Biblical proof of Mary's virginity

[BNR32FAN]

It’s the norm to consummate the marriage, but it’s done to make the marriage valid, according to Judaism the marriage is valid before the bride steps into the groom’s room:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465162/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Ceremony.htm

Lot is called the brother of Abraham atleast once in the Old Testament, Jesus said all who believe in his word and carry out his will are his brothers, so he was calling his other Apostles brothers. Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob foreverand of his kingdom there shall be no end.")

In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for "until" whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph "not having come together" would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-case-for-marys-perpetual-virginity

So the question remains, is there anything to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Ok I’m not going to defend that now let’s just stick to the original question. Please just one shred of evidence suppprting Mary’s perpetual virginity. Can you find it?

 

[Barney2.0]

Let’s keep in mind this isn’t the only assumption made by the Roman Church. Her assumption to heaven is also just that, an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever. Purgatory, another assumption, anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.” forgiveness in the afterlife, assumption, Mary never sinned, contradiction based on assumption, the Magnificat and the fact that none are righteous not one contradict that teaching. Mary can have people removed from purgatory by asking Jesus to intercede because she asked Him to make wine at the wedding in Cana and He did, Huge assumption. Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t pay for all our sins huge contradiction based on assumption. Saints can hear our prayers, another assumption. Starting to see a pattern here?

Most of what you said is based on your own assumptions, while I can’t defend the doctrine of Purgatory. Saints do hear our prayers, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

As for the Dormition or Assumption of Mary, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son's suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians "God's co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.

 

[Barney2.0]

Ok I’m not going to defend that now let’s just stick to the original question. Please just one shred of evidence suppprting Mary’s perpetual virginity. Can you find it?

The fact that there’s no evidence to the contrary, the fact that the early Church believed in her perpetual virginity, and the fact that according to jewish customs a marriage is valid before consummation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The fact that there’s no evidence to the contrary, the fact that the early Church believed in her perpetual virginity, and the fact that according to jewish customs a marriage is valid before consummation.

By early church you mean in the 4th century? How did they know? Did Mary boast about being a virgin or did someone ask her? Kind of a personal question especially for that time don’t ya think? Like I said no scriptural evidence to support it. It should’ve been something that was never taught.

Most of what you said is based on your own assumptions, while I can’t defend the doctrine of Purgatory. Saints do hear our prayers, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

As for the Dormition or Assumption of Mary, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son's suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians "God's co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.

Revelation 5:8 it says the prayers of the saints not to the saints.

Romans 8:17 is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Matthew 27:52-53 the dead arose and appeared in Jerusalem. This means Mary was assumed up to heaven both body & spirit? That belief is not backed by any evidence at all. The church assumed that it happened with no proof or evidence just like they assume Mary will intercede for people in purgatory because she did at the wedding at Cana and just like her perpetual virginity. It’s just a bad idea to teach these things as being truth having no evidence only based on scriptures that are not even remotely related to these assumptions. It’s utterly irresponsible to teach these things.

 

[Not David]

Let’s keep in mind this isn’t the only assumption made by the Roman Church. Her assumption to heaven is also just that, an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever. Purgatory, another assumption, anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.” forgiveness in the afterlife, assumption, Mary never sinned, contradiction based on assumption, the Magnificat and the fact that none are righteous not one contradict that teaching. Mary can have people removed from purgatory by asking Jesus to intercede because she asked Him to make wine at the wedding in Cana and He did, Huge assumption. Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t pay for all our sins huge contradiction based on assumption. Saints can hear our prayers, another assumption. Starting to see a pattern here?

Orthodox don't believe in Purgatory but they believe in Perpetual Virginity.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Orthodox don't believe in Purgatory but they believe in Perpetual Virginity.

Yes and I really wish I knew more about why they believe it.

 

[Barney2.0]

By early church you mean in the 4th century? How did they know? Did Mary boast about being a virgin or did someone ask her? Kind of a personal question especially for that time don’t ya think? Like I said no scriptural evidence to support it. It should’ve been something that was never taught.



