So you deny that Protoevangelium of James was written in 145 that this document does not exist?
On the contrary, I said “ok” to all in your post save pope decree comment, but all else I agree with
I could ask the same, and why dont you come to understand all popes. It certainly seems you don’t accept the Gelatius decree, regarding it’s appraisal of said document.
I am looking at james text on its own, irregardles of what pope says of Marian doctrine. That is, Pope Gelasius, and his council, may have very well done the same. They may have also belived in Mary ever virgin, and I will take them at their own testimony on that matter. However, they certainly made their sentiments known about the"birth of our saviour and the midwife" document, that it is to be “avoided”.
I also believe they did not want to even attach the name James spuriously to the document name, out of respect for the true St. James, but that is just my opinion.
Again , a pope placing the document on list to avoid has no bearing on their belief in perpetual virgin Mary or not.
PS…I do see you posed a hypothetical acknowledgement of papal degree to avoid, condemn a few posts earlier.
Again, I believe the doctrine developed, and there is no evidence that early popes said or taught or believed it, certainly nothing about Peter on it.
I have had time to do a little more research and have found that I was wrong. I was wrong in accepting the Gelasian Decree as coming from Pope Gelasius it is as you say a spurious claim or a Pseudepigraphical claim.
Protoevangelium of James is an early Christian writing which disprove your claim that it was developed at the time of Jerome. Many of these early writers claim that the dogma of Mary being ever virgin was traditional that is it was handed down to them from the apostles. All the evidence is against the idea that Mary had other children. Such an idea was considered heresy. It is not against Mary but against Jesus. If Mary had other children, it reflects on His birth being virginal. These Brothers of Christ are never called the sons of Mary but Jesus is. The Orthodox call them step brothers and there is nothing in scripture to say they weren’t.
No, my apologies I was wrong in placing a burden on you of obeying a pope in something we are not sure he wrote. I do now remember and better understand the nature of its origin, that someone may have attached the latter section to something the pope may have written (sections outlining canon).Sorry, should have been more careful.
Well hopefully I was careful to say it did not develop with Jerome, but he is generally thought to be the first verifiable author to make claim with some authority. And yes he claims others before believed the same thing. Don’t believe he claims the apostles taught it. And yes we have discussed a few authors before Jerome, both pro and con.
Actually, dont recall any of writers we have discussed claiming it apostolic.
No it is not. Contrary evidence has led to this millennia old debate.
Yes but since when? Jerome was quite flowery with the put down of Helvidius, but not sure called him a heretic. For example you could chime your opinion that Mary did not assume bodily into heaven and not be a heretic right up to 1950, when the dogma was declared binding if I recall.
Not sure what you mean. It only reflects on her being ever virginal, which was not prophesied. No one is stating the brethren were born to Mary before Jesus.
It is amusing to imagine that anyone from the earliest days of the Church, might suggest, right in front of her, that Mary had other children. Centuries later, it is now “open for discussion” some say.
Even John Calvin, Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Wesley retained from apostolic Tradition, the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
John Calvin: “Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”
On this point, these well known Protestants have kept the truth.
Nor are they called the sons of Mary’s relatives, nor are they called the sons of Jospeh.
We all make errs and for any I have made with you I am sorry. Again our discussions have been very fruitful at least for me. I am not ignoring the other post just don’t have the opportunity to answer right now.
And there is nothing in scripture that says they were.
And now, a refreshing (refresher?) word from our sponsor:
in answer to the decades old question about the translation of the words “brother” and “cousin.”
Me thinks he who keeps quiet on the matter is much wiser, until she, Mary, says one way or the other. If she be silent why should not we? The bemusement is not in the freedom of pondering, but from taking it to a declaration of required faith enforced by anathemas.
Actually not sure this doctrine is as dogmatic to CC as Assumption or the IC.
Have not looked at site, but will quickly say brethren can certainly mean brother from same mother as not
Well, some say he thought she remained virgin, but out of curiosity, otherwise he was agnostic. That is to say, to make it required article of faith would certainly be beyond curiosity, not to mention beyond what is explicit in scripture, and be quite obstinate and unnecessary disputation.
That is, it is a curios thing whether she was or was not a perpetual virgin.
Just my curious opinion of Calvin’s stance on the matter.
Lol…decades?..Poor Helvidius…everyone belittles his knowledge base for his stand, when we have zero writings of his with which to judge, save what a detractor writes of him.