Who checked?

[HisBelovedMelody]

So... the answer to the O.P. is

Salome the midwife.

Forgive me...

well, that is all well and good. I believe she was a virgin till AFTER Jesus was born. I don't think anyone disputed that. BUT there is NO proof anywhere for the PV of Mary. What she did after His birth is quiet..and I am sure for a good reason. I think it disgusting this is even being discussed.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

That section of the text came after Christ's birth.

Forgive me...

so, Salome what...followed her around for a while to keep checking? That is obsurd. I would say while AT the birth she noted this. I should hope no one followed her around and asked to keep checking...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

well, that is all well and good. I believe she was a virgin till AFTER Jesus was born. I don't think anyone disputed that. BUT there is NO proof anywhere for the PV of Mary. What she did after His birth is quiet..and I am sure for a good reason. I think it disgusting this is even being discussed.

If you are disgusted, why particpate in this thread?

There is NO proof anywhere that Christ rose on the 3rd day either.

Things written in The Holy Scriptures are not proof, in and of themselves. They offer testimony only.

If we are reduced to looking for something tangible, we are no better that Thomas who doubted and said that he would not believe until he placed his fingers in Christ's side and saw the nail holes in his hands.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

We need to understand the reason some scriptures were included in The Bible and others were not.

In a nutshell...

Thousands of documents were brought to The Church for review as if they were true or not. MANY of them were false doctrines, but not all of them.

In the end, it was decided that those documents that had been read aloud in the Churches from when they were written until now would be called canon. This was done so that all the Churches everywhere would be able to read the same scriptures on the same days. Thus travelers from one area to another would not see a difference in worship structure from one place to the next. These texts would be read throughout the calendar year of The Church and repeated every year in the same fashion.

Many other "true" documents were there, including the "Protoevangelium of James", written by St. James himself recounting the story of Christ's birth. (Remember that St. James was about 15 when Christ was born.) It was not included as scripture, not because anyone doubted it as being authentic, but rather that it had not been read in the Churches as part of the calendar year celebrations of the Church.

This document is still, to this day, held as being true and accurate along with others that were just not included.

Thousands were rejected as false, few were kept.

Forgive me...

well, those who expound the ever virginity of Mary consider it true, yes.

Many scholars consider it to be psudepigraphcal, as in not written by James at all.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

well, those who expound the ever virginity of Mary consider it true, yes.

Many scholars consider it to be psudepigraphcal, as in not written by James at all.

I would agree that many "so called" scholars think that St. James did not write it.

However I do not concern myself with them when they oppose "ALL" the Churches of the first 1000 years of The Church.

Simply put, with so much contention between all these five major Churches, when they all agree that something is truth, I find it easy to agree. For instace, if The Church of Rome (just an example) disagreed that St. James had truely written it... they would LOVE to use that as evidence against the other Churches as a sign of them being invalid. Likewise in the reverse.

Modern (post 1100's) scholars do not impress me.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

I would agree that many "so called" scholars think that St. James did not write it.

However I do not concern myself with them when they oppose "ALL" the Churches of the first 1000 years of The Church.

Simply put, with so much contention between all these five major Churches, when they all agree that something is truth, I find it easy to agree. For instace, if The Church of Rome (just an example) disagreed that St. James had truely written it... they would LOVE to use that as evidence against the other Churches as a sign of them being invalid. Likewise in the reverse.

Modern (post 1100's) scholars do not impress me.

Forgive me...

do you not think the attitude that no error could come from earlier writings is, in fact a bit on the dangerous side?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

do you not think the attitude that no error could come from earlier writings is, in fact a bit on the dangerous side?

Not when ALL of them agree. I find the modern douting Thomas' to be more dangerous.

Additionally, The Holy Scriptures are very clear that as time passes, men will move farther from thr Truth, not closer to it.

Forgive me..

 

[Latreia]

Dangerous?

 

[Latreia]

Not when ALL of them agree. I find the modern douting Thomas' to be more dangerous.

Additionally, The Holy Scriptures are very clear that as time passes, men will move farther from thr Truth, not closer to it.

Forgive me..

As we observe right here, in thousands of posts, and every day.

Tragic, beyond all endurance.

Forgive us all....

 

[Benedicta00]

well, that is all well and good. I believe she was a virgin till AFTER Jesus was born. I don't think anyone disputed that. BUT there is NO proof anywhere for the PV of Mary. What she did after His birth is quiet..and I am sure for a good reason. I think it disgusting this is even being discussed.

19. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither art thou going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Art thou of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not thy wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit.

They never lived as husband and wife but as brother and sister. And note how it says "Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord" this is evidence that Mary had consecreted herself to being a virgin for life.

 

[Kenpo]

They never lived as husband and wife but as brother and sister. And note how it says "Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord" this is evidence that Mary had consecreted herself to being a virgin for life.

