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

. I appreciate him choosing this debate subject. DEBATE RESOLUTION Before I begin my final round, I think it's best if I take a moment to remind everyone what the resolution is, and what it's not. I will capitalize for emphasis: The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is REASONABLE based on scripture AND historical evidence. The resolution is NOT: "I can prove without a shadow of a doubt Mary was ever-virgin. " The question before us is, could a reasonable person come to believe in this doctrine considering scripture readings and the overall consensus of the early Church? I think we've seen the answer is "Yes". CON ADMITS HIS ERROR I appreciate my opponent forfeiting a conduct point and asking the voters to vote for me. Admitting when you're wrong is never easy. Unfortunately, I noticed you made another error when it comes to what I said. When I pointed out that you used Wikipedia, I didn't say Wikipedia couldn't be trusted. I simply knew you would accept me using it since you too had used it. CON'S FLIP FLOP Originally, Con denigrated the historical evidence (Protoevangelium of James) for three reasons: 1. We don't know who the author was. 2. It's not part of the Bible. 3. It was written long after the events happened. HOWEVER, once I refuted those arguments, he changed his tune, and now is solely focusing on the author issue. But again, we have no idea who wrote Hebrews also. MORE FLIP FLOPS FROM CON ORIGINALLY, in round four, Con tried to say that after the crucifixion, Mary lived with a number of people (including her alleged other children). He even said her other children were possibly disciples. BUT NOW, He admits he was wrong to claim that Mary lived with anyone other than John. He even NOW doubts if. her alleged otherchildren were disciples. Regardless, nothing changes the fact that it would've been scandalous to put anyone other than her children in charge of her IF they existed. .. And Jesus knew it. Last round, Con said: "When I stated that pro "dropped arguments," I used the term more liberally than my opponent. Essentially, I stated that whilst my opponent did acknowledge the existence of the argument, he failed to provide the necessary evidence to keep his case afloat. Pro's entire case hinges on Mary's continued virginity even after Jesus' birth. As this is not once explicitly stated in scripture, unlike God becoming flesh, and there are no examples pro can come up with of this ever being done in Jewish culture, it is not reasonable to believe this to be the case. " My response: MARY WASN'T THE ONLY TEMPLE VIRGIN Despite the fact that I illustrated how just because something is rare, it doesn't follow that it didn't happen, Com still for some reason insists I give him evidence of other people who lived the life Mary is described as having in the Protoevangelium of James. Not wanting to disappoint, I am happy to oblige him: "There are, however, three Scriptural accounts that are used by Catholics to demonstrate that there were special women who ministered at the Temple complex. Exodus 38:8 mentions women who "watch (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle. " The second is in 1 Samuel: "Now Heli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all Israel: and how they lay with the women that waited (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle:" (1 Samuel 2:22, D-R) In both of the verses above, Hebrew verb for "watch" and "waited" is the same. It is the Hebrew word צָבָא, which is the same verb used to described the liturgical activity of the Levites (see Num 4:23; 8:24). This corresponds to the Latin translation in the Clementine Vulgate, which relates that these women "observabant" at the temple doors " another liturgical reading. The third and final reference to these liturgical females is in 2 Maccabees: And the virgins also that were shut up, came forth, some to {High Priest} Onias, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows. And all holding up their hands towards heaven, made supplication. (2 Macc 3:19-20) Here are virgins that are shut up. In the Greek it is "^5;O85; ^8;P50; _4;^5;`4;^0;_4;_5;^9;_3;`3;`4;_9;_3; `4;Q82;_7; `0;^5;`1;_2;^1;_7;`9;_7;" or "the shut up ones of the virgins. " In this passage the Holy Spirit refers not to all the virgins of Jerusalem, but to a special set of virgins, that is, those virgins who had the privilege and right to be in the presence of the High Priest and address him. It"s rather ridiculous to think that young girls would have general access to the High Priest of Israel. However, if these virgins had a special liturgical role at the Temple, it becomes clear that they would both address the High Priest Onias and would also be featured as an essential part of the intense supplication in the Temple at this moment of crisis. There is further