This heretical teaching is disproven.

[Albion]

Yes, I'm with most Protestants in that the new personal OPINION of a FEW Protestants that you shared is unsupported by Scripture. As is the far, far bigger issue of the DOGMA of the PVM in your church, the official DOGMA there. Both are equally unsubstantiated by Scripture. I find your posts here kinda funny, a rich and classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

Truth is that no one has an unimpeachable claim on Scripture when it comes to these things.

The Roman Catholic idea that Jesus was born through Mary's side like some ancient and miraculous kind of Caesarian delivery (minus any incision or scar) is quite a reach, but so is the basis for the patently UNscriptural dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

Of the various places that were claimed as burying sites for her body, one alleged grave was excavated and found to be empty. From this the legend, later a dogma, arose and held that if this grave was empty, the only possibility (?) was that God took Mary's body to heaven.

 

[Soulx3]

Yes, I'm with most Protestants in that the new personal OPINION of a FEW Protestants that you shared is unsupported by Scripture. As is the far, far bigger issue of the DOGMA of the PVM in your church, the official DOGMA there. Both are equally unsubstantiated by Scripture. I find your posts here kinda funny, a rich and classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

Do you believe there's scriptural evidence that proves Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin?

 

[Albion]

Do you believe there's scriptural evidence that proves Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin?

Because everyone knows how babies are born and that this process eliminates virginity, the question to be asked is not "Is there scriptural evidence proving Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin?" but rather "What evidence is there, if any, that proves Mary WAS a perpetual virgin?"

 

[Soulx3]

Truth is that no one has an unimpeachable claim on Scripture when it comes to these things.

Scripture doesn't prove that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings, but rather that they were His kinsmen/relatives. It's the scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies in the opening post that collectively prove they were His cousins.

Because everyone knows how babies are born and that this process eliminates virginity, the question to be asked is not "Is there scriptural evidence proving Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin?" but rather "What evidence is there, if any, that proves Mary WAS a perpetual virgin?"

There are people who teach/believe that Mary had sexual intercourse and other children, and thus they should have scriptural evidence to support this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura. Therefore, my question is a valid one.

 

[Albion]

There are people who teach/believe that Mary had sexual intercourse, and thus they must have, or should have, scriptural evidence to support this,

She had been married and had given birth to at least one child. Therefore, we must acknowledge that such a person certainly would not normally qualify as a perpetual virgin.

But despite that, you want us to begin by stipulating that Mary MIGHT HAVE been a lifelong biological virgin at a time in history when such a condition was unheard of for women who had already given birth.

To structure the argument that way would be like demanding proof that Bigfoot does NOT exist rather than asking if there's solid evidence that he does.

 

[Soulx3]

She had been married and had given birth to at least one child. Therefore, we must acknowledge that such a person certainly would not normally qualify as a perpetual virgin.

But despite that, you want us to begin by stipulating that Mary MIGHT HAVE been a lifelong biological virgin at a time in history when such a condition was unheard of for women who had already given birth.

To structure the argument that way would be like demanding proof that Bigfoot does NOT exist rather than asking if there's solid evidence that he does.

A virgin woman doesn't lose her virginity through the acts of marriage and giving birth, but rather sexual intercourse. Furthermore, no law prohibited a husband and/or wife from practicing a vow of chastity within the marriage, nor required that they have children. Therefore, again, those who teach/believe Mary had sexual intercourse and other children should have scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura.

The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: The angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary that She would conceive a Son (Lk. 1:30-31), and before he explained it'd happen with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin (Lk. 1:34). At that time, She was already betrothed to Joseph (Matt. 18-19), and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

Joseph was chosen to be the Spouse of Mary, the prophesied Virgin Who conceived God Incarnate and the Messiah by the Holy Spirit, and the Father of Her child. Therefore, from the beginning, their situation wasn't normal and neither were the average Jew and Jewess. How many first-century Jewish people thought it likely that the Messiah would be God Incarnate, rather than a powerful human king? Mary was not your average Jewess. She's someone Who was in deep contact with God, more than any woman before and after Her. Therefore, situations that you consider normal or likely among average first-century Jews shouldn't automatically apply to Her and Joseph. God, the Most Holy and Pure One, came down from Heaven, a place where unholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her Body and Spirit had to have already been so Holy, Pure, and Perfect (in part by His doing), as to be Second to God, in order to be a Heaven on Earth for Him.

