Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[hosemonkey]

**First of all - I **

do** realize that Mormons don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura. THAT is why I find it so interesting that many of you are using this false doctrine to debunk this particular Marian doctrine.**
As I indicated in my last post – I am not insisting that you accept the truths of the Catholic Church. I am saying that you cannot use a false, self-refuting idea to debunk anything.

Finally, as I indicated in my last post, I find it interesting how people – after piggy-backing on the Church some 1500-1800 years after the Scriptures were written** – can have the audacity to contend that their positions are correct. That is tantamount to me going back in time and correcting the Founding Fathers of the United States by telling them that they really *****didn’t ***mean what they wrote. Or that anything they believed that wasn’t written down has no bearing on what they wrote. That is a ludicrous position – yet you see this every day when some activist judge reverses a law because they know better than the Founding Fathers.

**The fact is that Sacred Tradition **IS supported by the Bible (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2) – and so is the authority of the Catholic Church (Matt. 16:15-19, 15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2).

Good post, well said.

 

[Todd520]

Elvis, I think you have missed the message and discussions here

• your posts are difficult to reply to, becaquse of all the code
• you should post to another thread if you don’t want to discuss this subject
• no one has said Catholic tradition is false for Catholics
• no one has used non-catholic scripture to refute this topic
• many have said the biblical references are weak and inadequate on their own

First of all - I do realize that Mormons don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura. THAT is why I find it so interesting that many of you are using this false doctrine to debunk this particular Marian doctrine.
As I indicated in my last post – I am not insisting that you accept the truths of the Catholic Church. I am saying that you cannot use a false, self-refuting idea to debunk anything.

Finally, as I indicated in my last post, I find it interesting how people – after piggy-backing on the Church some 1500-1800 years after the Scriptures were written** – can have the audacity to contend that their positions are correct. That is tantamount to me going back in time and correcting the Founding Fathers of the United States by telling them that they really *****didn’t ***mean what they wrote. Or that anything they believed that wasn’t written down has no bearing on what they wrote. That is a ludicrous position – yet you see this every day when some activist judge reverses a law because they know better than the Founding Fathers.

---

**The fact is that Sacred Tradition **IS supported by the Bible (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2) – and so is the authority of the Catholic Church (Matt. 16:15-19, 15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2).

 

[dianaiad]

Well…But you see, this is a big, big problem for me. Because, from my position–and that of Catholic posters-- Mormons do accept all kinds of things that were written past the first century. Namely, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine & Covenants…(and probably other things I don’t know the name of:shrug, so it is really, really hard for a lot of us, when a Mormon says s/he "won’t accept as an authoritative source of Christian doctrine anything written much past the end of the first century", because you do so all the time.

there is a rather large difference here, Zooey. You see, Catholics and Protestants alike not only admit, but adamantly declare, that public revelation ceased at the death of the last apostles.

Thus, anything written after that point is the result of men doing their own thing…which may or may not be correct. It is our belief that, when those ‘things’ concern areas that are not addressed in writings that were the result of public revelation (scripture) the question is begged, big time, about whether those words are from God (and they aren’t…y’all say so) or from man’s own brains.

Now.nobody is claiming that individuals were not given revelation and guidance from God…privately and for their own spiritual journeys. However, any revelation to any person that would affect what anybody ELSE has to think or believe --that’s public revelation by definition, and that ceased. We are simply taking you at your words.

So what’s different about the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price?

We believe that they are the products of exactly the sort of public revelation that Catholics and Protestants claim stopped. Of course you don’t beleive that, nor do I expect you to…but we do, and that’s why we will accept the one set of extrabiblical writings, and not the other.

Come to think of it, this confusion might be part of the source of this extremely strange habit antis seem to have of pulling quotes from speeches and publications by LDS church leaders and insisting that if a Mormon leader said it, we MUST therefore follow it blindly and that we MUST then have that be doctrine–even though we keep TELLING y’all that our core doctrine comes from what we accept as scripture; those writings which are the direct result of public revelation.

Which we claim to have, but you do not claim.

Indeed, your whole religion is based on accepting such sources.
Just saying, you know, you “call a kettle black”, you better not be that proverbial “pot”.

We do not accept, as doctrine, those words of our own leaders that are not the result of public revelation, either, Zooey. We respect them, of course, and put great store in them, but we don’t call what they say ‘scripture’ unless it’s canonized as such.

