Infancy Gospel of James?

[JTLauder]

I've recently heard of this supposedly lost or suppressed "Infancy Gospel of James". I hear gives more information about Jesus when he was an infant and then growing up. Does anyone know anything about it, and is there any validity to it? What is the controversy about it?

 

[Renton405]

I've recently heard of this supposedly lost or suppressed "Infancy Gospel of James". I hear gives more information about Jesus when he was an infant and then growing up. Does anyone know anything about it, and is there any validity to it? What is the controversy about it?[/QUOTE

Actually the protoevangelium of James holds some credibility. I believe the Ethiopian Church also holds it in high regard.. It is one of the evidences showing that Mary was truely sinless and conceived without sin as well as having no children.. It was written in quite an early period too, 1-2 century


There is also the Gopel of the Birth of Mary that has credibility too(it was found in the works of St Jerome) which also proves her viriginty, sinlessness and without children..



So there you have it 2 early sources

 

[yodafett]

Any extra-biblical texts like that are a very slippery slope. I'm not saying that they're all garbage, but I would say that most are. Generally, there's a reason they aren't on the bible. I don't know the Infancy one that well, nor the Birth of Mary. I used to have a lot of gnostic and speudographia writings. A good number of them outright contradicted Biblical statements or were convoluted, at best. The bottom line is that the collected books of the Bible contains all I need.

Just my $0.02

 

[Uphill Battle]

It comes as no shock that if you research this document, you will find Catholic sites extolling its virtues, and pointing to it as proof of Marian Dogma.

Some studies have indicated that it is not as credible as it might seem.

Scholars have begun to consider it pseudepigraphical, and the dating on it as later than claimed.

 

[Celticflower]

You can find things like the gospel of James on the Gnostic Library site (sorry, in the course of changing isp's I lost the link) if you want to read it. I have--and can't say it changed my view of things one bit. Parts of it are hard to swallow if you have not been brought up with that particular belief. But it is an interesting (and brief) read. May give you more insight into why Catholics beleive what they do about Mary.

 

[Renton405]

It comes as no shock that if you research this document, you will find Catholic sites extolling its virtues, and pointing to it as proof of Marian Dogma.

Some studies have indicated that it is not as credible as it might seem.

Scholars have begun to consider it pseudepigraphical, and the dating on it as later than claimed.

I have a feeling you would have said this

Any type of early writing makes people kinda uneasy when it dosen't fit their views .. I somehow have a feeling that if it said something otherwise you would be on it like glue..

And like you said "Some" studies.. But many have concluded that they are 1-2 century works..


I have to ask you..

Are there any non biblical accounts of Mary having other children or saying she wasn't a virgin??

Have there been any recorded blood line children of Mary or lineage going to Mary that was recorded during the early church?? When the saints died many of their bones were immediatly collected and preserved, yet Mary or "any of her children" don't seem to exist at all and there is no historical record of such..

Nothing..

Do you find that just a coincidence?

Thank you

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I've recently heard of this supposedly lost or suppressed "Infancy Gospel of James". I hear gives more information about Jesus when he was an infant and then growing up. Does anyone know anything about it, and is there any validity to it? What is the controversy about it?

Hi. Remember also the Muslims also revere the Mary and Jesus of the Bible.
The Apostle Paul however did warn of "Jewish fables" to those with "itching ears".

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Responses/Menj/fables.htm


Neal Robinson is another Muslim who admits that some of the Quranic stories on Jesus are derived from apocryphal sources:

Some of the features of the Qur’anic representation of Jesus which cannot be traced to the canonical gospels or to the Diatesseron are reminiscent of the apocryphal infancy gospels. The Protoevangelium of James mentions that as a child Mary received food from an angel, that when she was 12 a guardian was chosen for her by casting lots, and that immediately before the annunciation she was occupied making a curtain for the temple. The Latin Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew includes the miracle of the palm tree and the stream but in the context of the flight into Egypt. Pace the anti-Muslim polemicists, there may have been Christians who believed that Jesus spoke in the cradle for this is mentioned in the Arabic Infancy Gospel. Finally, the miracle of creating birds from clay is found in the Infancy Story of Thomas. Syriac translations of the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Story of Thomas existed in pre-Islamic times. The Arabic Infancy Gospel and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew are later works, but both probably drew on pre-Islamic Syriac sources. (Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press, Albany 1991], p. 19; bold emphasis ours)
​

 

[Uphill Battle]

I have a feeling you would have said this

Any type of early writing makes people kinda uneasy when it dosen't fit their views .. I somehow have a feeling that if it said something otherwise you would be on it like glue..

nope. The only inspired truth I follow is from inspired source.

And like you said "Some" studies.. But many have concluded that they are 1-2 century works..

fine me one non-catholic/EO source.... Just one.... and date aside, with the work most likely being psudepigraphical, there isn't much reason to trust it. Writing as someone else doesn't exactly make me think you don't have ulterior motives.

