That is what I am saying. A tradition that develops years after the biography of Mary cannot be regarded as a biography of Mary based in history.
As far as Christian theology goes, the Bible is the authentic, authorized, apostolic record. Perpetual virginity of Mary developed outside of the time frame of the apostles documentation of the faith, and therefore is outside of the historical record of the apostles too.
Nothing in the Bible says every doctrine, practice and devotion must be explicitly in the Bible to be trustworthy. That is a false man made Protestant tradition.
Catholic ecclesiastical churchmen may have other reasons for averring this belief to be de fide dogma, but it must be understood that the belief falls outside of the historical record, and the apostolic record, so as such anyone who believes in it needs to understand that the de fide dogma is based in mythic theology rather than historical theology, like the dogma such as Resurrection are.
There is enough in Scripture, just not enough for your arbitrary tastes. There are also post-biblical 2nd century documents that you don't accept because they weren't written by an apostle, but you will accept liberal, modernist heresies that started <150 years ago. You may accept the councils that affirmed the Trinity (accepted by all) between the 3rd and 5th centuries, yet disregard other authorititve verdicts about Mary and whatever else.
The very curious thing to me is that if the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a doctrine that must absolutely and positively be embraced and believed in order to be saved, why is there not the slightest mention of it in the Bible?
Not the slightest mention? I've been over this with you 25 times, you just don't like my answers.
To be sure, people keep poking around the Bible, finding hints and possible clues in the most amazing verses which have absolutely nothing at all to do with the doctrine.
Then explain to me why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVoM, and every single Protestant church taught it until the 19th century. Then the heresy of modernism started up, and this false man made tradition has gotten worse, especially in the last 50 years. It's fad theology. I anxiously await your explanation.
Now, one might argue that the dogma was unknown at the time of the writing of the New Testament. Surely that is quite erroneous as the marital life (or lack thereof) of Mary and Joseph would have been widely known and preached beginning on the Day of Pentecost as part and parcel of the gospel of salvation - but there is not the slightest whisper of it in the preaching of Peter and all the others in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles. Why is that?
Because Mary wouldn't want it any other way, and because the NT is not primarily about her. Maybe the verses would be easier to find if you would stop trying to throw her out of the Bible.
Why is it that the gospel writers (all four) made explicit references in at least five passages to the brothers and the sisters of Jesus Christ, even going so far as to name the brothers for us? Nor did they even hint that these were not the biological children of Mary and Joseph nor did they even attempt to clarify any possible future confusion the matter might cause, if, in fact, these men and women were actually not the biological children of Mary and Joseph.
It's due to the gymnastics and abuse of the term "brother". You keep repeating the same lame arguments.
1 Corinthians 9:4-5
'Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles,
AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?'
Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing
TITLE of 'brother' was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant. Do you?
Bible Alone Approach to Prove that these 'brothers' and 'sisters' are NOT the children of Joseph and Mary
The fact remains that, at the very best, there is not enough evidence to make a determination in favor of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that would stand in any court of law.
A non sequitur. There is far more in the Bible about Mary than there is about the non-existing, illogical, contradictory, unworkable man made tradition of sola scriptura.
Perpetual virginity is a doctrine without any historical basis, and that ties to traditions outside of the Bible.
FALSE. This proves you typically change the meaning of Tradition to make it fit your preconceptions. Tradition and Scripture cannot be separated, any more than separating a wing from a bird.
Quite true. Those traditions developed centuries after the Bible was written.
FALSE. This proves you typically change the meaning of Tradition to make it fit your preconceptions. Take an honest look at the history of the New Testament Canon. NO TRADITION, NO BIBLE.
That is what I am saying. A tradition that develops years after the biography of Mary cannot be regarded as a biography of Mary based in history.
Tradition is the authentic history of doctrine and practice, and if you think it can all fit into a book, you're kidding yourself.
As far as Christian theology goes, the Bible is the authentic, authorized, apostolic record. Perpetual virginity of Mary developed outside of the time frame of the apostles documentation of the faith, and therefore is outside of the historical record of the apostles too.
That's your opinion. Since you are so big on history, where is there any Protestantism before the 15th century? It's non-existent. Based on your criteria, if the PVoM is invalid due to
alleged late development, then all of Protestantism is invalid due to it's
obvious late arrival.
Catholic ecclesiastical churchmen may have other reasons for averring this belief to be de fide dogma, but it must be understood that the belief falls outside of the historical record, and the apostolic record, so as such anyone who believes in it needs to understand that the de fide dogma is based in mythic theology rather than historical theology, like the dogma such as Resurrection are.
Sheer nonsense and anti-Catholic gibberish.