Does that help clear things up any?

 

[dianaiad]

**First of all – I am not “insisting” that you believe ANYTHING **about Mary – as seen through the eyes of the Church. I was shooting down the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura that usually rears it’s ugly, albeit, non-existent head when speaking about Marian doctrines.

---

I never demanded that you believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. I was pointing out that you cannot prove from Scripture - or history and tradition that she had other children. The fact is that more can be presented to prove the opposite is true. As I stated above, those who are using Sola Scriptura

---

On many of these threads – I have challenged ANYBODY to show me a tradition or historical reference that showed Mary had other children. No such tradition exists.

---

People are more than willing to accept many historical “truths” that are based in legend before they accept any extra-biblical evidence about Mary. They will accept – without question – that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree or tossed a coin across the Potomac without any historical evidence whatsoever.

---

What I also resent is the fact that all denominations that claim to be Christian have piggy-backed on Catholic beliefs for as many centuries as they could. They then created aberrant, pseudo-Christian doctrines* (like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide)* that had no basis in the historic Christian faith – all-the-while claiming that it is the Catholic Church that is wrong. We are the ones who wrote, compiled and declared doctrine the very books of the Bible that they adhere so vehemently to.

---

**You claim the very basis for your church is the fact that we went so far down the wrong trail very early on – yet you can present **nothing to buttress this claim.

---

I have more respect for pagan religions that make things up out of thin air than those who would claim to represent the truth of Jesus, while perverting those very truths.

---

Finally – I want to thank you for proving me right by disapproving of my use of color. I have pointed out the fact – on MANY posts that people usually resort to this attack when they have run out of “proofs” for their positions . . .

Actually, I pointed out the fact that your use of color is extremely distracting because…it’s extremely distracting. There is so much code surrounding your text that it is very difficult to pick out your words. Remember, what looks great on the forum causes problems in the reply window—but you do it your way. I just thought you might like to know how distracting it is.

I can cope. (shrug)

…you also need to realize that simply declaring a debate ‘win’ doesn’t make it fact, and the fact is, I’ll let others judge whether my points answer yours.

 

[ERose]

Actually, Rose, it’s the other way around. It’s not possible to prove a negative, y’know.

So you are saying it is not possible for you to prove that Mary and Joseph had a sex life and that Mary had other children besides Jesus. If that is the case then the argument is already won.

Remember, the fact that 'this belief is older than both Protestant and Mormon churches" means nothing…the entire existance of both beliefs is the result of the claim that the beliefs that were around all that long were, well, wrong.

Look at the person that I was responding to. He is Catholic so because he is Catholic, he should respect Sacred Tradition. As such I can argue from this point of view with him where I cannot with you.

Protestants claimed that the church needed reforming…brought back to the pure and early beliefs that they thought Catholicism had strayed from, and Mormons went a step further; we claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ had to actually be restored, not simply reformed.

These are the usual motivations for heresy.

The whole premise behind both claims is that…it doesn’t really matter how long those beliefs were held, if those beliefs were wrong.

Yes but you still haven’t proved that they are wrong. I still haven’t seen anyone provide me scriptural proof of Mary and Joseph’s sex life and her having other biological children. So how do you know they are wrong?

In that case, then, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and the claim is that Mary–in spite of the fact that she was a married woman subject to all the laws and customs of her time, virtuous and faithful to her beliefs, would NOT have been fully a wife to Joseph, absent any evidence at all that she remained a virgin. It is the extraordinary claim that requires proof, not the assumption of 'what usually happens."

We will have to disagree on this point. One is would have to be assumed that Mary was a fertile woman after the birth of Jesus. If this is the case then a fertile woman being married to a fertile man would produce children. Yet the Bible is silent in proclaiming anyone as the true brother or sister of Jesus. Why would it be silent on these facts? You would imagine that these brothers and sisters would at least be somewhat involved in Jesus’ life and Mary’s. Yet there is complete silence. So I believe that there is far more evidence Biblically that Jesus was an only child.

That would mean…well…you know what that means.

So your answer again is that you have no proof concerning your claims. So why don’t you just say you don’t know one way or the other instead of arguing that Mary was sexually active and had other children.

One question for you out of curiousity. Is or isn’t the Book of Mormon silent on this topic?

 

[Todd520]

Elvis, this is what replying to you looks like. It makes it hard to have a clean debate.

