How do non-Catholics explain Eucharistic miracles, such as bleeding, and Marian...

[MoreCoffee]

...

The Protoevangelium of James isn't considered Scripture, even by the RCC.

Thank you for your time and your efforts. Time to end this conversation.

It's pseudopigraphical, and Origin called it dubious and of recent appearance. It speaks of temple virgins in the Temple in Jerusalem - a practice there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for, and which doesn't make an ounce of sense.
Its similarity with the Vestal Virgins in the Roman temples, though, is striking.
Hey, are you going to say now that Pseudo-Matthew is also Scripture? Full of dragons, and panthers, and newborn Jesus telling the palm trees to bow to give Mary shade?
Or is that somehow conveniently different?

There isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest that Mary and Joseph alone, of all the couples in Israel, didn't have sex. The concept is ridiculous.

What, don't like having an obvious slip-up pointed out? Then don't make them.
...

It was the way you replied that made me cease. I have no desire to engage in contentious name calling.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't remember that... where in the book?



There would be no copycat in Jerusalem because there were no consecrated, lifelong virgins in the service of the temple, and neither Sirach, nor 2 Maccabees, nor the Targumim, nor Luke prove otherwise.



You'd think. But they're living in la-la land, where Second Temple Judaism looks like the Roman Vestal cultus and documents like the Protoevangelium of James actually have historical merit.

It's just embarrassing. I'm always so close to becoming Catholic when reading actual Catholic theologians, and then I get on CF.

Yep, it is.

As an alternative or perhaps supplement to the modeling of "Mary" after the vestal virgins of Rome, there is also the temple of Artemis (Diana), the great goddess model. She is mentioned in Acts.

 

[Metal Minister]

No, you don't.
Also: Do you consider the Protoevangelium as Scripture or not? And what about Pseudo-Matthew?

Hmmm, I'm quite familiar with the PoJ, but I must admit "pseudo-Matthew" is new to me. Do you have a link to information on it?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hmmm, I'm quite familiar with the PoJ, but I must admit "pseudo-Matthew" is new to me. Do you have a link to information on it?

It's an early 7th century book.

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is a part of the New Testament apocrypha, and sometimes goes by the name of The Infancy Gospel of Matthew, but the actual name of the text in antiquity was The Book About the Origin of the Blessed Mary and the Childhood of the Savior. Pseudo-Matthew is one of a genre of "Infancy gospels" that seek to fill out the details of the life of Jesus of Nazareth up to the age of 12, which are briefly given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the West, it was the dominant source for pictorial cycles of the Life of Mary, especially before the late Middle Ages. According to the research of J. Gijsel / R. Beyers (1997) it was probably written between 600 and 625 AD.

 

[Rhamiel]

Yep, it is.

As an alternative or perhaps supplement to the modeling of "Mary" after the vestal virgins of Rome, there is also the temple of Artemis (Diana), the great goddess model. She is mentioned in Acts.

why do you think vestial virgins and Artemis are influences here?

it would be like me posting pictures of Nazis wearing suits and then Protestant ministers wearing suits and crying that the two are linked

commonality does not prove causation

the OT has a lot of stuff that is "sacred" only to be used by God
remember when King Balthazar used the cups from the Temple to toast pagan gods, he was killed for that
St.Paul recommends staying a virgin if you can, Jesus did not marry, this seems like enough reason

 

[Tzaousios]

why do you think vestial virgins and Artemis are influences here?

Simple. It is called "Parallelomania."

 

[Metal Minister]

It's an early 7th century book.

Ah, thank you! What's your take on it?

 

[Rhamiel]

Simple. It is called "Parallelomania."

sorry, I can not read your link, my computer is acting funny
care to sum it up for us?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ah, thank you! What's your take on it?

It appears to be from the gnostic-christian religious tradition; a tradition condemned as heresy in the early church. I haven't read the book myself, I've seen extracts and it looks like the sort of thing that fills in the story of Jesus' childhood with stories linked in various ways to the information in the canonical gospels and also linked to gnostic ideas. Such works do not arise in a vacuum, so it is possible that it contains some genuine traditions and some flights of fancy. As far as I know there is no ancient church that accepts it as canonical.

