The doctrine of Marys perpetual virginity is reasonable based on scripture and historical evidence.

To clarify, I never made the claim that you trusted Wikepedia; I said " Pro, in an attempt to gain sourcing superiority, implied that he is only using Wikipedia since I'(have) no problem with the credibility of Wikipedia. org. '" Now, I would like to provide something that is long overdue: the definition of "reasonable. " "Reasonable: Based on good sense. " [1] This is from the Oxford dictionary, so I am sure my opponent will accept its validity. So, this means that the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity must be based on good sense. Is this the case? Clearly, if the doctrine is correct, Mary must have intended to remain a virgin throughout marriage. Pro has (finally) attempted to provide historical examples of these "virgin marriages. " He claims that Mary planned to be a temple virgin. Whilst there are well documented examples of these temple virgins, there is a major hole in his case. His argument for why these virgins were actually married is that "a temple virgin may need a guardian. Of course, the only way back then for a man and woman to live together back then was to be married. " This flimsy case is based on speculation, and has no source attached. Guessing that someone "may need a guardian" and then speculating that the guardian would be her husband simply holds no water as far as evidence goes. The reason why no source was given is that these virgins were virgins in the strictest sense of the word: they were unmarried. Therefore, pro has failed to provide a single historical example of any woman in Jewish culture that was married yet remained a virgin. Why is this a problem? If I claim that my cremated dog had two hearts, you wouldn't believe me because there is no dog with two hearts. As Mary's virgin marriage is not explicitly stated in any canonical book of the Bible, and no historical examples of it exist, it is not reasonable to believe in this doctrine. This is perhaps the most powerful argument against the doctrine. Now, my opponent claims the Protoevangelium of James is reliable. As I have previously demonstrated, the book claims to be written by James and is not, claims to be from Jesus' time and is not, and is not part of the Bible FOR THOSE REASONS. I have not flip-flopped at all on this issue. Pro has not rebutted my arguments at all. The crux of the matter is simple: the book makes multiple historical claims that are demonstrably false in a dishonest manner and therefore cannot be trusted. Pro has failed to demonstrate the veracity of this book and has failed to rebut my evidence of its unreliability. Hebrews makes no demonstrably false claims as to its authorship, so his argument is a poor analogy. Now, lets look again at the passage from John. Whilst I provided a reliable source to back my argument that Jesus' decision was not only permitted but legitimate, pro provides no such evidence when he claims "it would've been scandalous" for Jesus to entrust Mary to John. Therefore, his claim should be rejected as baseless. I have already talked extensively about the "but how shall this be, since I am a virgin? " verse, so I won't go over it again. Pro makes no substantial claims about it this round, and I know you have already read what I have to say on the subject. Now, let's look again at Matthew 13:55. Pro claims that brother can mean "brethren" or "kinsmen. " Pro cites Deuteronomy 23:7 uses the word brother, but it doesn't. "Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. " Similarly, the verses from Nehemiah and Jeremiah do not use the word brother. Now, let's look at the other examples. In Genesis 14:14, Lot is referred to as "kinsman," not brother. In Genesis 29:15, the word "relative" is used. I do not know if all of these misleading examples were included with knowledge of their actual content or not, but I will assume that it is simply a massive error. I would encourage anyone quoting the Bible to actually read the relevant passage before posting a misquote in the internet. I prefer not to make ad hominem attacks. Note that in Matthew 13:55, the word brother is explicitly used. Pro has failed in a spectacular way to address this verse. Finally, let's look at a major problem with many of pro's arguments. Pro has cited several Christians as believing in Mary's perpetual virginity. I am looking not for what Christians long after the time of Christ believed but what the truth is. Citing primary sources is always preferable to citing the views of persons who often have no more evidence than we do. Many early church fathers, such as Tertullian, Helvidius and Eunomius of Cyzicus, rejected the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity. [2] However, this by no means proves that the Doctrine is false. Unlike a Catholic, I do not base my beliefs on what others, such as the Pope or even Martin Luther, believe, but what the facts state. There is an inherently vicious psychological dependency involved when one abandons thinking for themselves and instead accepts another's views without evidence. Summary 1. Conduct- I have conceded this point to pro. 2. Sources- Pro cited the Protoevangelium of James, which I have shown to be unreliable. Pro has repeatedly and viciously misquoted the Bible, as I have shown in this argument. Therefore, this point should go to me. 3. Better Arguments- I have demonstrated the Bible doesn't support the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity, and documents Jesus having siblings. I have also explained that, since no Jewish "Virgin Marriage" was ever recorded, it is unreasonable to assume that Mary was engaged in a "Virgin Marriage. " Therefore, I have rebutted the resolution and have better arguments. Again, thank you very much for this interesting the debate. I would be interested in engaging with you in another topic sometime, and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Sources 1- . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2- . http://en.wikipedia.org...