First of all - I
do
realize that Mormons don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura. *****
THAT***
is why I find it so interesting that many of you are using this false doctrine to debunk this
particular Marian doctrine.**
As I indicated in my last post – I am **
not
insisting that you accept the truths of the Catholic Church. I am saying that you
cannot
use a false, self-refuting idea to debunk ****
anything****
.**

Finally, as I indicated in my last post, I find it interesting
how people – after piggy-backing on the Church some 1500-1800 years *
after
the Scriptures were written***
– can have the audacity to contend that **
their**
positions are correct. That is tantamount to me going back in time and
correcting
the Founding Fathers of the United States by telling them
that they really *****didn’t
***** mean what they wrote. Or that anything
they believed that wasn’t written down has no bearing on what they wrote. That is a
**ludicrous
** position – yet you see this every day when some activist
judge reverses a law because ***they
***** know better than the Founding Fathers.

---

The fact is that Sacred Tradition
IS supported by
the Bible (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor.
11:2) – and so is the
authority of the
Catholic Church (Matt. 16:15-19, 15-18,
Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2
).******************************************************************************************************************************

 

[Todd520]

ERose I think you nailed it,

• you have a strong argument to prove your point with other Catholics, using Holy Tradition
• nobody can prove anything just using the bible

I do feel If the writers thought it was important to the message, they would have been explicit on whether she had other children or was a PV. Since the bible is not explicit, it must not be that critical.

 

[Stephen168]

The proofs we Catholics use to buttress the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary often remind me of the proofs that were used when I was a Mormon to buttress the Book of Mormon. As a Mormon we started from the standpoint of having faith in the Book of Mormon and then used anything we could find to try and prove our faith. It didn’t matter if the proofs held water as long as they could somehow support our belief in the Book of Mormon. I see the same thing happening with regards to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Someone decided 100 years after Mary that she must have been a perpetural virgin – perhaps a reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, there are no reliable witnesses to the original events to offer any proof of her perpetual virginity.

Are you expecting a witness to something that did not happen?

 

[ERose]

Travailing and pain in child birth ,are these not God’s judgements on woman for sin ,given to Eve ? This Mary in the vision of John cried in travail in birth.I thought the churches dogma is that Mary did not travail ,as Isaiah says ?

Did not Jesus die? Wasn’t he without sin and the punishment for sin is death yet he that was sinless died. So this point doesn’t hold.

Also the pain and suffering of His mother is also due to seeing Him die. Knowing from the beginning that He was going to suffer more pain and agony than any other man has ever or will ever have to indure. As it is quoted in Luke Ch 2: *[34] And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; [35] And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. *

Anyways , it is a beautiful vision in revelations ,with the ark and the woman as you say. I am not sure it proves any marion doctrine except for one thing -Jesus was God incarnated. The ark is “dust” however pure (wood ,gold ,a human being). What makes one pure ?

Exactly you are not sure. So why reject something outright that you are not sure of? Explain to me who else gave birth to Jesus. Or are you saying that you do not believe that the king discussed here is Jesus but rather another messiah or savior to come? Concerning that the Arks of the Old and the New Covenants are created thing you are correct. We both agree on this point. But are you going to limit God’s power to make whatever he wants to be Sacred? Do you think that Jesus will be born of a woman that is a sinner and has sin within them? Does not the Bible say that nothing impure can enter in the presence of God? Who had a more intimate presence and relationship with Jesus? God dwell within her for 9 months. She was God’s temple on earth for 9 months. Ask the Jews where the most sacred place was. It was the Holy of Holies in the temple where dwelled the Ark. Nothing was more sacred than the Ark in the Old Covenant so should you expect something different witht he new?

Is not faith counted for righteousness,even His righteousness ? Can that be any purer ? That Mary was "pure " yes , but because she was pure ,or because she was obedient and faithful ? In the end ,it is what is inside that is the focus .And as you state ,what was on the inside was not just the 10 commandments but the full Word covering the covenant -the Pentateuch.

Because of both. She was made pure to be the New Ark and she retained her purity through her obedience and faith. She is the first Christian. She is the first believer in Jesus the Son of God.

Concerning the Pentateuch you are wrong. Hebrews Ch 9: *[4] Having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament. [5] And over it were the cherubims of glory overshadowing the propitiatory: of which it is not needful to speak now particularly. *Only three things: Jar of Manna, Aaron’s Rod, and the Tablets of the Testament which were the 10 Commandments. But that is a side note.

