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

It's nice to know two peoplled can disagree agreeably. Unfortunately, I am not able to be as complimentary towards his argument from last round. DROPPED ARGUMENTS: My opponent didn't respond to two of my main arguments from last round. This resulted in them being "dropped". Specifically, they were: 1. The one concerning the sripture passage about Jesus leaving his mother in the care of John (instead of a family member) and, 2. The piece of historical evidence named the Protoevangelium of James. Written in 145 a. d. , this document says that Mary was a consecrated virgin, and Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to be Mary's guardian. And of course, in those days, the only way a man and woman could live together is if they were married. According to Debate. org, a "drop" is "An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round. " [4] With this in mind, both of those arguments are now to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate. Previously Con said: " There are no scriptural problems, and the scripture even supports, Mary conceiving as a virgin, but there is no scriptural evidence at all that Mary remained a virgin after the conception of Jesus. " My response: It's not accurate to say there's no scriptural evidence supporting the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. I just provided some last round. Con said: "But before we dive in to the scriptures, I would like to take a brief moment to address the main points of pro's argument. Pro gives an interesting anecdote about the interpretation of certain ambiguous statements in a book. The punch line, whilst not explicitly stated, is simple: the Catholic Church offers the most clear and correct interpretation of scripture (if this is not the case, please clarify). Why? The Catholic faith was founded by those who knew the apostles that wrote the New Testament, so therefore it possesses greater knowledge on what is meant by vague Bible verses. However, it is simply not true that because the Catholic Church claims the lineage of St. Peter, it possesses any mechanism of interpretation not available to Protestants or members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or any other denomination. In other words, everyone has access to the same evidence and sources. " My response: Although it's true that everyone has access to the same historical evidence, it remains to be seen if my opponent is going to take advantage of such evidence. So far in this debate, only I have done so. Con went on to say: "I will now clarify my standards for interpretation of difficult scripture. " He then explained the importance of looking at the original languages of the Bible in order to interpret it correctly. I, Pro, have no problem with that. Con then said: "This example illustrates a simple rule: interpret the Bible in light of itself and historical sources. This is the most logical way to interpret the scriptures, not trusting in one fallible human being to always give the right answer. " My response: Again, that's a good idea. I just hope that at some point my opponent will take his own advice and consider some historical sources. And of course, if there was an infallible man, then we should listen to him as well. But that's a different debate for a different time. Con stated: With this method in mind, let's now turn to Mary's perpetual virginity. The passage my opponent slightly but significantly misquotes is Luke 1:34. My opponent quotes Mary as merely saying "How shall this be? " but the full quote is "How shall this be since I am a virgin? " Clearly, Mary has interpreted the comment to mean that she will conceive before consummating her marriage. " My response: There's no reason to believe Mary thought that. She was already married, and certainly knew how babies came about. The angel didn't say she was pregnant already, so if Mary and Joseph were planning on having a traditional marriage, there would be no reason to ask how she was going to become pregnant. Con said: "In all the examples pro cited, the woman was already married rather than being just betrothed. Mary did not say "How shall this be, as I will remain a virgin forever? " but cited her current virginity. " My response: Even IF Mary was only engaged, the angel didn't say she was already pregnant. He said she was GOING TO BE pregnant. But the fact of the matter is: MARY WAS ALREADY MARRIED: "For those who are not convinced "betrothed" equals "married" for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the "annunciation" of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph"s discovery of Mary"s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still "betrothed. " Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was "with child," he determined he would "send her away privately" (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged? Further, the angel then tells Joseph: Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24). Notice, Joseph took Mary "his wife," indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be "betrothed. " "Betrothed" is obviously much more than "engaged. " Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be "betrothed" (see Luke 2:5). " [5] Con asked: Also, I would like examples of other women in that culture that decided to remain a virgin in marriage, as this seems very odd to me. I have never heard of any evidence suggesting it common for persons of that culture to abstain from sex during marriage. My response: Such a thing would be rare in this culture too, but that doesn't mean it doesn't ever happen. It was rare in those days for God to become man, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen one time. Con said: "Now, let's look at the Biblical evidence against Perpetual Virginity. In Matthew 1:24-25 the Bible states, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. " To "know" someone is a euphemism for having sex with said person, so this clearly implies Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus' birth," My response: That is not accurate. I can give you several examples from the Bible where the word "until" does NOT imply something happened after a certain point in time. For example: "2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died? ) 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes? ) 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ"s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end. ")" [6] So we can easily see that there's a distinct biblical pattern where "until" only refers to the tome BEFORE the "until", not AFTER it. Con said: "We also know, thanks to Mark 6:3, that Jesus had at least six siblings, again debunking perpetual virginity. " My response: If we look at the parallel passage in Matthew 13:55, we get some light shed on the subject. In it we see: "Matthew 13:55 -- Jesus at Nazareth -- carpenter"s son -- mother named Mary -- brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas -- sisters "with us" Matthew 27: 55 -- The Crucifixion "Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. " This "Mary" is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matt 13:55. Matthew 28: 1 -- The Resurrection "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb. " This "other Mary" certainly corresponds to the mother of James and Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus. " [7] So now that Con's arguments have been refuted, let's move on to: More biblical evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary: "Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. " This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration. " [5] More Historical Evidence on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Hilary of Poitiers: "If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary"s sons and not those taken from Joseph"s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26"27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A. D. 354]). " [8] Sources: 4. . http://www.debate.org... 5. . http://www.catholic.com... 6. . http://www.catholic.com... 7. . http://www.biblicalcatholic.com... 8. . http://www.catholic.com...