But what you quote here is not scripture. You may accept this as evidence but you must realize why Protestants do not.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

But what you quote here is not scripture. You may accept this as evidence but you must realize why Protestants do not.

We do, of course, realize that Protestants do not recognize it because it's not in The Holy Scriptures.

However, realize the fact, that Protestants (I used to be one...) do not recognize all of what was canonized as scripture, nor do they trust the Churches who canonized them.

It seems odd indeed that they trust scriptures at all.

Forgive me...

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

They never lived as husband and wife but as brother and sister. And note how it says "Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord" this is evidence that Mary had consecreted herself to being a virgin for life.

THAT is NOT Scripture. THE Word of GOD says...Joseph don't fear to take her as YOUR WIFE..NOT brother sister..THAT is so extremely twisted. I will NOT partake of any more of this twisting of scripture and nonsense. WRONG..HUSBAND wife....NOT brother sister.

 

[Benedicta00]

But what you quote here is not scripture. You may accept this as evidence but you must realize why Protestants do not.

Oh I realize it.

But Catholics and Orthodox have no reason to not believe it's context.

We have no reason to doubt it's validity either. The same Church who canonized the NT is the same Church who does not condemn these but supports it's validity.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

If you are disgusted, why particpate in this thread?

There is NO proof anywhere that Christ rose on the 3rd day either.

Things written in The Holy Scriptures are not proof, in and of themselves. They offer testimony only.

If we are reduced to looking for something tangible, we are no better that Thomas who doubted and said that he would not believe until he placed his fingers in Christ's side and saw the nail holes in his hands.

Forgive me...

IF that is how you live your life....so be it. BUT the Word OF GOD says HE ROSE on the third day. PERIOD. They can't find His body....so...give me a break. What disgusts me is how Scripture is SO extremely twisted so your house of cards (Doctrine) doesn't fall.

 

[Kenpo]

We do, of course, realize that Protestants do not recognize it because it's not in The Holy Scriptures.

However, realize the fact, that Protestants (I used to be one...) do not recognize all of what was canonized as scripture, nor do they trust the Churches who canonized them.

It seems odd indeed that they trust scriptures at all.

Forgive me...

I agree that if I accepted that the Orthodox or the Catholic Church gave us the Scriptures that there might seem to be a contradiction. I will leave it to better apologists to argue whether either of these Churches are actually the Church of the New Testament.

But what you quote isn't considered Scripture by any Church as far as I know. Is it your belief that these extrabibilical writings are as authoritative as that which is considered Scripture? If you do then where do you draw the line on authority? Why are they not Scripture? How do you determine which early writings are authoritative and which are not?

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

But what you quote here is not scripture. You may accept this as evidence but you must realize why Protestants do not.

NO, it is NOT scripture at all. It is a sad holding to tradition that is SO contrary to the word of God.

 

[Benedicta00]

THAT is NOT Scripture. THE Word of GOD says...Joseph don't fear to take her as YOUR WIFE..NOT brother sister..THAT is so extremely twisted. I will NOT partake of any more of this twisting of scripture and nonsense. WRONG..HUSBAND wife....NOT brother sister.

It was not canonized, no but it is still a historical documented account that comes from the same era of the gospels.

We have no reason to disregard it.

We are free to consider it.

The same Church who did put the gospels in the canon for us is the same Church that says it's okay to read these for our consideration.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

It was not canonized, no but it is still a historical documented account that comes from the same era of the gospels.

We have no reason to disregard it.

We are free to consider it.

The same Church who did put the gospels in the canon for us is the same Church that says it's okay to read these for our consideration.

Yeah. ok............You believe that the "Catholic" denomination put the Word of God together. I don't. Yes, people put it together, but not the Catholic denomination. OH forget it..not going around on this again. You hold to what you believe and I will with what I believe. When you believe 'tradition' over the word of God that says they were HUSBAND AND WIFE...and you have gall to say they lived as brother/sister?? I am sorry, that is wrong and so twisted.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I agree that if I accepted that the Orthodox or the Catholic Church gave us the Scriptures that there might seem to be a contradiction. I will leave it to better apologists to argue whether either of these Churches are actually the Church of the New Testament.

But what you quote isn't considered Scripture by any Church as far as I know. Is it your belief that these extrabibilical writings are as authoritative as that which is considered Scripture? If you do then where do you draw the line on authority? Why are they not Scripture? How do you determine which early writings are authoritative and which are not?

I did not say nor infer that it is scripture.

I said, not everything that "WAS" cononized as scripture is "NOT" recognized by Protestants as being such. IOW ~ The KJV is incomplete.

So the question turns to you as well... "How do you determine which early writings are authoritative and which are not?"

As for my answer... It's simple. I trust The Church of Antioch.

If, 150 years from now, someone decides that even fewer books should have been in "The Bible" and publish it as authorative... will you be proud of your great-grandchildren for upholing the new authorative "Bible", or rather the one you held to?

Forgive me...