All that was necessary was that a virgin should conceive , in the line of David,and many more things according to scripture ,but nothing about Immaculate.

Was it? This can be argued but it would go too far outside the orginal thread. If you want to debate this open a thread and let me know.

 

[ERose]

Also ,why this vision for the FUTURE ? That is why some believe Mary to be a typology for Israel in this vision (or vice versa) for salvation is of the Jews. Again ,this a future vision.

Really? So Jesus will be born in the future? But I do agree you on a certain point here that this vision can be used as a typology of the Church and Isreal. But it also makes a specific point of being Mary.

O.K. are we Greek, seeking a sign . Jesus’ promises stand whether she was taken up or not , if not then ,later like the rest of us

I think that you are confusing things here. It was the Pharisees that asked for a sign, but God gives us signs freely given whether we want them or not. So I take these signs as I can.

Oh boy ,why not interchange titles mother ,queen -means the same .NOT.

1 Kings 2: *[19] Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right hand. [20] And she said to him: I desire one small petition of thee, do not put me to confusion. And the king said to her: My mother, ask: for I must not turn away thy face. *
Bethsabee is the first queen mother of Isreal. Also if you go back and look through the discussion of the kings of Isreal in most of them it speaks of who their mother was. The queen mother in Isreal held power.

2 Kings 12:1
In the seventh year of Jehu Joas began to reign: and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Sebia of Bersabee.

2 Kings 14:2
He was five and twenty years old when he began to reign: and nine and twenty years he reigned in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Joadan of Jerusalem.

2 Kings 15:2
He was sixteen years old, when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Jechelia of Jerusalem.

2 Kings 15:33
He was five and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Jerusa, the daughter of Sadoc.

2 Kings 18:2
He was five and twenty years old when he began to reign: and he reigned nine and twenty years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Abi the daughter of Zacharias.

2 Kings 21:1
Manasses was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned five and fifty years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Haphsiba.

2 Kings 21:19
Two and twenty years old was Amen when he began to reign, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Messalemeth the daughter of Harus of Jeteba.

2 Kings 22:1
Josias was eight years old when he began to reign: he reigned one and thirty years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Idida, the daughter of Hadaia, of Besecath.

2 Kings 23:31
Joachaz was three and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Amital, the daughter of Jeremias of Lobna.

2 Kings 23:36
Joakim was five and twenty years old when he began to reign: and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Zebida the daughter of Phadaia of Ruma.

2 Kings 24:8
Joachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, a and he reigned three months in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Nohesta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

 

[nickybr38]

Actually, I pointed out the fact that your use of color is extremely distracting because…it’s extremely distracting. There is so much code surrounding your text that it is very difficult to pick out your words. Remember, what looks great on the forum causes problems in the reply window—but you do it your way. I just thought you might like to know how distracting it is.

I can cope. (shrug)

…you also need to realize that simply declaring a debate ‘win’ doesn’t make it fact, and the fact is, I’ll let others judge whether my points answer yours.

Totally not relevent to the debate but for those having trouble responding to Elvisman’s quotes -

Copy his post. Paste it into Notepad. Copy it from Notepad, paste it into CAF. This will remove all the code and make it easier to continue the debate.

It’s a hassle but if you wish to debate with him that might make things easier.

 

[ERose]

Nice story ,very traditional but unbiblical.Why do you say she was just like us -she was NOT >The story goes she was perfect .I guess if you are perfect ,your humlity blinds you to you purity, so that if an angel comes to you saying you are favored, you are shocked -“what manner of salutation is this ?” She was TROUBLED .Why ?

Because she was humble. Not because of sin but by recognizing her place as a creature of God and to have the servant of God come to her and tell her that she was blessed among women? Should she have been haughty or prideful? Or would a true follower of God be humbled by the fact that her Lord’s messager has come to her to proclaim to her something that has never been proclaimed to another human being. *And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. * So she should have jumped up and went out bragging to every one that she was full of grace and that the Lord was with her and she was blessed among women. Do you not understand what humility is and why we should be humble? You and I are sinners yes, but what should humble us is that God the creator of the whole universe has expressed interest in us. That is true humility. Rocognizing that we are sinners is guilt.

Popular in this fashion but with whom ? Certainly not with many in the Body .
Is she popular with the rest because of what Luther said ,the harshness of church law,ritual (lack of grace) relative to Mary ,our “mother”.