I have to ask you..
Are there any non biblical accounts of Mary having other children or saying she wasn't a virgin??
Have there been any recorded blood line children of Mary or lineage going to Mary that was recorded during the early church?? When the saints died many of their bones were immediatly collected and preserved, yet Mary or "any of her children" don't seem to exist at all and there is no historical record of such..
Nothing..
Do you find that just a coincidence?
Thank you

Nope. Don't find it coincidental at all. We don't have a record of the children of Peter, either, though he was married. Nor do we have a record of the children of Pricilla and Aquila. Nor the apostles.

arguing that "hey, it doesn't say she did!" when you have zero evidence, isn't convincing. (specifically because the bible alludes to the fact that she DID have other children.)

 

[repentant]

The reason why a Gospel or writings about Mary is not in the Bible, is because the Bible is not about Mary, but about Christ and the start of the Church. Notice how nothing about Jesus was mentioned from the ages of 12-30? This is because there probably wasn't much to tell or that applied to what we needed to know. This would be the same about writings about Mary. The Bible is not about her. This is why the writings about her are not in the Bible.

 

[repentant]

nope. The only inspired truth I follow is from inspired source.

HOw do you know what is an inspired source?

 

[FullyMT]

arguing that "hey, it doesn't say she did!" when you have zero evidence, isn't convincing. (specifically because the bible alludes to the fact that she DID have other children.)

No, it only says that Jesus had "brothers and sisters". Joseph very possibly could have been a widower with children, thus making his children Jesus' brothers and sisters. Or they could have been Jesus' cousins. So these could have been Mary's nephews and neices, or her step-children.
You know the argument. But nowhere in the Bible does it say Mary gave birth to another child.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, it only says that Jesus had "brothers and sisters". Joseph very possibly could have been a widower with children, thus making his children Jesus' brothers and sisters. Or they could have been Jesus' cousins. So these could have been Mary's nephews and neices, or her step-children.
You know the argument. But nowhere in the Bible does it say Mary gave birth to another child.

that is way I stated ALLUDES. not STATES. It is possible that she had no other children. I make no Dogmatic claims that she did.

Flip the coin though, you have RCC/EO making Dogmatic claims that she DIDN'T... something they have no evidence for, prior to the ever growing story you find in the ECF, beginning mainly around 300 AD.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The reason why a Gospel or writings about Mary is not in the Bible, is because the Bible is not about Mary, but about Christ and the start of the Church. Notice how nothing about Jesus was mentioned from the ages of 12-30? This is because there probably wasn't much to tell or that applied to what we needed to know. This would be the same about writings about Mary. The Bible is not about her. This is why the writings about her are not in the Bible.

yet we NEED to know that beliving in PV is an article of faith. we NEED to know that her sinlessness is article of faith.

See where I'm going with this?

 

[repentant]

that is way I stated ALLUDES. not STATES. It is possible that she had no other children. I make no Dogmatic claims that she did.

Flip the coin though, you have RCC/EO making Dogmatic claims that she DIDN'T... something they have no evidence for, prior to the ever growing story you find in the ECF, beginning mainly around 300 AD.

The "Dogmatic Claims" made by the RCC/EOC about Mary's perpetual virginty, have to do with Christ. Dogmas are only made when they pertain to the Trinity, or part of it. At least this is how it is in the EOC..

 

[repentant]

yet we NEED to know that beliving in PV is an article of faith. we NEED to know that her sinlessness is article of faith.

See where I'm going with this?

There isn't a need to know about Mary. Actually there is, and it was written and taught by the ECF's, including Ignatius who was a Disciple of and taught by the Apostles John. There was no need to mention the life of Mary in the NT, because well, like I said, the NT isn't about her. We have other writings that are just as valid, and were used and believed by the same men who gave us the Bible we have now. It still amazes me how people can believe the validity of Scripture, but yet can't believe these same men who said what was inspired Scripture, when it comes to other things..

 

[WarriorAngel]

nope. The only inspired truth I follow is from inspired source.

fine me one non-catholic/EO source.... Just one.... and date aside, with the work most likely being psudepigraphical, there isn't much reason to trust it. Writing as someone else doesn't exactly make me think you don't have ulterior motives.

Nope. Don't find it coincidental at all. We don't have a record of the children of Peter, either, though he was married. Nor do we have a record of the children of Pricilla and Aquila. Nor the apostles.

arguing that "hey, it doesn't say she did!" when you have zero evidence, isn't convincing. (specifically because the bible alludes to the fact that she DID have other children.)

What pray tell, does the ancient Church need an ulterior motive for?

What exactly would anyone have as a motive to make such a thing up for?

What I do know is.......anyone who flees to Our Lady, has never been left unaided.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What pray tell, does the ancient Church need an ulterior motive for?

What exactly would anyone have as a motive to make such a thing up for?

What I do know is.......anyone who flees to Our Lady, has never been left unaided.

Hi. Thanks, but I flee to the Lord, not the "Mary"

[SIZE=+0](NKJV) Psalms 94:22 But the LORD has been my defense, And my God the rock of my refuge. [/SIZE]

Zech 14:5 Then you shall flee [through] My mountain valley, For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal. Yes, you shall flee As you fled from the earthquake In the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Thus the LORD my God will come,

 

[Isaiah 53]

This thread is closed for the time being.

Please view the recent announcement:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4858684

 

[Letalis]

Reopening and moving to new forum.

 

[Uphill Battle]

not the ancient church, whomever wrote that particular text. you'd have to think that if you are writing, claiming to be someone you are not, you are trying to lend authority to what you've written. This suggests an ulterior motive.