Revelation 5:8 it says the prayers of the saints not to the saints.

Romans 8:17 is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Matthew 27:52-53 the dead arose and appeared in Jerusalem. This means Mary was assumed up to heaven both body & spirit? That belief is not backed by any evidence at all. The church assumed that it happened with no proof or evidence just like they assume Mary will intercede for people in purgatory because she did at the wedding at Cana and just like her perpetual virginity. It’s just a bad idea to teach these things as being truth having no evidence only based on scriptures that are not even remotely related to these assumptions. It’s utterly irresponsible to teach these things.

Early Church meaning 2nd-3rd century AD. There’s no scriptural evidence against it, neither does it contradict scripture. Revelation 5:8 shows the Saints offering our prayers to God. If the bodies of saints were raised to heaven, surely the mother of God must be among them.

 

[Barney2.0]

Yes and I really wish I knew more about why they believe it.

We know our beliefs quite well enough to defend them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There’s no scriptural evidence against it, neither does it contradict scripture.

There’s no scriptural evidence against the existence of leprechauns or the tooth fairy either does that mean they are true? In order to teach something as being truth you must have evidence to support it not just say there’s no evidence against it. If something never existed or never happened there wouldn’t be any evidence against it would there? If I said prove to me that one eyed two horned flying purple people eaters aren’t true are you going to be able to provide evidence that proves they don’t exist? No it’s impossible to present evidence if the evidence itself doesn’t exist. And just because there is a possibility that something happened doesn’t mean the church can teach that it did happen as being a fact. What 2nd & 3rd century evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity is there? Who’s writings?

 

[BNR32FAN]

We know our beliefs quite well enough to defend them.

Then do it present a single shred of evidence please that’s all I’ve been asking for. Knowing is not evidence.

 

[Barney2.0]

There’s no scriptural evidence against the existence of leprechauns or the tooth fairy either does that mean they are true? In order to teach something as being truth you must have evidence to support it not just say there’s no evidence against it. If something never existed or never happened there wouldn’t be any evidence against it would there? If I said prove to me that one eyed two horned flying purple people eaters aren’t true are you going to be able to provide evidence that proves they don’t exist? No it’s impossible to present evidence if the evidence itself doesn’t exist. And just because there is a possibility that something happened doesn’t mean the church can teach that it did happen as being a fact. What 2nd & 3rd century evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity is there? Who’s writings?

There is evidence against mithyical creatures because we can disapprove their existence, by sighting their non existentence in any authentic sources of proof. As for perpetual virginity, nothing in scripture rejects it, and many through the ages accepted this as dogma. We reject teachings if and only if they’re in conflict with scripture. If they’re not in conflict with scripture we accept them. If scripture doesn’t contradict it and the Church Fathers agree with it then we accept it as dogma:

The Protoevangelium of James

"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).



Origen

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).



Hilary of Poitiers

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).



Athanasius

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).



Epiphanius of Salamis

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).



Jerome

"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).



Didymus the Blind

"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).



Ambrose of Milan

"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).



Pope Siricius I

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is evidence against mithyical creatures because we can disapprove their existence, by sighting their non existentence in any authentic sources of proof. As for perpetual virginity, nothing in scripture rejects it, and many through the ages accepted this as dogma. We reject teachings if and only if they’re in conflict with scripture. If they’re not in conflict with scripture we accept them. If scripture doesn’t contradict it and the Church Fathers agree with it then we accept it as dogma:

The Protoevangelium of James

"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).



Origen

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).



Hilary of Poitiers

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).



Athanasius

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).



Epiphanius of Salamis

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).



Jerome

"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).



Didymus the Blind

"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).



Ambrose of Milan

"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).



Pope Siricius I

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

The protoevangelum of James is an apocryphal writing not even written by James and was never canonized as inspired scripture. So that knocks out the 2nd & 3rd century writings like I said because Origen based his writing on the protoevangelum of James. Everything else also like I said from the 4th century. So only these men 300 years later knew Mary & Joseph’s intimate life.

