The Bible says the improtant thing: that Jesus was born of a virgin. The rest is no longer matter for the Gospel, but for the lives of saints. The Bible does not tell us a whole lot about any of the Apostles and Jesus's family. We don't know when Joseph died; how St. Paul's final journey to Rome ended (he was beheaded), how St Peter died (crucified upside down), how Our Lady died and when (no tomb ever existed). This was all the historical knowledge fo the Church that the Church in her wisdom decided not to put in the Bible.
The Apostles never intended to make the Gospels an encyclopedia of Christianity. It is clear from the manner in which they are written. St. Luke, for example (the physician who evidently interviewed our Lady for his gospel) says that he decided "to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed" (Lk 1). Note the purpose: not to instruct, but to provide a witness to the instruction. The Church instructs. The Evangelist says "Yes. I was there". The Scripture is there to confirm the body of knowledge already present in the Church. It is not that body in itself.
How do you KNOW for sure that Mary was always a virgin anyway?
This is a knowledge that the Church retained from testimonies of people who attended to Our Lady. It is possible that she allowed herself to be examined, because naturally it was a major contention at the time: Was Jesus or was He not, born miraculously?
WHo are???? Names and documentation please.
It is possible that she allowed herself to be examined, because naturally it was a major contention at the time: Was Jesus or was He not, born miraculously?
Pure fantasy and wishful thinking.
Any evidence of His virgin birth would have been destroyed in the birthing process. And besides, there was nothing miraculous about His birth, just His conception. I'm sure He was born like any other human baby in that time since medical technology did not permit c-sections.
It is staggering the lengths Catholics will go to to defend an unscriptural doctrine like Mary's perpetual virginity. Especially since Matthew records here....
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
In as delicate a manner as possible, Matthew lays that myth to rest.
Mary did NOT remain a virgin but had normal marital relations with her husband.
If not, then Matthew could have instead said right here that Joseph never knew her as his wife and she remained a virgin for the rest of her life instead of saying that he did.
Matthew walked with Jesus, did he not? He was alive at that time. Who am I going to believe? Him or someone who came along some 400 years later and made it official church dogma and doctrine.