 

[tango]

A virgin woman doesn't lose her virginity through the acts of marriage and giving birth, but rather sexual intercourse. Furthermore, no law prohibited a husband and/or wife from practicing a vow of chastity within the marriage, nor required that they have children. Therefore, again, those who teach/believe Mary had sexual intercourse must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura

I don't recall a single verse of Scripture that mentions Jesus or the disciples going to the bathroom but since they were human it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to conclude they probably did.

 

[Josiah]

Do you believe there's scriptural evidence that proves Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin?

@Soulx3

1. NO church known to me has a DOGMA of "Mary Had Lotza Sex." So that dogma need not be substantiated by Scripture. But your church DOES have dogma that She was a perpetual virgin. The dogma on this is YOURS. The apologetic for it is YOURS.

2. Responsibility of support for Dogma belongs to the one who holds that view. It is NOT the role of those who do not hold it to prove it's wrong. Just very basic apologetics. The simple most aspect of debate. IF Joe said, "It's a fact that 15 little purple people eaters now live on Venus" then the "burden of proof" for that lies entirely, wholly with Joe. If it not YOUR task to prove it false (which, obviously, you could not do).

3. You are (unwillingly) giving an amazing example of "pot calling the kettle black."

A virgin woman doesn't lose her virginity through the acts of marriage and giving birth, but rather sexual intercourse. Furthermore, no law prohibited a husband and/or wife from practicing a vow of chastity within the marriage, nor required that they have children. Therefore, again, those who teach/believe Mary had sexual intercourse must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this

1. Again, "pot calling kettle black." You admit your church doesn't have scriptural substantiation for its DOGMA of the PVM yet you want some unnamed church that you seem to think has a DOGMA that "Mary Had Lotza Sex" (which denomination has that DOGMA?) must have what you admit your church doesn't.

2. While Abion is VERY well able to speak for himself, I think his point is simple: It is natural to think that USUALLY a married couple will have sex (at least once if not more). It's not an UNREASONABLE assumption. BUT of course, that doesn't make it a FACT (and clearly not Dogma!) that therefore a certain couple has had sex. It's a reasonable assumption but it's not substantiation, it doesn't make it a fact (especially in a given, particular case).

3. Again, sister, no one HERE is saying there is biblical proof that She had sex (ever). We're only agreeing with you, agreeing with the obvious, Scripture is silent about this issue after Jesus was born. Yup, a Virgin at the conception of Our Lord.... very likely at His birth.... but Scripture is SILENT about after that. You know that. I know that. Honesty goes a long way.

4. Again, showing that a very new personal OPINION (dogma NOWHERE) of a FEW "Evangelical" type Protestants (especially in the USA) is unsubstantiated does NOTHING - absolutely NOTHING - to show that ergo a Dogma in the Catholic Church is correct. That's just absurd.

Sola Scriptura.

I have yet to meet a Catholic who has a clue what Sola Scripture is. I don't want to derail this thread, but IF you care, check out this: "Sola Scriptura" The Rule of Scripture in the Norming of Dogma Let me know if you have questions but let's not discuss this HERE so as not to derail the topic.



Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Soulx3]

1. NO church known to me has a DOGMA of "Mary Had Lotza Sex." So that dogma need not be substantiated by Scripture. But your church DOES have dogma that She was a perpetual virgin. The dogma on this is YOURS. The apologetic for it is YOURS.

2. Responsibility of support for Dogma belongs to the one who holds that view. It is NOT the role of those who do not hold it to prove it's wrong. Just very basic apologetics. The simple most aspect of debate. IF Joe said, "It's a fact that 15 little purple people eaters now live on Venus" then the "burden of proof" for that lies entirely, wholly with Joe. If it not YOUR task to prove it false (which, obviously, you could not do).

3. You are (unwillingly) giving an amazing example of "pot calling the kettle black."

1. Again, "pot calling kettle black." You admit your church doesn't have scriptural substantiation for its DOGMA of the PVM yet you want some unnamed church that you seem to think has a DOGMA that "Mary Had Lotza Sex" (which denomination has that DOGMA?) must have what you admit your church doesn't.

