument for PMV requires extraordinary exceptions to the norm, which Scripture does not record (which itself is an exceptions to the norm), and provides evidence against.
need to spout off.
"Spout off?" You mean (by the grace of God) providing reasoned argumentation and documented evidence contrary to the veracity of your source, and the idolatrous hyper-"hyperdulia" of the Catholic Mary?
So you are presuming that because something isn’t outright contradicted, such as the ages of Mary and Joseph, that they should be accepted as true?
Man, what a way to leave yourself wide open to deception.
Anyone can claim anything and then demand you disprove it to prove it’s false.
Actually, it’s up to those making the claim that what they are claiming is true.
And say so from a shown and known error ridden text does NOT qualify as truth or proof.