Who checked?

[Orthosdoxa]

Seriously, folks, I answered this. If you would read the Protoevangelion of James, it would answer your question. You can choose to believe it or not, but the answer is very clearly (and very graphically) in there.

LK

 

[Benedicta00]

Okay UpHill, it seems it was said in the Protoevangelion of James. So that is where this comes from, if you want to know 'who checked' then I guess you should read the Protoevangelion of James.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Jesus tells us that He will be with us to the close of the age. Do you propose that He will then leave us on our own?

Of course not. "Until" is not action-specific.

Subject specific.

AGE.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Okay UpHill, it seems it was said in the Protoevangelion of James. So that is where this comes from, if you want to know 'who checked' then I guess you should read the Protoevangelion of James.

ah, I see.

Question answered.

 

[Benedicta00]

here we go... UpHill, from the Protoevangelion of James.

And the midwife cried aloud and said: Great unto me to-day is this day, in that ! have seen this new sight. 3 And the midwife went forth of the cave and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not. And Salome said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I make not trial and prove her nature I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

here we go... UpHill, from the Protoevangelion of James.

OF Course they hymen would still be in tact at that point. DUH! Doesn't say anything about AFTER that. So a whole theology is built around that one statement. i would be shocked too to see a virgin deliver...like that just plain stands to reason!

 

[simonthezealot]

Anybody have a link on this writing.
Isn't it a gnostic writing

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

His question had nothing to do with the poster, only the subject. If you'd like me to show his questions basis in the Catholic church here it is...

Magisterium: 1) Lateran Council, Oct, 649, DS 503:

"If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time,and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and
without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned."

His question is fair! and really you should be able to show the history behind this knowledge or it should be dismissed.
Seriously! who checked?

Incredible stories come to us via scripture, stories which are NOT historically verified. Let s take for example the Seven Day creation of all that is. The Genesis account was an oral tradition passed down through generations.

Like many things in scripture, we accept the truth of it by faith.

Likewise, we receive through the tradition of the Church that John Mark wrote the gospel which is named 'Mark.' Mark's name appears nowhere in the text. But we receive the gospel as his, as related to him. Likewise, the John who wrote the gospel, the letters, and the Apocalypse are held by TRADITION to be the same John who rested at Christ's bosom, and who was one of the Twelve. There is little if any historical verification of this notion.

But somewhere in the Renaissance period, a group of Western Christians decided that Rome had added to the apostolic tradition. The initial cry of Luther and the early Reformers was "back to the Fathers" meaning the ECFs. Luther appealed heavily to the ealy Fathers in his dispute with certain Roman doctrines.

Some years later, it was decided- again, by a small group of Western Christians- that the scriptures were the ONLY source of "verification."
The scriptures were NEVER intended to be so. The ECFs appealed heavily to scripture as a measure of what is true, but they always read these same scriptures through the pleroma of Tradition.

So when you and others speak of "verification," I have to stifle a giggle, knowng that there is NO SUCH THING for these matters of faith. What there is is the witness of scipture and the witness of tradition. That you reject the witness of tradition is, to be blunt, your problem, not mine.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Anybody have a link on this writing.
Isn't it a gnostic writing

ah, one of the books that didn't get canonized apparently...some say it is still 'sacred'. I don't. I think every one gets Mary was a virgin when she birthed Jesus. BUT this thread has gone on and on and on.............................to infinity...and yet everyone is arguing the same thing...and getting no where. WHO cares? the point is, she was a virgin UP UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus. AFTER that we HAVE NO CLUE. HOW difficult is this..and what does it matter? it doesn't affect our salvation!

My husband had a point the other day...IF Mary was IC, and was virgin all her life etc...WHY would we need Jesus?? I mean, she would of been a pure lamb right? SEe how ridiculous this argument can get?? How bout we give it up. Safice it to say, she was a virgin when she conceived and right up to His birth. ANY thing more than that is speculation.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Anybody have a link on this writing.
Isn't it a gnostic writing

It's a psudepigraphical account, written by who knows whom, with an estimated date later than sometimes claimed.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

OF Course they hymen would still be in tact at that point. DUH! Doesn't say anything about AFTER that. So a whole theology is built around that one statement. i would be shocked too to see a virgin deliver...like that just plain stands to reason!

Would you be shocked to see a Virgin pregnant? It just stands to reason that this would not be.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

It's a psudepigraphical account, written by who knows whom, with an estimated date later than sometimes claimed.

so are you saying it is 'unreliable'? Imagine that..

 

[Benedicta00]

It's a psudepigraphical account, written by who knows whom, with an estimated date later than sometimes claimed.

oh okay... well, what proof would satisfy you then? Something form the "bible only" perhaps?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Subject specific.

AGE.

Ah. So you contend that He will leave us at the close of the age.
Noted.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Would you be shocked to see a Virgin pregnant? It just stands to reason that this would not be.

I was referring to the person who quoted from James the whatever. I think it was a sign and a wonder...a sign to make them wonder HOW it could be...AND it proved Mary WAS a virgin. I don't see the problem here. I don't normally go around asking pregnant women if they are virgins...

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Ah. So you contend that He will leave us at the close of the age.
Noted.

when is the end of the age?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Ah. So you contend that He will leave us at the close of the age.
Noted.

nooooo. that isn't what I said. The condition change is the Age. not the remaining.

at the end of the age, the relationship we have with Jesus will Change. We will be with him in a different manner. (unless you'd like to say what we have now, in this age, is the same as we will have in the next!)

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The protoevangellion of Saint James, oftn claimed to be of a date late than 300 AD, mysteriously was spoken of by Iraneus CA 180 AD. Iraneus had, of course, a marvelous prophetic gift fo commenting on writings not yet written.

 

[Uphill Battle]

oh okay... well, what proof would satisfy you then? Something form the "bible only" perhaps?

that would do it for SURE, yeah.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

when is the end of the age?

oh okay... well, what proof would satisfy you then? Something form the "bible only" perhaps?

No doubt this will be assented to, even though I have proven that Protestants accept a great many things that are from Tradition only.

Not to mention that "bible only" is their artifice and homage to the altar of rationalism.