All four Gospels were written anonymously, and between 40 and 50 years after the events. The Church assigned authorship to each Gospel by the end of the 2nd century "according to tradition" (read: legend, or myth). And yet, all Christians accept it on not much more than blind faith, even if they reject the Church!
And while alleged Mary's abode in the Holy of Holies may sound a little over the top, it's not as if the rest of the Bible stories lack in that department to a much greater degree!
Your flat out rejection of Mary's story in Protoevangelium is based exactly on what objective criteria? It's not as if we have some independent corroborating evidence to come to such a conclusion! The best you can do is say that it's "not "inspired". First, how do you know that it isn't, and second, truth doesn't have to come from "inspired" works. The Book of Enoch is not, and yet Jude quotes from it as truth.
People believe what they want to believe because it makes them comfortable. That's what faith is all about—a self-derived comfort from a conviction that something is true, like saying "I am saved," or "he is in a better place now," etc. You can't prove it false and you can't prove it true, even if it seems fantastic. You can either accept it or reject as a matter of faith, but never as a matter of fact.
To all,
Let us praise the Lord Our God, Who in His infinite mercy condenscended to live among us as man, died, emptying Himself in His love for us, His wayward pilgrims, rose and went to Heaven, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead according to our works. Deo Gratias.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in the company of saints in Heaven we pray, alleluia, amen.
You don't know that. Refuted here
Cordially,
People believe what they want to believe because it makes them comfortable. That's what faith is all about—a self-derived comfort from a conviction that something is true, like saying "I am saved," or "he is in a better place now," etc. You can't prove it false and you can't prove it true, even if it seems fantastic. You can either accept it or reject as a matter of faith, but never as a matter of fact.
Certainly, you can believe what you want and many people believe things based on feelings. I believe because the evidence points in that direction.
Can you think of any rational reason why disciples who claim to have seen the Risen Jesus happily go to their death with this testimony? Mass dilusion? Fame and fortune? Book rights?
I would have to have much more faith to be an atheist.
Every argument you're using against Protestants can be used against Catholicism.
If you reject truth, if there is no truth, there's just a struggle of propaganda.
Are you saying then, that all the Catholic church has is propaganda, since what it teaches and claims responsibility for is so poorly founded, as you claim?
The Protoevangelium is one of the sappiest, most poorly written pieces of drivel I've ever seen. A fifth grader could do better. It doesn't come close to the literary quality of the accepted books of the Bible. Exactly what one would expect out of something made up by man as opposed to inspired by God.
On that, I agree. It is over the top, and a Catholic Christian does not have to believe that. But the fact that Mary did not understand how was it possible for her to have a child (luke 1:34) is Bibilical evidence that for one reason or another she was under some vows.