2. While Abion is VERY well able to speak for himself, I think his point is simple: It is natural to think that USUALLY a married couple will have sex (at least once if not more). It's not an UNREASONABLE assumption. BUT of course, that doesn't make it a FACT (and clearly not Dogma!) that therefore a certain couple has had sex. It's a reasonable assumption but it's not substantiation, it doesn't make it a fact (especially in a given, particular case).

3. Again, sister, no one HERE is saying there is biblical proof that She had sex (ever). We're only agreeing with you, agreeing with the obvious, Scripture is silent about this issue after Jesus was born. Yup, a Virgin at the conception of Our Lord.... very likely at His birth.... but Scripture is SILENT about after that. You know that. I know that. Honesty goes a long way.

4. Again, showing that a very new personal OPINION (dogma NOWHERE) of a FEW "Evangelical" type Protestants (especially in the USA) is unsubstantiated does NOTHING - absolutely NOTHING - to show that ergo a Dogma in the Catholic Church is correct. That's just absurd.

Firstly, no law prohibited a husband and/or wife from practicing a vow of chastity within the marriage, nor required that they have children. And, I actually said that anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse and other children should have scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura. Is that not true? And, what dogma(s) do Protestants have that don't come directly from the Catholic Church, or indirectly through its opposition to the Catholic Church?

Additionally, Joseph was chosen to be the Spouse of Mary, the prophesied Virgin Who conceived God Incarnate and the Messiah by the Holy Spirit, and the Father of Her child. Therefore, from the beginning, their situation was unusual, and neither were the average Jew and Jewess. How many first-century Jewish people thought it likely that the Messiah would be God Incarnate, rather than a powerful human king? Mary was not your average Jewess. She's someone Who was in deep contact with God, more than any woman before and after Her. Therefore, situations that you consider normal or likely among average first-century Jews shouldn't automatically apply to Her and Joseph. God, the Most Holy and Pure One, came down from Heaven, a place where unholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her Body and Spirit had to have already been so Holy, Pure, and Perfect (in part by His doing), as to be Second to God, in order to be a Heaven on Earth for Him.

Secondly, I never said that there are no scriptural verses to prove Mary was a perpetual virgin, but rather explained why Matt. 1:25 in and of itself doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary had or didn't have sexual intercourse after the birth of Jesus, and thus can't be used as proof that they had or didn't have a carnal married life, or children.

The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point. Therefore, if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

Thirdly, I never said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is proven by the fact that the belief that Jesus had half-siblings is unsupported in Scripture. In fact, I concluded the opening post with, "[Note: This in and of itself does not prove that Mary of Joseph was a perpetual virgin.]"

 

[Josiah]

I actually said that anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this

@Soulx3

"Pot calling kettle black." You seem to hold to the view that all NON-CATHOLICS need to have Scriptural substantiation for even just personal theories.... but you admit that the Catholic Church doesn't have that, even for an official, formal, de fide, DOGMA An absurd double standard. You give a perfect example of "pot calling kettle black."

Sola Scriptura.

I doubt that you have any idea of what Sola Scriptura is. But that's an issue for another thread.

She's someone Who was in deep contact with God, more than any woman before and after Her. Therefore, situations that you consider normal or likely among average first-century Jews shouldn't automatically apply to Her and Joseph.

Yeah, in my Catholic days I recall some Catholics assuming that marital sex is sinful, dirty, repulsive, and something holy people would never do. It's a very unbiblical and repulsive view. And one your church doesn't use, just a lot of Catholics do.

But even if your argument that holy, sinless couples don't have sex (what about Adam and Eve?) was biblical and true, that very unbiblical view still would not substantiate that Mary never had sex. You've already admitted that the Bible does not substantiate this de fide DOGMA of your church, it's just you demand that individual non-Christians MUST have biblical substantiation for just a personal opinion (not even close to a dogma, dogma nowhere). "Pot calling kettle black." Catholics do this a lot. A lot.

The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: The angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son (Lk. 1:30), and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin (Lk. 1:34).

You're apologetic mandates that you change the tense of the verb. She said "is" not "will be." Her comment is about the present, not necessarily the future. Everyone is a virgin at some point of their life, often for at least two decades! That reality does not mean that ERGO all people are perpetual virgins. Everyone agrees that She was a virgin at the time of the incarnation... even at the birth of Our Lord. But as you document, there is NOTHING in Scripture that states, "Mary remained a virgin until Her death/undeath." NOTHING. You know it, everyone knows it.