 

[Epiphoskei]

sorry, I can not read your link, my computer is acting funny
care to sum it up for us?

Parallelomania is a methodological error where you see two things that you liken in your own mind and assume this implies a substantive connection. Basically it's a refusal to believe in coincidences.

 

[Metal Minister]

Parallelomania is a methodological error where you see two things that you liken in your own mind and assume this implies a substantive connection. Basically it's a refusal to believe in coincidences.

I don't believe in coincidences...but that's because I know nothing happens outside God's will!

 

[Epiphoskei]

I don't believe in coincidences...but that's because I know nothing happens outside God's will!

That's a common enough sentiment, but it actually has little to nothing to do with whether there are coincidences. A coincidence is simply a situation where two causally unrelated features turn up near each other. If A looks like B, and A turns up near B, but A actually has no relation to B, that's a coincidence. The fact that God is sovereign doesn't change that.

 

[Metal Minister]

That's a common enough sentiment, but it actually has little to nothing to do with whether there are coincidences. A coincidence is simply a situation where two causally unrelated features turn up near each other. If A looks like B, and A turns up near B, but A actually has no relation to B, that's a coincidence. The fact that God is sovereign doesn't change that.

The statement was meant in levity rather than earnestly my friend! Lol!

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do not doubt that coincidence exists from our human perspective. Unlike God we do not know the end from the beginning and many things are hid from our eyes.

 

[sunlover1]

I don't believe in coincidences...but that's because I know nothing happens outside God's will!

Sure it does

 

[sunlover1]

The statement was meant in levity rather than earnestly my friend! Lol!

Oh !
Missed this, sorry!

 

[Metal Minister]

Sure it does

Nm.....

 

[MrLuther]

It was the way you replied that made me cease. I have no desire to engage in contentious name calling.

Ah yes...sure...of course THAT was the reason....

Hmmm, I'm quite familiar with the PoJ, but I must admit "pseudo-Matthew" is new to me. Do you have a link to information on it?

I can't post links yet, I think :S Search for it on Wikipedia.
I read portions of it for Latin-classes...it's some wierd stuff Dragons and panthers and a talking baby Jesus

 

[Standing Up]

Yep, it is.

As an alternative or perhaps supplement to the modeling of "Mary" after the vestal virgins of Rome, there is also the temple of Artemis (Diana), the great goddess model. She is mentioned in Acts.

why do you think vestial virgins and Artemis are influences here?

it would be like me posting pictures of Nazis wearing suits and then Protestant ministers wearing suits and crying that the two are linked

commonality does not prove causation

the OT has a lot of stuff that is "sacred" only to be used by God
remember when King Balthazar used the cups from the Temple to toast pagan gods, he was killed for that
St.Paul recommends staying a virgin if you can, Jesus did not marry, this seems like enough reason

Simple. It is called "Parallelomania."

Commonality isn't cause, but explanation.

The beliefs about Mary, like ever-virgin, temple barring at her first blood, priestly duties (holy of holies), are all foreign concepts to scripture and Jewish tradition. This has been shown from scripture (OT, Anna, gate girl and Peter) and from tradition (Josephus).

So, from where did those subsequent beliefs about Mary arise? Not scripture or apostles or faithful men or Jewish tradition. Then where? Where did the PoJames get these ideas?

We know of the vestal virgins of Rome (ever-virgin, priestesses, blood). We know of the temple to Artemis and great goddess (ever-virgin, priestesses). This explains the subsequent, apart from apostolic tradition, Christian Mary myths.

So, pagan ideas are the commonality, that's the explanation for the Mary myths.

PS. Given these facts and explanations, then to the OP, the visions are perpetuations of wrong information. We've also seen this from the visions themselves. They do not point to Christ, but to an entity Immaculate Heart as the means of salvation.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Protovangelion of James always struck me as being a Jewish, not a pagan, story, echoing the stories found in the Old Testament, and not necessarily any more mythical than the other Gospel accounts. Again, go read Mary for Evangelicals and you will realize the genetic fallacy by trying to reduce the stories about Mary to pagan myths. There are other possibilities of why the Christian stories about Mary resemble pagan stories in certain details, but understanding some of those could involve delving into things such as the Sophiological traditions of East and West.