Replies

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.

Sirs.

I have very much appreciated both of your posts over the last several days. I have found you both to be insightful, unflappable, unbaitable, and coherent.

Well done.

And Patrick, I hope you can find time to spare, and continue to share your gift with us. Welcome to FR.

I would also like to direct the interested readers attention to another treatment of the RC/NC Mary debate, also from Envoy, where a conversation is had between an NC talk show host and an RC call-in. Its a great read.