 

[Barney2.0]

The protoevangelum of James is an apocryphal writing not even written by James and was never canonized as inspired scripture. So that knocks out the 2nd & 3rd century writings like I said because Origen based his writing on the protoevangelum of James. Everything else also like I said from the 4th century. So only these men 300 years later knew Mary & Joseph’s intimate life.

The Protoevangelium of James is still a writing of the early christian community, remember what I originally said, I said was that the early Church believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Protoevangelium was written by the early Church and was used by the Church Fathers as a source for Mary’s life. Authentic teachings of the early Church contained within the book and question of its authorship are two entirely different things. Read the dates correctly aswell regarding the quotes from early Christians, all of the other ones I listed were from the third century.

 

[The Times]

Yes and I really wish I knew more about why they believe it.

In that culture a woman could not work, hence could not live.
John was assigned Mary's Son as custodian to support her financially.
James was also a brother like wise because Jesus became committed to the priesthood as Raban and Joseph was dead.

 

[redleghunter]

There’s no scriptural evidence against the existence of leprechauns or the tooth fairy either does that mean they are true? In order to teach something as being truth you must have evidence to support it not just say there’s no evidence against it. If something never existed or never happened there wouldn’t be any evidence against it would there? If I said prove to me that one eyed two horned flying purple people eaters aren’t true are you going to be able to provide evidence that proves they don’t exist? No it’s impossible to present evidence if the evidence itself doesn’t exist. And just because there is a possibility that something happened doesn’t mean the church can teach that it did happen as being a fact. What 2nd & 3rd century evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity is there? Who’s writings?

A good example is the Assumption of Mary. Evidence was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that Roman Catholic scholars disallowed it as being part of apostolic tradition.

J. Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI):

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .​

Ok, following so far. The scholars came up empty. Deemed the assumption of Mary not apostolic tradition. Now we see how the Roman Catholic church got around this...

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts...But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp, then subsequent “remembering” can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59​

Exhibit 1: "Doctrinal Development"

 

[redleghunter]

The Protoevangelium of James

An Apocryphal work.

Origen

Only quoted when convenient. But when inconvenient he was a heretic. Also believed the Devil and lost souls would be eventually saved. Thus a universalist which the church condemned.

Hilary of Poitiers

4th century

Athanasius


"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

4th century

Epiphanius of Salamis

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

4th Century

Jerome

Late 4th century

Didymus the Blind

4th Century

Ambrose of Milan

4th Century

Pope Siricius I

Very late 4th Century

 

[prodromos]

Yes and I really wish I knew more about why they believe it.

Because it is the faith handed down which we have held fast to as exhorted by Paul.

 

[redleghunter]

The Protoevangelium of James

Estimated Range of Dating: 140-170 A.D

The Infancy Narrative of James is also known as the Protevangelium of James. In The Other Gospels, Ron Cameron says that the name Protevangelium "implies that most of the events recorded in this 'initial gospel' of James occur prior to those recorded in the gospels of the New Testament." The gospel received this name when it was first published in the sixteenth century.

There are about one hundred and thirty Greek manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of James, but the vast majority of these come from the tenth century or later. The earliest known manuscript of the text was found in 1958; it is now kept in Geneva's Bodmer Library. The manuscript dates to the third century; however, according to Cameron, "many of its readings seem to be secondary."

Cameron identifies three different sources for the Infancy Gospel of James: extracanonical traditions, the Old Testament, and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The mythical element of birth in a cave, for example, is an extracanonical also known to Justin Martyr. Cameron states of the author's use of Jewish scriptures: "Not only are individual words, phrases, and even whole paragraphs reminiscent of the Septuagint; such discrete forms as the hymn and the lament of Anna also display conscious, direct 'remembrance' of the stories recorded in the scriptures." Concerning the use of the canonical gospels, Cameron observes, "Frequently the respective passages in Matthew and Luke are harmonized into a single story in the Protevangelium of James; in some instances the two texts are conflated. It is by combining composite traditions with a harmony of the synoptic infancy stories that the Protevangelium of James has constructed the dramatic scenes of its gospel."​

[...]

