The Protevangelium of James with Uncle Jimmy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Then I simply read the entirety of the Protevangelium of James. Yep, had a little story time at the end.
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries®.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/
![ไปอยู่ไสมา - ช๊อปเปอร์ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sWuVNbRTJbc/mqdefault.jpg)
This reads like some kind of ancient fanfiction.
This book greatly impacted Catholicism.
Amazing. It’s clearly NOT associated with the Canon, in any way. It’s fan fiction.
@@KristiLEvans1 That's what makes Catholicism so perverse.
Correction: It greatly impacted Christianity. This book was used to defend Christianity against the heresy of Celsus among others, in fact is not a gnostic book but it was used to defend Christianity against it. If not for this book Christianity would be a much different thing.
@@RedWolf5 I'm sorry, but no.
@@KristiLEvans1 ??? Do you understand what’s the canon and how it works?
Fascinating! So glad I heard this. It explains so much!
I love how the vid was posted on December 25. Christmas triumphs over Gnosticism!
This is nice of Uncle Jimmy.
Glad to see you putting this out in broad sight. One person writes one hundred plus years after the fact (no earlier mention of such). One, ten, a hundred read it and like it, satisfying their curiosity and a lot of, good old "it stands to reason" and it's almost gospel. Some would object but give it just a little longer and it's now known truth for the church fathers are writing their thesis about it. So validated today by the defending Catholic with a simple statement "it has existed since the early days as TRADITION". I wonder when the origin of the tradition became so obscure. From one single writing, written too late and unknown authorship it somehow becomes dogma (must be accepted as stated), Mary immaculately conceived and forever virgin. Oh ya, and those called Jesus brothers, they are Josephs boys from a previous marriage.
James, I would love if you would expose more of how Mary became elevated so. Thinking the Protoevangelium of James bizarre, the Transitus Mariae will blow the minds of many. Mid 4th century writing and sure enough not long after the church fathers are accrediting divine attributes to Mary and proclaiming her ascension. Mary was immaculately conceived so "it stands to reason" she would continued to be highly favored. Though this document, so much more dubious was deemed to have little to no credibility. The concept had to be wrote about and debated for many hundreds of years more before the church finally makes their word on this official. TRADITION, see... the early church fathers wrote about it, they knew... ya... all from one incredible, unimaginable (today- well hidden, hard to find document) story written 300 years after Mary's death. Now dogma and you better believe it!
I'm an ex-Catholic and so troubled by the blind faith given to the doctrine of men, the addition of the "good news" and grace found in Mary and the glory and grace detracted from our Lord. If Mary were to be so elevated, if she were to be necessary in furthering our salvation, Jesus had many moments suitable to express this as so... but he didn't. I refuse to believe, in everything he taught, that he failed to give us what we needed. I so fear those devoted to her, as some prayers to her would go, would give themselves into her hands at the moment of their death. Real scary! To those reading this and of this mind... Please! Please! DON'T DO IT! Have no other gods before you! Put a focus to scripture and I pray that you will see the many ways the traditions of men proclaimed to be truth are in opposition to the Word of God, our only Lord and savior.
Wow! Thank you for posting this.
I don’t have that pseudepigraphal book yet. For most of them, my guess is that there is 10% based on an event which the Gospels didn’t catch, that 10% grew exponentially like a fish tale, and the other 90% is just urban myth/legend that popped up. The frustrating thing in history, especially with this spurious texts, is to try to gleam out the very small little pieces of real events/occurrences & trash the rest. Yet because we don’t have corroboration, then we are bound to leave it in the spurious pile. Thanks for this. I’m in the process of tracking down 3-4 other pseudepigrapha works to add to my collection. (For research only): As for the elevation of Mary, RC’s must not read or take the Epistle to the Hebrews very seriously, as this one epistle alone (alibi: Jesus’ statements in John 6-8) totally negate these roles of Mary. Scripture interprets itself.
thanks uncle jimmy ... very foundational text for eastern orthodoxy itself: the cave of the supernatural nativity, perpetual virginity, that joseph drew lots to be mary's ``husband"?, salome, the sons of joseph, strange stories about birds (reminiscent of quranic stories of ``mary", ``solomon").
I disagree with your conclusion. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary didn’t actually give birth to Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus meaning she didn’t have sex afterwards. The word Theotokos means bearer of God which indicates that she gave birth to Him. Now I don’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity because there’s no evidence to support it but I don’t see evidence to support your claim here that the Catholic Church is actually teaching that Mary did not give birth to Jesus.
0:00 Hahaha! You get the feeling of being read to sleep. ;-)
God Bless James, if he is wrong an any way, I would hate to be him facing our Lord one day. He spends too much time being an accuser.
I assume that this is a response to White's assertion that this work is the origin of the teaching of the Theotokos's perpetual virginity. Nobody, not the Eastern Orthodox, not the conservative Roman Catholic, nor the conservative Protestant recognises the Protoevangelium of James as canonical.
As for White's assertion, there is no evidence of the teaching of the perpetual virginity before the Protoevangelium. On that point, White is correct. That, in and of itself, doesn't prove that the teaching isn't Divinely inspired. What weighs heavily against that being inspired, though, is that we have not the slightest indication of Christ's birth being anything other than natural from the canonical Scriptures. From the text itself, there's nothing to suggest that the Theotokos's conception was extraordinary, nor is there anything to indicate that God chose the Theotokos because her womb was specially prepared so that it would be unstained by personal sin. The canonical Scriptures just don't teach anything like that.
What might be considered circumstantial evidence is that Our Lord seems to have little patience for the traditions of men, even if the religious authorities claim that said traditions are Divine in origin. Our Lord scolds the authorities for this, and for not heeding the written Word.
I firmly believe that those who firmly hold to the written Scriptures against later tradition will have nothing to fear from our Saviour and Judge. I cannot say the same for those who add words to God's mouth. Binding strange doctrines upon the Christian... I wouldn't like to stand in the place of those people.