IF Mary misspoke, as you insist, and wrongly thought the incarnation would happen months or years in the future, AFTER Joseph and her would be married (and sex normal and allowed), then your church has been wrong for nearly 2000 years for teaching that the conception of Our Lord happened on Announciation Day. If your church is right about the timing of the conception of Jesus, then Mary saying "is" (present tense) applied to that day, not at the moment of her death. I don't agree that Mary misspoke (using the wrong tense) or that your church has been wrong for centuries about the announciation and conception happened together (or at least on the same day).

Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've known of Her vow, and He never refused Her as a wife because of it.

Your apologetic mandates that Mary assumed the Incarnation would happen in the future, likely AFTER She was married (in our sense). That when Mary said "IS" (Present tense) She actually meant "will be forever." You've got to change the verb tense. Yet your church teaches that the Annunciation and the Conception occurred ON THE SAME DAY, it has always celebrated the Annunciation exactly 9 months before Christmas. WHY? Because it has always held that Mary conceived as the Angel gave the Annunciation. So, Mary was not lying when She said "is" rather than "I will remain so into the future, forever, perpetually." Mary correctly understood the Angel, your church says, she correctly understood what the Angel is declaring, the incarnation happened at that moment (or at least day). And on that day, She was a virgin. She said "is" because she meant "is" - the reality that day. NOTHING here about the situation 30 years in the future; NOTHING here about "perpetual."





.

 

[Albion]

Scripture alone doesn't prove that Jesus's four brothers in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His half-siblings, but rather that they were His kinsmen/relatives.

Sooo, at the least it could be either way, and the theory that they were not his blood brothers is without solid scriptural evidence as you had claimed it is.

 

[Soulx3]

Sooo, at the least it could be either way, and the theory that they were not his blood brothers is without solid scriptural evidence as you had claimed it is.

Again, I said that Scripture doesn't prove that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings, but rather that they were His kinsmen/relatives, and it's the scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies in the opening post that collectively prove they were His cousins.

 

[Albion]

Firstly, no law prohibited a husband and/or wife from practicing a vow of chastity within the marriage, nor required that they have children. And, I actually said that anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this,

No, and it's as I explained earlier. The unusual situation would be to be married and never have sexual intercourse. If that were the case here, it might well be mentioned (and almost certainly would have been).

But if they did practice it like almost all other married couples, there would be no reason for a special mention in Scripture.

especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura. Is that not true?

I'm thinking that Josiah was right that you are not familiar with the meaning of the term.

And, what dogma(s) do Protestants have that don't come directly from the Catholic Church, or indirectly through its opposition to the Catholic Church?

Hmmm. From the Catholic Church or NOT from the Catholic Church, directly or indirectly???

The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: The angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son (Lk. 1:30), and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin (Lk. 1:34). At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph (Matt. 18-19), and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result.

Most of that explanation is obvious and not in dispute, BUT the latter part--("if She [sic] had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, and at any point in the future, She [sic] wouldn't have responded like that at all....") doesn't follow at all.

 

[Josiah]

Sooo, at the least it could be either way, and the theory that they were not his blood brothers is without solid scriptural evidence as you had claimed it is.

Right.

The koine Greek words used in the verse that are usually translated as "brothers" and "sisters" are very broad words, they do NOT mandate "siblings from the same mother" or mandate "cousins." The words are broad. Members of the military referred to each other by the same words. Often residents of the same village used those words for each other. Yes, they are the words usually used for a sibling by the same mother (as a FEW American "Evangelicals" insist) - but it often does not mean that. Yes they are the words often used for a cousin or relative or even close friend and NOT a sibling by the same mother (as some Catholics insist) but actually, but actually they often don't mean that. Just too broad to be helpful in this discussion, either way.

And of course, there are some Catholics never seen to "get"....

1. It IS possible for a married couple to have sex (even just once) and NOT have any children specifically mentioned in the Bible. Happens a lot. EVEN IF the Catholic could prove Mary had no other children (and they clearly can't), that has NOTHING to do with Her being a perpetual virgin. Just incredibly sloppy, bad, irrational apologetics.

