.
.
that verse points to a possibility
1. "With God, ALL THINGS are possible." I disagree that possibility = a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth. Is it POSSIBLE that Joseph Smith found those plates? Is it POSSIBLE that President Bush saw a UFO? Is it POSSIBLE that Mary had 100 children (all red-headed boys)? Unless you insist on denying what the angel said, then yes. But does it make all those dogmatic facts of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth?
2. You may unintentionally be forgetting that NO denomination on the planet - known to me anyway - says it's "IMPOSSIBLE." Thus, you are trying to argue against a point NONE makes. In fact, I don't even know of a single denomination on the planet who says it's wrong (also a point you may have forgotten?). The issue is: the confirmation of it's truthfulness to the level claimed and of it's status as "most important for all people."
The Bible does not completely rule out either option. Mary's perpetual virginity is not plainly stated in the Bible, but on the other hand, the Bible never says "and then Joseph knew his wife" or something like that.
Rather powerful reason to stand with the 49,998 denominations that embrace that it cannot be stated with profound certainty ("the highest level of certainty of Truth") one way or the other. And perhaps might also conclude that how often couples have sex isn't generally a matter of highest importance for all to know (for example, how often do you have sex?).
Scripture is not explicit either way (although this or that verse might be used to support either stance).
1. Okay. How does that provide the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? How does it confirm that Mary made a specific vow to God and the particular content of said vow?
2. You seem to be doing a good job of supporting the 49,998 denominations that are silent on this - either way. And all the evidence we have about Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all 12 to 14 Apostles and indeed everyone who lived in the First Century (and possibly well after) all being silent (or at least we have ZERO evidence that they declared it dogma or heresy) that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
Trying to find this doctrine in early writings is nearly impossible
You're not strengthening your case against silence and for insisting in the most power way possible that Mary made a specific vow to God, the particular content thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Of course, you are also contradicting nearly all the RCC and EOC members here with their apology of "it's true because the Apostles taught it, all in the time of the Apostles taught it, Chrsitians have all taught it from the beginning (31 or 33 AD), it has ALWAYS been taught, etc. Or at least you are admitting these apologetics are entirely baseless.
Of course, discounting the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity simple because it isn't explicitly found in the very first, very earliest writings is silly
You either don't know (in spite of often being told) or are forgetting: There's not a denomination on the planet that denies it (officially anyway). Thus, your point is entirely irrelevant. The issue before us is this: This VOW Mary specifically made to God, the specific CONTENT thereof, and the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainly of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The ball is in your court. There are only 2 denominations with ANY official position on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born, all others are SILENT (as it seems was Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all 12-14 Apostles, God in Scripture, the earliest RC "Fathers" and everyone who lived for at least 100 years after Mary died and thus had no way to know this normally private tidbit of bedroom information - at least as far as any can determine).
- early church tradition seems to indicate that early Christians believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is best evidenced by the non-canonical book Protoevangelium of James.
I. I'm struggling to understand how that is confirmation of a specific vow Mary made to God, the precise content thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER - that at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath?), she was a virgin.
2. The REJECTED, false, nonauthoritative book to which you reference doesn't say Mary Had No Sex EVER.
In the 4th century, we see a written record from many different church fathers that profess the perpetual virginity.
1. ... and how does that confirm that, since 31 AD (or before), it has been held that Mary made a vow to God, the specific content thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?
2. What confirmation do they give for this?
- All throughout Church history, Christians continued to hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary as truth. From Rome to Jerusalem, everyone preserved the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life.
Which is it? You said it CANNOT be shown to have been believed before the 4th century, now that it has been taught since 31 AD (if not earlier). Which is it?
Do you have confirmation for the basis of your apologetics here? Or is it baseless?
Luther is on the record for remarking (paraphrase): "My opponents want to slander me by saying I preach that Mary, mother of Jesus, did not remain a perpetual virgin, but I do not preach that."
1. So, which is it? Everything Luther said is Confirmation of Truth or that he was a heretic who often taught wrongly?
2. Luther did NOT teach this as dogma. It was a "pious opinion" which was PERMITTED by Lutherans.
for ~1,500 years, the entire Christian church believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary
... and yet, you've not only offered NOTHING to confirm this but have stated that actually, there's
ZERO evidence of such. You've admitted: it's baseless.
.
