PROTEVANGELIUM OF JAMES. Do you really believe Mary remained a virgin in literal sense? Time to rethink...

from what I understand of it joseph was firing blanks so as was custom in those days his brother stepped in and did the deed virgin birth lmfao

Bullshit.
"Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180) continued Papias's views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6

"Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9

The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.

Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

Anybody that mocks God or the bible works for Satan just like this OP

Youtube search

Ron Wyatt blood of Jesus Nsearch

Don't let the Devil get your soul. Believe in Jesus and you will never die!

Do yourself a favor and next time try to read the posted links before cut and paste your reply from somewhere.

I did read YOUR CUT AND PASTE and some of the links.
I don't need to taste a turd after I smell it to know it's a turd.

why not just post it here?



OP you must understand that the blood type comes from the father... if Jesus had a mortal father he would have blood as you or I; however, he has Divine blood that can take away sin. If you don't believe that then you (or anyone) is crazy to believe Jesus was nothing more than a crazy person... He said he was God after all.

HOWEVER, if he was God in the flesh then the only way he could not inherit sin is from God the Father and the Holy Spirit placing Jesus in Mary's womb.

Jesus blood was the same than yours and mine.

We are all capable to avoid sin, but the illusion of matter blind most of us.

if Jesus did not have 2 Fathers, one of the world and one of heaven, he would not have distinguished between the two as he did in Mt. 24:16 saying: "MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN" ....identifying his Father in heaven versus his father in the world .....

we are all begat in the world of our earthly father ...and as the first begotten of many by our heavenly Father ....

by the 2nd birth we are all become VIRGIN .....(those who complete our journey upon the way ...from existence into LIFE ...

No, His was Divine and is the only way to save mankind. That is the position of Christianity from the resurrection....

Here is one for you OP... explain how the 1st century Apostles all died (except 1 - John) martyr's deaths yet there is NOT ONE account anywhere of them recanting their eyewitness account that Jesus rose from the grave???? They all died holding to the Gospel truth.... and actually the bible says over 500 saw him risen yet there is not any account that anyone said that it was all a hoax....

The Roman and Jewish governing bodies would have jumped on that to squash Christianity... but they could not because no one would recant.... Even in today's judicial system that is used to put people away or even sentence them to death.

OP,

Thanks for your thread, Mary being ever virgin isn't classified, it's been a teaching of the Church since the
beginning.

People limit God if they think Our Lord could not be born
and Mary's virginity still in tact.

Jesus' birth was extra special, supernatural.

Resurrection is other myth created to put Jesus in a different grade than you and me.

There is two possibilities for the visions of Jesus after crucifiction.

1) Jesus somehow survived crucifiction.
2) Jesus appeared to them as spirit through materialization.

Last Edited by God of X on 04/02/2013 02:11 PM

I was referring to the Protoevangelium of James when I talked about the classified information.

"This virginity is intimate - not depending on a piece of skin. There are women who are more impure gourd - in a false sense of chastity - that any prostitute who earn their living honestly trying to give satisfaction to the conscientious men who pay." Aleister Crowley

Last Edited by God of X on 04/02/2013 11:28 AM

The Protoevangelium of James isn't classified, anyone can
read it. God bless you tmorals.

[link to www.newadvent.org]

And atheist Aleister Crowley's quote, he is a winner. Here's another one of his quotes. Offer a prayer for his soul, he could of repented at the last moment, only God knows for sure.


“I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.”
― Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies

The birth of Our Lord, an analogy given was like light passing through glass. God can do anything. Mary is ever virgin.

+ + +

"The definition of the Lateran Council in 649 A.D. states that, in addition to conceiving Jesus without the seed of man, that She gives birth to Him ‘without any detriment to Her virginity.’ The Council of course goes on to say that Her virginity "remained inviolable even after His birth."

"Less than fifty years later, at the Council of Toledo, in 693, the Church teaches the doctrine very clearly: ‘And, as the Virgin acquired the modesty of virginity before conception, so also She experienced no loss of Her integrity, for She conceived a virgin, gave birth a virgin, and after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin.’ This obvious sense of this definition indicates that we are speaking of physical virginity.

"The Fathers of the Church are careful to treat this mystery with reverence and prudential mortification of the tongue. Never do they speak about the physiology of the virginity in regard to Our Lady because, after all, She is the mother of God, and not a scientific case study… Notice the delicacy of St. Ambrose in the 4th century: ‘Mary is the gate through which Christ entered the world when He was brought forth in the virginal birth, and the matter of his birth did not break the seal of virginity.’

Witness also St. Augustine’s faith in the miraculous quality of the virgin birth: ‘That same power which brought the body of the risen Jesus through closed doors brought the body of the Infant forth from the inviolated womb of the Mother.’

"St. Gregory the Great, in the 7th century, makes it clear that the virgin birth is a miracle only comparable to the Resurrection, and one in the face of which reason must give way to faith.

"Finally, all this seems to be fairly simple if we understand that the virgin birth is not a natural but a miraculous birth, matched only by the escape of Jesus from a sealed tomb… The Fathers of the Church tell us, interpretating Isaiah (7:14), that if a virgin conceives and bears a son, that son must be God. The miraculous physical virginity of Our Lady is the fundamental guarantee of the divinity of Christ."

the book is non canonical for a reason.

Tell me the reason.

THIS IS BEYOND BLASPHEMY AND i can't even state that this is DUE TO BEING A FORM OF CHRISTIAN BAShING==easy target
as the VIRGIN MARY and the virgin birth IS ALSO SACRED TO ISLAM
SOOOOOOOOOO let them start their games
inre blasphemers.

There is no blasphemy in my posts.

The fact that Mary is not a virgin in literal sense doesn't make her less virtuous or Jesus less divine.

This is what the church want you to believe. That we are different!

Last Edited by God of X on 04/02/2013 02:22 PM

Yes, I do.

Any birth or conception is an absolute miracle. Mine or yours.

This one was just a bit different, but a miracle too.

All of life is a miracle.

Of course She was. God created life ..you think He couldnt create life without a mans seed?
He managed before man was created didnt He?

What we define as miracle today, we will call science in a close future.

There is a long history of "virgin" births concerning
religious leaders, Budda was one.
For primitive society a virgin birth was a miracle, for
a more advanced one, a turkey baster.
And all of these virgin birth preachers had special powers,
again, not that special for an advanced race.
A being with an immune system boosted by nanotech could
"heal" someone by sharing his nanos, or
Even raise the dead, or direct his nanos to make food out
of air

Thanks for posting this text. That is exactly what I want to show you.

These councils were held more than 500 years after Jesus birth. These affirmations are made by men, not by God.

It was very important to the church to make a complete distinction between the Mother of God and the average women.

While the first one is a sacred Virgin the other is an impure whore. Look how the women suffered during history!

This manuscript that I showed to you, it's dated from the early years of catholicism and If well understood, it's an extraordinary historic source.

Last Edited by God of X on 04/02/2013 03:00 PM