2. EVERYONE is a virgin for a period (often two decades or more!), a point when in the present tense they truthfully and accurately state "I am a virgin" or "I do not know a man/woman." But this has nothing to do with the future! Most virgins cease to be such at some point (this should be a "dud" but it alludes a LOT of Catholics). When I was Mary's age, I too would say "I am a virgin." My wife could tell you such is not NOW the case. A virgin once is not proof of being a perpetual virgin. It's just silly, sloppy, bad apologetics.

Most of that explanation is obvious and not in dispute, BUT the latter part--("if She [sic] had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, and at any point in the future, She [sic] wouldn't have responded like that at all....") doesn't follow at all.

Right.

It just means Mary used the wrong verb ("is" instead of "perpetually") and that the Catholic Church has been wrong for nearly 2000 years in teaching that the Annunciation and Incarnation happened on the same day. If the Catholic Church is right, then Mary saying "I AM a virgin" applies to when the conception happened - at that moment or at least that day.


Our Catholic sister (sic) wants all non-Catholics to have biblical substantion even for rare, new, personal theories.... BUT the Catholic Church needs nothing for formal, official, de fide DOGMA. The Greek words in the text don't prove that these people were children of Mary... and also that they don't prove they were not. If she doesn't know what "pot calling kettle black" means, I hope she looks that up.




.

 

[Soulx3]

"Pot calling kettle black." You seem to hold to the view that all NON-CATHOLICS need to have Scriptural substantiation for even just personal theories.... but you admit that the Catholic Church doesn't have that, even for an official, formal, de fide, DOGMA An absurd double standard. You give a perfect example of "pot calling kettle black."

Yeah, in my Catholic days I recall some Catholics assuming that marital sex is sinful, dirty, repulsive, and something holy people would never do. It's a very unbiblical and repulsive view. And one your church doesn't use, just a lot of Catholics do.

But even if your argument that holy, sinless couples don't have sex (what about Adam and Eve?) was biblical and true, that very unbiblical view still would not substantiate that Mary never had sex. You've already admitted that the Bible does not substantiate this de fide DOGMA of your church, it's just you demand that individual non-Christians MUST have biblical substantiation for just a personal opinion (not even close to a dogma, dogma nowhere). "Pot calling kettle black." Catholics do this a lot. A lot.

Again, I never said that there are no scriptural verses to prove Mary was a perpetual virgin, nor that those without sin don't have sexual intercourse because it's sinful, dirty, repulsive, and something holy people would never do.

Re-posting the following unanswered questions from post #29:
...anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse and other children should have scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura. Is that not true? And, what dogma(s) do Protestants have that don't come directly from the Catholic Church, or indirectly through its opposition to the Catholic Church?

You're apologetic mandates that you change the tense of the verb. She said "is" not "will be." Her comment is about the present, not necessarily the future. Everyone is a virgin at some point of their life, often for at least two decades! That reality does not mean that ERGO all people are perpetual virgins. Everyone agrees that She was a virgin at the time of the incarnation... even at the birth of Our Lord. But as you document, there is NOTHING in Scripture that states, "Mary remained a virgin until Her death/undeath." NOTHING. You know it, everyone knows it.

IF Mary misspoke, as you insist, and wrongly thought the incarnation would happen months or years in the future, AFTER Joseph and her would be married (and sex normal and allowed), then your church has been wrong for nearly 2000 years for teaching that the conception of Our Lord happened on Announciation Day. If your church is right about the timing of the conception of Jesus, then Mary saying "is" (present tense) applied to that day, not at the moment of her death. I don't agree that Mary misspoke (using the wrong tense) or that your church has been wrong for centuries about the announciation and conception happened together (or at least on the same day).

Your apologetic mandates that Mary assumed the Incarnation would happen in the future, likely AFTER She was married (in our sense). That when Mary said "IS" (Present tense) She actually meant "will be forever." You've got to change the verb tense. Yet your church teaches that the Annunciation and the Conception occurred ON THE SAME DAY, it has always celebrated the Annunciation exactly 9 months before Christmas. WHY? Because it has always held that Mary conceived as the Angel gave the Annunciation. So, Mary was not lying when She said "is" rather than "I will remain so into the future, forever, perpetually." Mary correctly understood the Angel, your church says, she correctly understood what the Angel is declaring, the incarnation happened at that moment (or at least day). And on that day, She was a virgin. She said "is" because she meant "is" - the reality that day. NOTHING here about the situation 30 years in the future; NOTHING here about "perpetual."