Not with many in the Body? You overestimate the number of Protestants my friend. There are probably more people in this world that say the Rosary than there are Protestants. So there are many in the Body that look to Mary.

It is a whole lot easier to go to mom ,than dad ,especially when you have done something wrong.

No it just doesn’t hurt. Jesus will answer the prayers of his mother before he will answer ours. That is just the facts. We have unsure at times where she does not have that problem. When you want God’s help on something important do you go to those that are sinners and not followers of Christ or do you go to those who you consider righteous?

Yes,and you have done what Peter wanted to do on the mount ,build altars
there and remain -quite carnal though zealous.
.Still need to address the abuse ,where they almost talk about them as some talk of the Holy Spirit guiding us

Careful here. We do not worship Mary. We honor her. There is a difference. But since you didn’t supply real argument against I assume you at least conceed that argument.

Fresh ,but what scenario ? So fresh ,they forgot to write down that she Assumed ,or remained loyal to an oath of chastity ? In dealing with the incarnation ,why did they not use ma jor Marionism-to further prove His humanity ? No ,all you hear is of His virgin birth -to prove that he was no mere man ,but God himself giving birth of Himself. ,If she had not been virgin ,they could say it was of Joseph .What happened after His birth is immaterial to his incarnation

What do you mean forgot to write it down. It was not the point they were wanting to make. Remember that when the Gospels were being written, Mary was still most probably with them. So there was no one at that time that challenged her life because they all knew it first hand or worse case 2nd hand.

.Sneeky .You are right .As soon as they refuted ,they were called heretics and no longer called church father .So Helvidius andTertullian are out .And remember ,if you are wrong on one thing ,you are wrong on all things ,right ? Not .You and I disagree on a lot of things ,but we agree on many more things .

You are wrong here which shows that you do not have enough knowledge about the Fathers to correctly use them. Tertullian is still considered a Father up to the point that he become a heretic. So his writings are still used that were written before his departure.

Till when ? 90 A.D. 100 A.D. (when the last inspired book was written?)? So if St. Paul wrote your bishop a letter for your diocese, and said it was inspired ,as from the Lord,you would say ,"Well we will take it into consideration , perhaps when all the bishops get together and study it , to determine if it holds up to what we already know orally from you .We will know in a couple hundred years , besides , not many of us read.But thanks for your letter anyways . " Let’s see ,if you had any part or copy of his letters you could be arrested ,and even put to death .Yes ,I think they took His letter and quickly analyzed,compared and held on to it as pure gold ,manna ,Sacred Scripture , form the beginning .No need for your diocese to wait-but simply read ,memorize ,recite, pray over and copy,and share with other churches in other cities.The oral phase was very short and did not contradict what was written. To me it is scripture is a tape recording of the oral .I can not hear the apostles speak , but I have their inspired writings .

Do you have proof of this? I think that oral tradition lasted much longer than you think because not everyone had access to all of the writings that are now in the NT. You should do a little bit more study in this history instead of assuming.

 

[ERose]

ERose I think you nailed it,

• you have a strong argument to prove your point with other Catholics, using Holy Tradition
• nobody can prove anything just using the bible

I do feel If the writers thought it was important to the message, they would have been explicit on whether she had other children or was a PV. Since the bible is not explicit, it must not be that critical.

I still haven’t seen any one of you answer one or both of my questions yet. So I will ask them again. Where does it say that Mary and Joseph was sexually active? Where does it say that Mary and Joseph had biological children?

 

[dianaiad]

I still haven’t seen any one of you answer one or both of my questions yet. So I will ask them again. Where does it say that Mary and Joseph was sexually active? Where does it say that Mary and Joseph had biological children?

the question better answered is “where does it say they were not?” and “where does it say that they did not have other children?”

It’s a little like watching a child throw a ball . He picks it up, swings his arm, and the ball leaves his hand. The laws of nature dictate that the ball, no matter how strong the child is, will hit the ground eventually.

What you are asking us to do is to prove that the ball hit the ground…when in reality it’s your job to prove that it did not.

Culture, the laws of Judaism, the mores of the time, the rules of marriage–and the absence of anything that specifically states that she remained a virgin–seem to indicate that she, having entered into marriage with Joseph, and being a sinless Jewish woman, would fulfill the requirements of that marriage. So–NOT doing so would be the extraordinary thing to do, and it is the extraordinary that requires the proof.

