Replies

Your explanation makes sense, and it is a legitimate one.

The point is not that sex within marriage is dirty or wrong. This is not the motivation for our belief that the Theotokos was a life-long virgin.

The reason we have the tradition is that it is the account passed down within the Church from the earliest times (this is in part what a tradition is.)

If you have a family story where your father tells you that his father told him that your grandfather told him that your great-grandfather did X -- then you will in turn tell your son the same thing, because you believe that your father didn't lie to you, nor his to him, etc...

Even if someone later comes along and tells your son that this story doesn't seem plausible, and that something else probably happened, you will stick with your family story unless there is hard proof that the other idea was true.

This is our "family story" passed down from the earliest times, and there is no convincing evidence to believe otherwise. And turn it from a "family story" to a tradition that is passed on within the living Body of Christ, and you will see why we really don't consider believing otherwise.

I certainly can understand why Protestantism would choose a different explanation. Since you believe that the only evidence that is valid from the 1st c. is what is found in the New Testament, and reject all histories other than the NT (at least all other Christian histories), then based only on the NT, your beliefs are reasonable..

If you have a family story where your father tells you that his father told him that your grandfather told him that your great-grandfather did X -- then you will in turn tell your son the same thing,

I remember as a child how we use to play "telephone". We would line up and the first person would whisper something in the ear of the person next to him. Each succeeding person would do the same thing in turn until it got to the end where the person would repeat the message. By the time the message got to the end, it was so distorted that it no longer resembled the message as it was begun.

This was the basis for closing the books on the scriptures. Augustine stated that the life of Christ was like a pebble cast into a lake. The farther out from the impact of the stone, the more distorted the message becomes. Consequently, the fathers wisely knew that the farther out from the life of Christ, the more distorted our theology would become. It was on this basis they gathered up all the inspired writings and compiled the Bible. (BTW-The same thing happened to the Jews.)

I would content that the early fathers were correct and the only thing you can go back to is the 1st century inspired writings. That is not to say that you can glean certain truths from the fathers throughout the ages. However one can clearly see from history (even in Catholic and Orthodox history) that there have been moments of great inspiration and darkness. But the only way you can discern what these are is through the written word.

The reason we have the tradition (BEV Mary) is that it is the account passed down within the Church from the earliest times (this is in part what a tradition is.)

OK, and thanks for the explanation. I suppose my sneaky little mind was wondering if this belief was somehow tied to another. :) IOW, is some other (really important) belief logically impossible UNLESS Mary remains a virgin. The obvious one is that Jesus could not then have blood siblings. But even here, I don't see how this is a world-ender in terms of importance. I can't figure how either of our respective core principles is strongly affected based on what the truth of this is, but I could be wrong. It's still fun to debate anyway. :)

Since you believe that the only evidence that is valid from the 1st c. is what is found in the New Testament, and reject all histories other than the NT (at least all other Christian histories), ...

For myself, I wouldn't go so far as to say I throw out all histories except the NT. I remember one time I was teaching from John, and I made a big deal about the scene of Jesus crossing the Kidron Valley on His way to the garden to be arrested. After researching, I noted that the creek running through the Valley led up to the Temple where all of the sacrifices were being made.

It's a simple fact that with all the thousands of sacrifices, that there would be a lot of blood, and that blood had to go somewhere. I said that this blood was emptied into the creek. So, my point was to note the irony of Jesus literally stepping over a creek carrying sacrificial blood, as He himself went to become a sacrifice. All of this, of course, is extra-scriptural, but it was so beautiful, I couldn't resist sharing it. :)