I never said that Mary misspoke, or didn't understand Gabriel's words, nor that the Annunciation and Conception didn't happen on the same day. What I did say is that the scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

The koine Greek words used in the verse that are usually translated as "brothers" and "sisters" are very broad words, they do NOT mandate "siblings from the same mother" or mandate "cousins." The words are broad. Members of the military referred to each other by the same words. Often residents of the same village used those words for each other. Yes, they are the words usually used for a sibling by the same mother (as a FEW American "Evangelicals" insist) - but it often does not mean that. Yes they are the words often used for a cousin or relative or even close friend and NOT a sibling by the same mother (as some Catholics insist) but actually, but actually they often don't mean that. Just too broad to be helpful in this discussion, either way.

It's the scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies in the opening post that collectively prove Jesus's four kinsmen/relatives (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His cousins.

 

[Soulx3]

The unusual situation would be to be married and never have sexual intercourse. If that were the case here, it might well be ( and almost certainly would have been) mentioned.

But if they did practice it like almost all other married couples, there would be no reason for a special mention in Scripture.

Joseph was chosen to be the Spouse of Mary, the prophesied Virgin Who conceived God Incarnate and the Messiah by the Holy Spirit, and the Father of Her child. Therefore, from the beginning, their situation was unusual, and neither were the average Jew and Jewess. How many first-century Jewish people thought it likely that the Messiah would be God Incarnate, rather than a powerful human king? Mary was someone in deep contact with God, more than any woman before and after Her, and this situations that you consider normal or likely among average first-century Jews shouldn't automatically apply to Her and Joseph. God, the Most Holy and Pure One, came down from Heaven, a place where unholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her Body and Spirit had to have already been so Holy, Pure, and Perfect (in part by His doing), as to be Second to God, in order to be a Heaven on Earth for Him.

The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

Hmmm. From the Catholic Church or NOT from the Catholic Church, directly or indirectly???

This question was directed at Josiah, but you're welcome to answer it as well: What dogma(s) do Protestants have that don't come directly from the Catholic Church, or indirectly through its opposition to the Catholic Church?

 

[Albion]

Joseph was chosen to be the Spouse of Mary, the prophesied Virgin Who conceived God Incarnate and the Messiah by the Holy Spirit, and the Father of Her child. Therefore, from the beginning, their situation was unusual, and neither were the average Jew and Jewess.

True, but that doesn't bear upon the issue we were discussing. Mary has found favor with God, she's going to conceive, and etc.--this does not imply everlasting virginity. We may describe the two of them m as an "unusual" couple, but that fact doesn't add up to perpetual virginity or anything like it.

God, the Most Holy and Pure One, came down from Heaven, a place where unholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her Body and Spirit had to have already been so Holy, Pure, and Perfect (in part by His doing), as to be Second to God, in order to be a Heaven on Earth for Him.

Have we switched to discussing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

This question was directed at Josiah, but you're welcome to answer it as well: What dogma(s) do Protestants have that don't come directly from the Catholic Church, or indirectly through its opposition to the Catholic Church?

Okay, but you'll first have to refine your question for me. For example, by "Catholics" Church are you referring to the undivided church of the first centuries from which almost all denominations are descended, and that's generally understood? Or, do you mean to refer to the Papal Church in particular? And what is it that you mean by referring to "directly" as opposed to "indirectly?" And then also, what do you mean to include by using the word "Protestant?"

She thought it'd occur through sexual intercourse with Joseph, and if She had any intention of having sexual intercourse with him at any point, there was no reason for Her to mention that She's a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

That guess isn't credible. Mary asked how it could be that she would conceive AND THEN GAVE THE REASON for her doubt as being that she had not known a man. The archangel answered that the power of The Most High is what would come upon her and accomplish it. Joseph was not the cause and, further, the notion that Mary had taken some vow of perpetual chastity is completely without foundation.

 

[Josiah]

Re-posting the following unanswered questions from post #29:
...anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura. Is that not true?

@Soulx3


Again,

1. I doubt you have a clue what Sola Scriptura is. But let's move on.

2. You have offered not one Scripture that says ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. We all know that. I agree, the tiny few American Evangelicals who hold to a personal opinion about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born are exactly like the Catholic Church on this as it also has NOTHING WHATSOEVER in Scripture about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. Same/same.

