God has provided proficient evidence that Mary, mother of Christ, remained a virgin until her death

My opponent concedes my first and second positive arguments **1st. Positive Argument **– The belief that Mary remained a virgin until death was a staple belief system throughout the Church, despite contrary sounding scriptures. **2nd Positive Argument **– The Majority (of the confirmed Church fathers by God) and the most powerful apologists within the early Church Fathers Believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity. He concedes these two positive arguments… with a point… they were sorely mistaken. At this point I need only prove they were NOT mistaken. In addition my opponent affirms 1 scriptural argument to support his view point. That brothers and sisters are stated clearly in the Bible. I also concede that my opponent does indeed read those scriptures correctly. It does in both the Greek and English state brothers and sisters. His source does make note of contrary arguments but does academic injustice to not point to the "source" of that argument that led the entirety of the early church to a belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin and many of the protestant fathers as well. This source points out 2 contrary view points: 1. The Catholic Church says they were cousins. 2. It details a remote belief that Joseph had a whole other family. It mentions the first in passing and does nothing to explain why anyone, much less the entire early church, would believe that. It merely quotes scriptures and makes allusions that such a belief is nonsensical and not worth pursuing. It then proceeds to butcher a belief that is held by very very few people in the church (Joseph had a past family) at large which also it rightly points out has only 1 source as support. I again want to restate my positive arguments: **1st. Positive Argument **– The belief that Mary remained a virgin until death was a staple belief system throughout the Church, despite contrary sounding scriptures. **2nd Positive Argument **– The Majority (of the confirmed Church fathers by God) and the most powerful apologists within the early Church Fathers Believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Though my opponent does point to the similar sounding nature of these arguments they are different in implication if not so much in systematic understanding. The first shows that the Hellenistic world saturated with Judeo-Christian viewpoint had no problem believing this resolution despite what my opponent's source would consider "undeniable" evidence. The second positive argument shows that the majority of the Authority, leadership, scholars and apologists had no problem believing this. My opponent's refutation has a deductive fallacy: 1.The word of God is infallible. 2.The word of God uses the word for brothers and sisters. 3.Jesus Had brothers and sisters. 4.There is no evidence Joseph was married to anyone else. Conclusion Mary could not have remained a virgin. He also asserts that one must draw this conclusion, as the word of God is infallible. I COMPLETELY agree with my opponent's assertion that the Word of God is infallible. I still cannot draw that conclusion though. There is more information needed. Again lets look at the first contrary viewpoint my opponent's source alludes to but passes off. It is believed by the Majority of the Christian Church (Catholic, Anglican, Methodist etc, most non "Calvinist" churches) today that Mary was perpetually a virgin and that the Brothers and sisters in scriptures were indeed cousins. Now the information my opponent's source left out: 1.In the Semitic culture of Moses day through Jesus' day cousins were indeed called brothers. In fact near relatives were also called brother. 2.The entire early church knew this. 3.ST Jerome in 383 A.D. wrote an entire letter detailing this out, when some person with very little knowledge of the scriptures brought this up at that time. I will quote it here for all as very few people read the sources. 4.Gen 14:14 & Gen 29 also shows that the Semitic culture used brother to refer to near relatives. (St. Jerome - Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 16 [A.D. 383]). http://www.newadvent.org... "But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. Genesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen. And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot. Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew near and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. Genesis 29:11 And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son. Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, Genesis 29:15 Laban said unto Jacob. Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall your wages be. And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, Genesis 31:36-37 What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two. * ** * * * This is scripture. Scripture is infallible. It is irrelevant if the Greek had a word for cousins. The New Testament writers wrote to a Greek audience that understood the Semitic cultural concept. This cultural concept can be shown "undeniably" in Genesis. To summarize: 1.The entire Greek Speaking Early Church believed Mary remained a virgin. 2.The early church fathers believed this and even defended it. 3.The early church supported a better scriptural interpretation of cousin rather than blood brothers. 4.The scriptures of Genesis have proven the cultural system of such language usage. 5.The New Testament was translating a Semitic language and word usage into Greek. 6.Even the protestant fathers held that Mary remained a virgin until death; Martin Luther, John Wesley, John Calvin.. all knowing both sides of the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... "John Wesley wrote to a Roman Catholic, as regarding what a Protestant may declare: "I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." ****** ***** ****** I have no problem with the infallibility of the Bible. I in fact endorse it. I do however believe in the fallibility of the people interpreting the Bible. I believe that I have shown that my opponent's source shows NOT a lack of scriptural belief or understanding but a lack of knowledge of ALL scriptures. As well my opponent's source did not understand the argument behind the Historic interpretation the Church has held. My opponents source also does not have a knowledge of the Semitic culture. I also believe I have shown this conclusively.