The author claims to be James, the stepbrother of Jesus. The author cannot have actually been James because the author seems to be dependent upon Matthew and Luke. Only Matthew tells us about the massacre of the infants arranged by Herod, while only Luke tells us about the birth of John to Elizabeth. Concerning the question of how John escaped Herod's wrath, Hock argues that the author "answered this question by having Zechariah choose death rather than tell of John's whereabouts and by having Elizabeth flee to the hills with John." Since James' death at the hands of Ananias occured in 62 CE and since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed later, the Infancy Gospel of James must be pseudonymous.

According to Hock, a major development found in the Protevangelium of James is this: "Mary, the central character, is no longer a virgin in the ordinary sense of a young woman of marriageable age, but a virgin of extraordinary purity and unending duration." Hock goes on to argue: "Indeed, Mary's purity is so emphasized that it becomes thematic and thus answers the fundamental question which guides the narrative: why Mary, of all the virgins in Israel, was chosen to be the mother of the son of God. The answer: no one could have been any purer. Thus Anna transforms Mary's bedroom into a sanctuary where she receives no impure food and is amused by the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews (6:5). When she turns three years of age, these young women escort her to the temple in Jerusalem where she spends the next nine years in absolute purity and is even fed by the hand on an angel (7:4-8:2). When, at age twelve, she is made the ward of Joseph, she spends her time spinning thread for the temple with the other virgins from Israel (10:1-12:1). When she is later suspected of impurity, she passes a test and has her innocence proclaimed by the high priest (15:1-16:7). Finally, when she gives birth to Jesus, two midwives certify that she remains a virgin (19:18-20:11). In short, it is through her purity that Mary fulfills the blessing which the priests made when she was only one year old: that she might be blessed with a blessing that could not be surpassed (6:9)."​

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html
Would not be at all surprised this work was compiled in Ephesus.

 

[Not David]

An Apocryphal work.


Only quoted when convenient. But when inconvenient he was a heretic. Also believed the Devil and lost souls would be eventually saved. Thus a universalist which the church condemned.


4th century


4th century


4th Century


Late 4th century


4th Century


4th Century




Very late 4th Century

Which is the closest Non-Biblical reference that denies the Perpetual Virginity?

 

[Saucy]

no

the Jews thought that they were his brothers

they also thought Joseph was his father, and that he had been born in Galilee not Bethlehem

they were very confused

you appear to be absorbing their confusion

if Mary had so many children, why did Jesus on the cross (honor his earthly parent by) bequeathing her to the care of John the beloved disciple??

John cared for Mary for the rest of her days, not James or anyone else

was James, bishop of Jerusalem, an arch sinner for refusing to care for and honor his own mother???

James, bishop of Jerusalem, didn't care for his own mom... But let John handle everything?

They weren't confused at all. I think it would be common knowledge back in the day who His brothers were.

Matthew 12:46-50 takes care of your claim: "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48 But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! 50 "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Jesus Himself didn't speak of any special relationship with His mom. She wasn't some deity or perfect, sinless being. Jesus had a special connection with John and not his brothers at the time who did not accept He was anything special. Jesus' brothers despised him.

John 7:3-5 "His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here, and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing. 4 "For no one does anything in secret, when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him."

The term brother is never used in the New Testament to denote a cousin or relative or anything other than a literal BROTHER.

John 1:41 He *found first his own brother Simon, and *said to him, "We have found the Messiah"

There's an avalanche of evidence to support Jesus had literal brothers and sisters and NONE to verify she remained a virgin. There's no evidence whatsoever that you can pray to Mary, that she answers prayers, that she is omniscient or omnipresent, or that she is any kind of gateway to Christ. It's all made up decades, even centuries later.