"Actually, the believe that she remained a virgin is not an Apostolic argument."
This is an assertion without evidence. My contention--- that it was an Apostolic doctrine, because all of the Apostolic churches accepted it --- is the one that has evidence. To refute it, you would have to show that all these churches on three continents --- Africa, Asia, and Europe --- developed an identical heresy of Mary's ever-Virginity, with no debate, no controversy, no Council or Synod to arbitrate opposing sides.
Fat chance. They debated everything. They debated about the difference between "homoousios" and "homoiousios," between "Christotokos" and "Theotokos," between "Filioque" and no Filioque --- but all simultaneously and silently swallowed a huge heresy about "ever-virginity" without clamor or quibble? From the Chaldeans to Cadiz and from the Phanar to Addis Ababa? Impossible.
"It [the doctrine of ever-virginity] arose later."
When, may I ask? Later than the Catacomb of Priscilla?
And where? In Rome? Rome didn't control Constantinople. In Constantinople? Constantinople didn't control the Chaldean Christians in Baghdad, or the Assyrian Church of the East --- or even, if I understand aright, the Copts.
Again, I say when --- when did they adopt this supposedly new, supposedly "heretical" consensus without discussion or even evidence of communication about the innovation?
"That it was later flagged as false by a reexamination of the totality of revelation only shows how wrong the corrupted church had drifted."
Be careful here. The same consensus of Churches that gave us their testimony of the ever-virginity of Mary, gave us the preservation, transmission and canonization of Scripture itself. If "the practice of the Churches" is insufficient authority to transmit doctrines about Mary, they had equally little authority to determine the canon of the Sacred Writings.
Can you tell me who it was, then, who first decided to break with historic Christianity on this question? I would like a name or names, the time (within a couple of decades) and the authority they claimed.
I'd be interested in why they either ignored, or totally discounted the "totality of revelation", in which the inspired authors give us numerous foreshadowings, prophecies, images and types of Mary from Genesis to the Revelation of St. John.
"Worth noting. There is no theological reason that requires Mary to remain a virgin or not have other children."
It would be more modest and more accurate to say, that there is "no theological reason of which you are aware."
The principal one would be based on the profound OT understanding of the set-apart-ness (sacredness) of people or things that have been consecrated to God. Mary is untouchable and inviolate for even stronger reasons than the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies would be untouchable. For instance, the Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.
If only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, certainly no man could enter Mary: the idea here is set-apart-ness, inviolability.
In the NT, Mary herself bears witness to her commitment to virginity. When the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive and bear a son, she seems astonished --- revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.
It is unimaginable that God would act in such a crass way in relation to the woman consecrated to Him: "Here, Joseph, I got her first and I got what I wanted; now you can bed her if you want!"
It would be like saying Christ is less sacred than manna.
And not only is Mary prefigured by many signs in the OT, but she herself prefigures or foreshadows another great reality: the Church. Everything true of Mary is true in an allied sense to the Church. Bride. Mother. Called Blessed through all generations.
Yet some never call her Blessed. It's a little troubling, really.
Always a good response from you FRiend.
“This is an assertion without evidence. My contention-— that it was an Apostolic doctrine, because all of the Apostolic churches accepted it “
My evidence is God’s inspiration of the text of His Word. Your contention assumes an unbroken chain that cannot be supported with evidence. Consequently, it is your assertion that misses the mark in the discussion. For this reason - the lack of evidence to support your rubric of an unbroken chain of belief - I do not have to show anything. Your claim falls to the ground until you provide the evidence.
“Later than the Catacomb of Priscilla?”
All that matters is that from the Apostles to the time of your Catacomb was 2-300 years.
“If “the practice of the Churches” is insufficient authority to transmit doctrines about Mary, they had equally little authority to determine the canon of the Sacred Writings.”
The God I worship is involved in history. He brings His will to pass.
“Can you tell me who it was, then, who first decided to break with historic Christianity on this question? “
The break was from a normal, blessed Mary, to Super Mary. Not from Super Mary to blessed Mary.
“The principal one would be based on the profound OT understanding of the set-apart-ness (sacredness) of people or things that have been consecrated to God. Mary is untouchable and inviolate for even stronger reasons than the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies would be untouchable. For instance, the Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.”
Not wanting to insult anything you consider sacred FRiend, but that is all so much eisogesis backfill that was written to support a false doctrine. If you doubt it, find it taught in the first 100 years of the Church.
Protestants generally make too little of Mary. Catholics and Orthodox too much. All three are wrong.
“When the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive and bear a son, she seems astonished -— revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.”
Again, ditto.
“It is unimaginable that God would act in such a crass way in relation to the woman consecrated to Him: “Here, Joseph, I got her first and I got what I wanted; now you can bed her if you want!””
Mary didn’t have sex with God. I find this argument silly.
“And not only is Mary prefigured by many signs in the OT, but she herself prefigures or foreshadows another great reality: the Church. Everything true of Mary is true in an allied sense to the Church. Bride. Mother. Called Blessed through all generations.”
None of which means she couldn’t fulfill a godly marriage that involved sex or other children.
Mary was blessed among women as chosen bearer of Messiah. We agree on that.