Wait! I see a hole lifting in the fog!

The Catholic Church contends that Mary had no other children after bearing Jesus.

"The Blessed Virgin had no child other than Jesus. Such is, and has ever been, the faith of the Church, whom Christ has promised to assist till the end of time" (Any Questions?, p. 63). [ I must be careful to point out that this teaching WAS NOT the teaching of the church in the days of the Apostles. The phrase "has ever been the faith of the Church" is entirely false.]
"... the glorious ever Virgin Mary" (Vatican II documents, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church").

What is the biblical evidence for this dogma? There is none – absolutely none. The doctrine is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence.

The Catholic defense for the dogma of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” is as barren as one will ever encounter in a religious controversy.

But the reality of the matter is this: the Catholic clergy believes its needs no authority – save that of its own pontificating voice. It creates its own dogma, writes its own rules, has become its own “god”. It is a sad reality that numerous people, quite noble in many respects, should sincerely, though uncritically, follow an autocratic system that stands so adverse to divinely revealed truth.

The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is bereft of any reasonable evidence. It is an ancient superstition that has been thrust upon sincere souls who have been taught to never question the voice of the Church. Many of these good people, however, are now reviewing their faith with a more critical eye. May their tribe increase.

Posted proudly with my nose in the air!!!

:)

BigMack

You said, "your snide tone has exposed your motive - Youve danced around my assertions and now ..."

Actually, I was not being snide, I was being direct. If I came across as snide, I certainly apologize, as that was not my intention.

As for dancing, no, I think everyone here can see that I was the one who answered your questions, showing that Matthew 12, like Matthew 13, shows simply that some men were called the "brothers of the Lord." I also showed that the fact that someone is called the brother of the Lord does not thereby prove that Mary had other children besides Christ.

Please recall that I have never said that the Bible proves my case. I've freely admitted that tyhe Bible does not explicitly say that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I also showed that the Bible likewise does not prove your case, since, conversely, it does not anywhere say that Mary was *not* a perpetual virgin. (BTW, If you think you can find a verse that does explicitly say that, I welcome your posting it here for our consideration.)

Also, I gave three examples of reasonable, literal interpretations of Matthew 12 & 13, none of which would entail that Mary had other children.

And finally, I pointed out that in Matthew 13 two of them men who were called "brothers of the Lord" were not the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, but were sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas.

Elsewhere in the earlier thread, others have explained in detail the implicit biblical evidence in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. You, on the other hand, haven't responded to any of that evidence, mine or theirs, with any kind of meaningful biblical defense. All you have done is complain that I am "dancing around" your assertions.

The fact is, I've restricted myself to the scriptural and historical evidence and asked you to show where and how I made a mistake in my reasoning. I've also documented the fact that even major Protestant reformers and Bible scholars like Calvin and Luther (not to mention the universal unanimity among the early Church Fathers on this issue), agree with the Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So, my friend, if you call that "dancing around your assertions," well, I'm at a loss to know what more you would want me to do in the way of offering objective evidence in support of the Catholic position. I think I'm being fair here.

Could it be that you are backing away from this conversation, not because of something I've done (or failed to do), but because you see that your argument this historic Christian teaching isn't holding up so well now that we've examined it in the light of Scripture and Christian history? Forgive me for being blunt, but that's certainly how it looks to me.