No, I would not because it is a lazy and weak way to argue. If you cannot refute a false teaching by showing the argument is wrong without resorting to ridicule, ad hominem, or genetic fallacies, your arguments aren’t going to convince anyone.
No, I would not because it is a lazy and weak way to argue. If you cannot refute a false teaching by showing the argument is wrong without resorting to ridicule, ad hominem, or genetic fallacies, your arguments aren’t going to convince anyone.
Well, I showed you from sources a Roman Catholic would approve of and you rejected those.
The argument I used was not to ridicule but to show that false writings are not to be used regardless of the source.
Now, if you want examine the actual writing itself we will find there are errors in the Protoevangelium of James (PoJ) that contradict Scripture.
Further, if we examine Scripture and believe it to be inspired, and not condemned like the PoJ, we find Joseph and Mary did have children of their own AFTER Jesus was born.
As this contradicts Rome's position on the "perpetual virginity" of Mary I suspect this is why you continue argue in favor of this (PoJ) writing.
Roman Catholicism has built much of its Marian dogmas on shifting sand.