testimony of temple virgins in the traditions of the Jews. In the Mishnah, it is recorded that there were 82 consecrated virgins who wove the veil of the Temple: "The veil of the Temple was a palm-length in width. It was woven with seventy-two smooth stitches each made of twenty-four threads. The length was of forty cubits and the width of twenty cubits. Eighty-two virgins wove it. Two veils were made each year and three hundred priests were needed to carry it to the pool" (Mishna Shekalim 8, 5-6). " [14] For their protection, 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. Last round Con said: "Pro again falls back on his beloved "How shall this be" verse, again failing to note the reasoning of Mary-"since I am a virgin? " As I have previously argued, due to the phrasing of this reply Mary clearly interpreted the angel's decree as if she would be pregnant very soon, ie before the wedding ceremony. " My response: Again, Mary was betrothed, and knew where babies came from. Therefore, someone telling her she would have a child wouldn't have surprised her IF she was planning on having kids. Last round Con said: "After I claimed last round that Pro attempted to show that the Mary in Matthew 13:55 is not Jesus' mother, pro stated that that isn't in fact the case. I am grateful that he conceded the point, though it seemed as though this was in fact that which needed to be demonstrated. The verse clearly and explicitly states that Jesus had brothers. As pro has conceded that the mentioned Mary is Jesus' mother, his point about other Marys in other parts of the Bible is completely irrelevant. " My response: BROTHER DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN SIBLING: "Lot, for example, is called Abraham"s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham"s brother (Gen. 11:26"28), he was actually Abraham"s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21"22). The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13"14). " [15] Also, My reference to the other Marys was not irrelevant. The other Mary was named the mother of James and Joseph, so clearly they weren't the children of the Virgin Mary. ON ONAN I think a distinction needs to be made here. Onan was supposed to provide a first born son. Joseph was under no such situation. CON HELPS MY CASE My opponent mentions how the Bible calls the Apostle John Mary's "son", but. how he is NOT her biological son. But hat makes my case for me. This shows that sometimes the Bible uses "son" to mean something else other than biological male child. Last round, concerning historical quotes, Con said: "Pro then proceeds to quote Christians not from the time of Christ who claim Mary was an eternal virgin. These quotes contain no evidence and instead merely confirm a fact: the Catholic Church believes in Mary's perpetual virginity. Both of these quotes were from at least a century after the Virgin Birth. " My response: The quotes are absolutely historical evidence of what the very first Christians believed. And remember, those who lived closer to the time of the Apostles can be trusted more to understand what they taught. It baffles me Con tires to argue against these quotes based on them being from 100 years after the resurrection. I say that because MANY of the doctrines Con believe we're never believed by any Christian for 1,500 years after the resurrection. The doctrines of Sola Scripptura, Faith Alone, Eternal Security, and the Rapture are just a few. IT'S NOT JUST A CATHOLIC THING The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity was accepted by the founders of Protestantism as well. Keep in mind, these people denied the authority of the Church, and said all doctrines must come from the Bible. alone, and yet still accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary: Martin Luther "Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. " {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } "Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. " Notice, this quote is from 1539,. .. some 22 years after he began the Protestant reformation in 1517. John Calvin: Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} "[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid. , vol. I, p. 107}" [16] SUMMARY OF DEBATE 1. My opponent conceded he dropped some of my arguments, and has told the voters to vote for me on conduct points. So conduct points should go to me (Pro). 2. This means some of my arguments are unchallenged, and therefore presumed true. Also, the resolution called for historical evidence to be. provided, but Con has failed to do so. While on the other hand, I have refuted all of my opponent's, and provided historical evidence. So argument points should go to me. Again, thanks Con for such an interesting debate! Sources: 14. . http://taylormarshall.com... 15. . http://www.catholic.com... 16. . http://www.freerepublic.com...