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

My opponent has made a lengthy argument with many interesting points. Before we get to those, I will first deal with the dropped arguments that I didn't have space for last time. As a side note, the citation made by my opponent was not created by anyone with official DDO credentials and can therefore be considered at best advisory. In John, the disciples "took (Mary) into their own home." There are a number of reasons for this. Namely, with considerable persecution going on, it only made sense to stick together, as there is power in numbers. It is also possible that Jesus' siblings were among the disciples, neutralizing my opponent's point. Secondly, the Protoevangelium of James is unreliable. It was not written by James at all [1] and is apocryphal, and was written more than 110 years after Jesus' death. Next, we must address my opponent dropping arguments. My opponent has not cited a single historical example of a "virgin marriage" in Jewish culture and has therefore failed to answer a simple question: if Mary were planning a "virgin marriage", which, as far as my opponent has shown, never happened in Jewish culture, why wasn't this more clearly stated? Indeed, for a doctrine so integral to the faith according to Catholicism, it is remarkable that the only evidence is at best speculative and at worst utterly inaccurate, but certainly not clear cut. We need historical evidence that this was practiced! Alrighty, now for the big point of pro's argument: Mary was already married. This is technically true, though not in the modern sense of the term marriage. Marriage in the Jewish culture was arranged by the parents, and as soon as the bride price was paid, the couple was considered married, though the ceremony and consummation wouldn't take place for about a year. [2] Therefore, Mary and Joseph were technically married, but the more accurate term would be "betrothed" or "engaged." In this context, the translation of "divorce" is more accurately translated "set her aside," and pro's objection to the normal translation is moot. "Taking his wife" basically means enacting the marriage ceremony. The confusion of the wording has been resolved by historical context, rendering this argument moot. Now, let's look at pro's interpretation of until. He cites examples of the word used in different contexts and mistakenly concludes that is the only way in which the word is used. There is a big difference in using the word until in "until the day she died" and "until Jesus was born," and it doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference. One use of until is in an indefinite context and one is in a definite context. Clearly, pro has falsely concluded that the word until is used in only one context, which is false. Now, pro claims that "Mary" in Matthew 13:55 is not Jesus' mother. However, the text explicitly says she is. "Isn't (Jesus) the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"- Matthew 13:55. As you can see by reading the verse, the Mary is clearly Jesus' mother. With none of my points refuted, we now turn to pro's case. Claiming that Mary is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit" is misleading. The language used is that of procreation, not necessarily marriage. In any case, this has nothing to do with her virginity. Finally, you quote another commentator claiming that Jesus' entrusting of his mother's safety to his disciple proves his siblings weren't of Mary. This is also a non sequitur as the passage is clearly metaphorical. In conclusion, pro's points are based on poor interpretation, whilst mine have not been refuted. As pro has the BOP, it's not looking too good for him. Sources 1- http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 2- http://www.gotquestions.org...