There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it was written c 120 AD. All we know is that it was written before the time of Origen. You Roman Catholics do love adjusting the facts.
But at least you admit that the church refused it as being Scripture. The truth is that it was simply a late second century invention. There is nothing HISTORICAL about it at all. It did not claim to be history. It arose when people began to fantasise. At least you have the consolation that it formed the basis of Muhammed's views in the Quran.
It is NOT an historical document. It is a fantasy. It laid no claim to be true history but was based on a misuse of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Do you call anything written in the second century 'a historical document'? Do you support the Gnostic writings of which this was probably one. They have just as much right to be called 'historical documents'. What they were were travesties of the truth.
I call it heretical because it contradicts Scripture and is simply a late second century fantasy.
LOL why are scholars who support your false arguments always 'world renowned'? Everyone knows what its aim was. BUT ON WHAT GROUNDS DID IT MAKE ITS CLAIM? NONE. It presented a wholly distorted picture which was contrary to the New Testament as anyone who reads it will soon see. The Mary it describes has no possible similarity with the Mary of the Scriptures.
LOL such big words!!!! You are simply making yourself deservedly look a fool. If it is a Christological error to accept the Scripture then I plead guilty. I prefer the Scriptures to fairy stories.
The church I belong to was founded 1985 years ago. But you silly little man that scholar merely said what the aim of the writer was. He did not condone it. Nor did he agree with it.
Joseph had no children before he met Mary. That is another invention of the Roman Catholic church. Jesus was accepted as his firstborn. Indeed had He not been so He would not have been the heir to the throne of David. That position would have been held by his supposed elder half-brother. So you are dethroning the Messiah LOL
LOL who but a fool would cite the writings of someone who was condemned as a heretic by his own church? Besides Origen lived 200 years after the time of Christ. How would he know what was true or not? And he admits above that all he had to go on was surmise. You really are going to the bottom of the barrel LOL
More heresy LOL. Why do you think they didn't make him a saint. Have you any idea what Origen believed about the godhead? He was a confirmed Gnostic. And that is without going into the question of whether Origen did really write that. Was it one more of the many forgeries of which your church was guilty?
LOL another passage from your confirmed heretic. Your church CONDEMNED Origen's teaching. Did you realise that?
Patristics? A confirmed heretic? LOL just about sums you up.
Nonsense they came from similar sources, late second century Gnosticism..".
Now which Gospel is that in? LOL The gospel of St Epostle? You are just a bad joke.
There is no hint that these women were virgins, and in view of Jewish beliefs of the importance of procreation it was very unlikely. Again you are just making up your own scriptures.,
But Anna was a WIDOW. Do you know what a widow is? She is certainly not virginal. LOL LOL
But there is nowhere any hint that this was true of Mary.. Indeed quite the opposite. Why was she then living in Nazareth? How was she able to gad about the country visiting Elizabeth? You clearly have NO idea what the Gospels really say.
Ideas unknown anywhere outside your fictitious writing. Can't you see how foolish you are being?
yes the Protoevangelium would say that. It was trying to get rid of the fact that Joseph and Mary had other children. A sensible reading of the New Testament shows that Mary's children were younger than Jesus which was why Mary took the lead when they sought to prevent Jesus fulfilling His ministry.
It explains nothing of the kind. That was thirty years later and most people died around fifty.. Death was a common feature of those days. And besides, an older bachelor marrying a younger woman was certainly not uncommon. If Joseph was 25 he may well have died before Jesus was crucified.
LOL you have swallowed it whole, haven't you.? Try reading the New Testament which is REAL history and knows nothing of such nonsense.
The New Testament says nothing about him having to answer to the Temple authorities. It is all in your fevered imagination.
Which Gospel is that in? LOL Oh yes the Gospel of St Epostle LOL
I don't keep trash in my mind. But I can see that the Roman Catholic church would prefer myths to Scriptural truth. Funny how many centuries it took them to catch up with the Evangelium LOL
Mary had made no vow not to have children. It was quite normal for her to have children. You believe your gnostic writings, I will stick to the New Testament.
You mean that that is the wangle they tried to use? Jesus had brothers and sisters. That is the quite normal use of the word. There is not the slightest evidence that they were any other than brothers and sisters (given Jesus unusual birth).
That is simply a LIE for which you have no evidence. The idea is unknown in the first 200 years of church history. It only became of concern later when men began to invent myths about Mary.
yes he too was a great heretic.
how kind of them. So the Roman Catholic church allows you to believe which lie you like?
You mean they are too sensible to believe such tommyrot?
They did not 'recognise it as the teaching of the Bible'. It simply took them time to recognise the truth after being brainwashed by the Roman Catholic church. You whole thesis is a farrago of lies and fantasy.
LOL they don't flip flop. They simply FLOPPED!!!!!!
And they weren't Jewish customs. .
For all the Roman Catholics here. Please explain why it is so important for Mary to be a perpetual Virgin, and what benefit do you gain from addressing your prayers to her. Keep it brief.