3. Both the Catholic Church in their official, formal, de fide DOGMA.... and those few "Evangelicals" in their own personal individual opinions have nothing in Scripture to substantiate their views. Thus, your whining about how wrong it is for some "evangelical" to hold his opinion without biblical substantiation.... while supporting that your church about its official, formal, de fide DOGMA without biblical substantiation.... well, it's just an amazing example of "pot calling kettle black."

What I did say is that Gabriel telling Mary that She was chosen to conceive a Son, and Her asking how will that happen when She is a virgin, were exchanged before he explained it would occur by and with the Holy Spirit.

Regardless of whether She ever understood HOW the incarnation would happen (and if so, when), you keep pointing out that She said that as she spoke on the Day of the Annunciation and Incarnation, she said she "IS" a virgin. "I know not a man." Present tense. Now. Today. As she spoke. You keep pointing out, She said NOTHING AT ALL about whether this would be true in the future.

Everyone (not just Mary)... in fact every homo sapiens who ever lived.... everyone could say what Mary said at a point of time in their lives. It's just illogical and absurd to insist that if one is EVER a virgin, a virgin at some point, ergo they must be a perpetual virgin, they will always be a virgin. That's just absurd. She did not say, "How can this be because I will NEVER know a man?" She didn't say that, did She? You have NOTHING - not anything at all - in Scripture to support this formal, official, de fide DOGMA. That doesn't concern you, only that that there a tiny few non-Catholics that hold that the Bible says She DID have sex and that too is never stated in Scripture. Pot calling kettle black.

This means there was a moment where Mary knew She was chosen to conceive a child, but didn't yet know how that will happen, and that moment is when She essentially asked, "How will this happen when I don't have sexual intercourse with Joseph?" So, for that moment, which, again, was just before Gabriel explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit, She thought it'd occur through sexual intercourse with Joseph, and if She had any intention of having sexual intercourse with him at any point, there was no reason for Her to mention that She's a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

You contradict yourself. Yes, it is likely She assumed that the Incarnation would require intercourse. And so She says "I know not a man." PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. There's nothing in the text that indicates She wrongly thought this would happen years in the future, nothing to indicate that the Catholic Church has been wrong for 2000 years in teaching that the Annunciation and Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY. She used the present tense because She thought intercourse was needed and "I know not a man." On March 25, 1 BC (or whenever that was). It would be weird if She thought the incarnation would happen 27 years in the future and say "I know not a man." She'd more likely say, "I will never know a man" or "I am an perpetual virgin."

On March 25, 2015, I could state "I know not a woman." That would be correct. But it's just silly to insist that ERGO I'm a perpetual virgin (hear my wife chuckle in the background). "I know not a man" is not the same as "I will never know a man."

You keep pointing out She spoke in the present tense. For biblical substantiation of your church's DOGMA, you need a verse that states that She was a virgin PERPETUALLY, forever, until and beyond Her death (or assumption into heaven, whatever you believe). That's what the word "PERPETUAL" means.

It's the scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies in the opening post that collectively prove Jesus's four kinsmen/relatives (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His cousins.

Even if true, that's entirely irrelevant. Your church's DOGMA is not "Mary Had No Other Children" it's "Mary Never Had Sex." Unless you hold that VERY instance of intercourse results in a child specifically named in the Bible, then the two views are unrelated. Third Grade biology: It IS possible to have sex but not have children named in the Bible (or even at all). I know several couples - in their 70's and 80's - who never had any children. That reality does not prove that ergo they both are perpetual virgins. Come on.


Blessings, sister.



.

 

[Soulx3]

Again,

1. I doubt you have a clue what Sola Scriptura is. But let's move on.

2. You have offered not one Scripture that says ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. We all know that. I agree, the tiny few American Evangelicals who hold to a personal opinion about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born are exactly like the Catholic Church on this as it also has NOTHING WHATSOEVER in Scripture about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. Same/same.

3. Both the Catholic Church in their official, formal, de fide DOGMA.... and those few "Evangelicals" in their own personal individual opinions have nothing in Scripture to substantiate their views. Thus, your whining about how wrong it is for some "evangelical" to hold his opinion without biblical substantiation.... while supporting that your church about its official, formal, de fide DOGMA without biblical substantiation.... well, it's just an amazing example of "pot calling kettle black."