…just like one can assume that if a child throws a ball, it will come to a stop on the ground —unless someone can prove that it did not.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, I think you have missed the message and discussions here

• your posts are difficult to reply to, becaquse of all the code
• you should post to another thread if you don’t want to discuss this subject
• no one has said Catholic tradition is false for Catholics
• no one has used non-catholic scripture to refute this topic
• many have said the biblical references are weak and inadequate on their own

Huh??
What are you talking about?

** I’m not saying that ANYBODY is contending that:**
- Catholic tradition is false for Catholics
- anybody has used non-catholic scripture to refute this topic
(what is "non-Catholic Scripture)??

 

[Todd520]

I still haven’t seen any one of you answer one or both of my questions yet. So I will ask them again. Where does it say that Mary and Joseph was sexually active? Where does it say that Mary and Joseph had biological children?

Hi ERose, I thought I did answer your questions? Here I go again.

Q1 - did Mary and Joseph have normal relations?

• the bible is explicit that Mary was a virgin through the birth of Christ.
• the bible is not explicit on what happened after the birth of Christ
• the use of ‘until’ in Mathew 1:24-25 does imply Joseph ‘knew’ Mary after the birth of Christ
  "… and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

**Q2 - **did Mary and Joseph have bilogical children

• the bible is not explicit on whether Mary and Joseph had additional children or if Jesus was an only Child.
• many bible versus imply Jesus had siblings based on the english translation but it is open to interpretation

Acts 1:14 - “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”
1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
**Gal. 1:19 **- But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."
**Matthew 12:46-47 **- "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
**Matthew 13:55 **- “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
**Mark 6:2-3 **- "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joseph, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
John 2:12 - “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”

 

[elvisman]

Actually, I pointed out the fact that your use of color is extremely distracting because…it’s extremely distracting. There is so much code surrounding your text that it is very difficult to pick out your words. Remember, what looks great on the forum causes problems in the reply window—but you do it your way. I just thought you might like to know how distracting it is.

I can cope. (shrug)

…you also need to realize that simply declaring a debate ‘win’ doesn’t make it fact, and the fact is, I’ll let others judge whether my points answer yours.

I never declared a debate “win”.

**PS - Are you using MAC Safari? Sometimes the code shows up when using that browser. **If you use Internet Explorer, you don’t get all the code.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, this is what replying to you looks like. It makes it hard to have a clean debate.

Sionce it only appears in the REPLY window - don’t do a point-to-point reply. Just reply at the bottom.

**PS - if you use Internet Explorer, you won’t get this code. My guess is that you’re probably using Safari.

 

[elvisman]

Actually, I pointed out the fact that your use of color is extremely distracting because…it’s extremely distracting. There is so much code surrounding your text that it is very difficult to pick out your words. Remember, what looks great on the forum causes problems in the reply window—but you do it your way. I just thought you might like to know how distracting it is.

I can cope. (shrug)

…you also need to realize that simply declaring a debate ‘win’ doesn’t make it fact, and the fact is, I’ll let others judge whether my points answer yours.

Ummmm . . . colors aside - were you going to respond to any of the other points?

Proof for the Great Apostasy?

The fact that you - a non-sola Scripturist demand Scriptural proof of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

My challenge that you show me a tradition or historical reference stating that Mary had other children?

 

[ERose]

the question better answered is “where does it say they were not?” and “where does it say that they did not have other children?”

It’s a little like watching a child throw a ball . He picks it up, swings his arm, and the ball leaves his hand. The laws of nature dictate that the ball, no matter how strong the child is, will hit the ground eventually.

What you are asking us to do is to prove that the ball hit the ground…when in reality it’s your job to prove that it did not.

Culture, the laws of Judaism, the mores of the time, the rules of marriage–and the absence of anything that specifically states that she remained a virgin–seem to indicate that she, having entered into marriage with Joseph, and being a sinless Jewish woman, would fulfill the requirements of that marriage. So–NOT doing so would be the extraordinary thing to do, and it is the extraordinary that requires the proof.

…just like one can assume that if a child throws a ball, it will come to a stop on the ground —unless someone can prove that it did not.

So you saying you cannot support your arguments. Fine then just concede the argument and we can move on. You want to argue from culture? That is the only argument you have then you have nothing. As I have said you have no proof to support your side of the argument except for trying to punch holes into the positive arguments for which quite honestly you have failed to do. So conceed the point and we can move on.