There isn’t any conclusive evidence that she wasn’t. The infallible Church says she was. That is all the evidence I need.
Amen! In the following order they came:
True, but it seems quite plausible to me that Jesus had brothers as the NT describe (like James the Just). Really the notion of perpetual virginity really seems to be more of a aesthetic preference in that it would be more pleasing if Mary remained always a virgin and that her purity wasn’t tainted by sexual relations. It’s a case of ‘It’d be better if Mary was a perpetual virgin so let’s try to interpret the evidence to reach that conclusion’.
Actually the converse is true. We can’t admit that the Catholics teach the truth so lets find everyway we can to undermine it. The evidence that Mary had more children then Jesus is lacking. The New testment identifies other parents for James. That Jesus provides His mother with support at the cross shows that He had no brothers to take care of His mother. The way that His “brothers” talk to Him show that He was younger than those called brothers but in fact are cousins or perhaps stepbrothers. Do a search there are many threads on this subject. It is dogma that Mary remained a virgin. It is fitting that she remained dedicated to God. The notion that you present is not the truth. Truth is important
That is always the way I have understood it also even back in my protestant days in the pentecostal church of god.There are many reasons to remain a virgin. You are assuming that being human means you’ll want to have sex or need to have sex. Mary is believed to have given an oath to God at an early age to always remain a virgin. This is why when the angel announced that she would have a son she said “How can this be?” She was already betrothed. As a woman of that culture, she would know very well where kids come from. If she had been planning on having sex after marriage, then she wouldn’t have asked how could this be, but simply realized that eventually she would indeed have kids.
There are many reasons not to have sex.
If that were the case, we wouldn’t believe in her perpetual virginity or have an idea about it to begin with as the early Christian were no idiots and practiced reason as well as faith. Through the lens of pure unbiased objectivity, the Catholic position is the truth by taking into account all of scripture and tradition, even though we can prove it without tradition. In other words, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not a presupposed idea that was first conceived without support, but rather the logical observation of evidence we have and coming to the conclusion of.
I’m aware of this work by Origen. Minus the word in brackets, Origen was merely saying that Jesus’ mother was a virgin, not that she was a perpetual virgin.
Why not? The Apostles believed in the divinity of Jesus, did they not?
Wow! How you can read Origen and come to the conclusion that she was not a perpetual virgin is really putting blinder on.
The “fact” that you stated before
You admit was in error? I asked what do you consider early Christians you failed to answer. My understaning is that early Christianity or primitive Church is generally considered to be before 325.
The overwhelming evidence shows that she was a virgin and that never ended. You have yet to provide a reasonable answer to what Mary said? Asking why she didn’t say it a certain way is not an answer for what she did say. :banghead:This is actually the really compelling piece of evidence for me that Mary had no other male children.
If James “the brother of the Lord” was not worthy to care for his “mother” (John 19:26-27), why was he allowed to continue as an Apostle? The attack on Mary is an attack on Christ and Christianity.
Which undermines the argument that Jesus names John because His family were not believers.
Family? I have always wondered what their names were…Which undermines the argument that Jesus names John because His family were not believers.
I forgot who it was a couple of months ago but I felt the following was a irrefutable argument posted by him/her, that denying the perpetual virginity of our Holy Queen was denying the divinity of Christ based on the scriptural verses Ezekiel 44:1-3. Probably got it from St. Augustine who saw the typology in a homily, I think it was, and reaffirmed by St. Aquinas in his Summa (of which I posted in #60, onlyvoice seems to be ignoring it
).
Those who attack Mary tend to be verse-at-a-time types. Those who state that scripture is a seamless garment will often pull threads out of the weave as “proof” of some assertion.I forgot who it was a couple of months ago but I felt the following was a irrefutable argument posted by him/her, that denying the perpetual virginity of our Holy Queen was denying the divinity of Christ based on the scriptural verses Ezekiel 44:1-3. Probably got it from St. Augustine who saw the typology in a homily, I think it was, and reaffirmed by St. Aquinas in his Summa (of which I posted in #60, onlyvoice seems to be ignoring it
Not necessarily, like other things, these beliefs develop over time and would not have been present or widely held in the early Church.
We don’t have enough evidence to know either way.
Why do you believe scripture?Not necessarily, like other things, these beliefs develop over time and would not have been present or widely held in the early Church.
While the fact that Jesus entrusted Mary to John on the cross could imply that he had no other siblings, he could also have just preferred that John take care of her and not his siblings.
Then there’s the fact that the brothers accompanied Jesus & Mary to Capernaum after the wedding at Cana (John 2:12 ) which implies them all being children of Mary (or possibly step-children from an earlier marriage of Joseph’s).
But it definitely is not a clear cut issue
Because it predates tradition on this
Do you think Jesus would insult sibilings? I don’t that is why He had no sibilings.Not necessarily, like other things, these beliefs develop over time and would not have been present or widely held in the early Church.
While the fact that Jesus entrusted Mary to John on the cross could imply that he had no other siblings, he could also have just preferred that John take care of her and not his siblings.
Then there’s the fact that the brothers accompanied Jesus & Mary to Capernaum after the wedding at Cana (John 2:12 ) which implies them all being children of Mary (or possibly step-children from an earlier marriage of Joseph’s).
But it definitely is not a clear cut issue
Allow me to clarify: Why do you believe scripture at all - any of it for any reason? Why does the bible have any value, even as a book?