Again, I offered Lk. 1:34 for why Mary is a perpetual virgin, and we're currently debating it. Remember? And, whether or not you accept the scriptural evidence the Church has for the perpetual virginity of Mary, is it not true that anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse and children must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura?

Regardless of whether She ever understood HOW the incarnation would happen (and if so, when), you keep pointing out that She said that as she spoke on the Day of the Annunciation and Incarnation, she said she "IS" a virgin. "I know not a man." Present tense. Now. Today. As she spoke. You keep pointing out, She said NOTHING AT ALL about whether this would be true in the future.

Everyone (not just Mary)... in fact every homo sapiens who ever lived.... everyone could say what Mary said at a point of time in their lives. It's just illogical and absurd to insist that if one is EVER a virgin, a virgin at some point, ergo they must be a perpetual virgin, they will always be a virgin. That's just absurd. She did not say, "How can this be because I will NEVER know a man?" She didn't say that, did She? You have NOTHING - not anything at all - in Scripture to support this formal, official, de fide DOGMA. That doesn't concern you, only that that there a tiny few non-Catholics that hold that the Bible says She DID have sex and that too is never stated in Scripture. Pot calling kettle black.

You contradict yourself. Yes, it is likely She assumed that the Incarnation would require intercourse. And so She says "I know not a man." PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. There's nothing in the text that indicates She wrongly thought this would happen years in the future, nothing to indicate that the Catholic Church has been wrong for 2000 years in teaching that the Annunciation and Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY. She used the present tense because She thought intercourse was needed and "I know not a man." On March 25, 1 BC (or whenever that was). It would be weird if She thought the incarnation would happen 27 years in the future and say "I know not a man." She'd more likely say, "I will never know a man" or "I am an perpetual virgin."

On March 25, 2015, I could state "I know not a woman." That would be correct. But it's just silly to insist that ERGO I'm a perpetual virgin (hear my wife chuckle in the background). "I know not a man" is not the same as "I will never know a man."

You keep pointing out She spoke in the present tense. For biblical substantiation of your church's DOGMA, you need a verse that states that She was a virgin PERPETUALLY, forever, until and beyond Her death (or assumption into heaven, whatever you believe). That's what the word "PERPETUAL" means.

I'm not contradicting myself. The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

Even if true, that's entirely irrelevant. Your church's DOGMA is not "Mary Had No Other Children" it's "Mary Never Had Sex." Unless you hold that VERY instance of intercourse results in a child specifically named in the Bible, then the two views are unrelated. Third Grade biology: It IS possible to have sex but not have children named in the Bible (or even at all). I know several couples - in their 70's and 80's - who never had any children. That reality does not prove that ergo they both are perpetual virgins. Come on.

Again, I never said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is proven by the fact that the belief that Jesus had half-siblings is unsupported in Scripture. In fact, I concluded the opening post with, "[Note: This in and of itself does not prove that Mary of Joseph was a perpetual virgin.]" I also never said that people who have sexual intercourse but never children are perpetual virgins. I responded to a paragraph in a post of yours where you were acknowledging that the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi/brothers) used in Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 doesn't indicate that Jesus's four brothers were His siblings, nor any other type of kinsman/relative, just that they were kinsmen/relatives. I said it's the scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies in the opening post that collectively prove Jesus's four kinsmen/relatives (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His cousins.

 

[Albion]

Again, I offered Lk. 1:34 for why Mary is a perpetual virgin, and we're currently debating it. Remember? And, whether or not you accept the scriptural evidence the Church has for the perpetual virginity of Mary, is it not true that anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura?

Excuse me for interrupting, but you've done this kind of thing several times now.

Luke 1:34 does NOT say that Mary was a perpetual virgin! It says that she asked the archangel how it could be that she would conceive when she had never known a man. And Gabriel replied that the Holy One would make it happen.

There's no "perpetual virgin" involved.

The notion that some alleged miracle can simply be postulated by you and then it's up to everyone else to find evidence that the unnatural event did NOT really happen or else it is thereby proven true...is nonsense. The burden of proving that an exception to the natural order actually occurred is up to you, and you don't have anything other than conjecture.