“[I]t is intriguing to see how universally – and often how vociferously – ancient Christian teaching on Mary is rejected by most evangelical Protestants today.”

Luther affirmed? Luther affirmed a number of things Bible-believing Christians reject. For that matter, Luther affirmed a number of things that Roman Catholics reject. If Catholics want to argue that Luther is the standard of what is true, I assume we can expect a RC reversal on the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, right?

How about, “The Bible affirms.” Will anyone argue the perpetual virginity of Mary from Scripture? That’s the only reliable source of truth. What says the law and the prophets?

[G. N. Barkman]

Luther affirmed? Luther affirmed a number of things Bible-believing Christians reject. For that matter, Luther affirmed a number of things that Roman Catholics reject. If Catholics want to argue that Luther is the standard of what is true, I assume we can expect a RC reversal on the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, right?

How about, “The Bible affirms.” Will anyone argue the perpetual virginity of Mary from Scripture? That’s the only reliable source of truth. What says the law and the prophets?

[Jim]

Wouldn’t have been much of a marriage.

my take is that R.C.s have a focus on this because of a low view of sex in marriage.

no link for this but the idea that sex is for procreation only

Updated:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/02/is-sex-for-procreat…

http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=9264

https://valerietarico.com/2016/01/23/15-screwed-up-catholic-ideas-that-m…

The dudes at Beggars All spend quite a bit of their time refuting Catholic quotations.

There is an entire section devoted to questionable quotations about Luther’s Mariology.

Here is one of the articles:

Bibliographic Tedium on the Reformers and Perpetual Virginity

In other words, don’t take at face value everything Catholic’s insist is true about Luther and other Reformers.

Thanks, John for this information. Very helpful. I am still waiting for a Biblical argument in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is Eastern Orthodox support better than Roman Catholic dogma? Are early Christian sources a strong support for this or any other doctrine? If there is actually a reasonable Biblical argument, I’d love to see it. Why be agnostic about something that goes against the grain of Scripture?

[G. N. Barkman]

Thanks, John for this information. Very helpful. I am still waiting for a Biblical argument in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is Eastern Orthodox support better than Roman Catholic dogma? Are early Christian sources a strong support for this or any other doctrine? If there is actually a reasonable Biblical argument, I’d love to see it. Why be agnostic about something that goes against the grain of Scripture?

Now yes, we can have some use of “brothers” as really meaning “cousins”, but those passages cast some doubt on the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity for obvious reasons.

And with Jim, I find it difficult to believe that both Mary and Joseph would have passed on the ordinary marital expectations. I don’t know how one can learn about Rachel and Leah squabbling over who had rights to Jacob, the same thing with Sarah and Hagar for Abraham, the criticality of having children (Rachel, Sarah, Hannah, etc..), and for that matter the tradition of consummating marriages before the wedding party began, and then turn around and see it as likely that Mary and Joseph would have taken cold showers for life. It’s possible, I guess, but hardly proven by the text.

Is this possible? Perhaps, but a little far-fetched. To my mind, the only reason to offer this explanation for the Biblical brothers and sisters of Jesus is to remove an insurmountable obstacle from the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. But why should we consider that a reasonable doctrine at all? I don’t see anything in the Bible to suggest it, much less support it. It seems we are reasoning around in circles. Mary could have been a perpetual virgin. The brothers and sisters could have been from a previous marriage. But would anyone, simply reading the text of Scripture, come up with this idea if it hadn’t been previously suggested? If the answer is “yes”, then please explain what leads you to think so. Even if (and it’s a big “if”) Christ’s commitment of Mary to John suggests (but does nothing to prove) the absence of other children, it still says nothing about a celibate marriage, does it?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not advocating Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’m just saying the case isn’t as open-and-shut as we Protestants often like to think. And I don’t personally consider it a hill to die on, either way.

A second way of phrasing the issue is a simple question over whether something else in the Scriptures would require Mary to have remained a virgin. Now the clear implication of the Isaiah prophecy would be that she was when Christ was conceived—there would be otherwise nothing unusual about a young woman having a child, after all—but why would we infer that Mary would have had to remain so? We would have to assume that had she had a normal marriage with Joseph, she would somehow have stained her Son—which would then be at odds with Ezekiel 18 and other passages about the nature of sin and repentance.

Really, I would have to assume that the major issue is a related Catholic doctrine about sinless flesh not coming from sinful flesh, in which Mary is assumed to have been not only virginal, but also sinless, in which case she could have been the redeemer. And hence she could not have partaken in ordinary relations, which would have corrupted her, but then would have been guilty of sin per 1 Cor. 7 and Genesis 2:24.

Which is a long way of saying that we have the ordinary consequence of making claims that the Scripture does not; a litany of “work-arounds” to try to reconcile our claims with known facts that fall short in the end of creating a coherent theology. Alternatively, it’s a long way of saying that while Mary and Joseph could have, per 1 Cor. 7, devoted themselves to a lifetime of prayer in lieu of physical relations, there doesn’t appear to be anything in Scripture that requires it, while there’s quite a bit in Scripture that argues against it.

One other thought in that regard: if they were by Joseph but not by Mary, and Jesus knows Joseph is not His biological father, then do they have the “pull” with Him that seems to be assumed in Matthew 12, Mark 3, and Luke 8? It is at least debatable whether the family ties hinted at there would be as suggested.

One problem I have with Jesus’ brothers being from a previous marriage of Joseph’s is the issue of being given the title “Son of David”. It seems to me that one of his half-brothers(being older) would have a better claim to inheriting that title from Joseph, if Jesus were the youngest. I am basing this off of OT inheritance laws BTW.

Now on the early Church Fathers, I am somewhat dubious to accept their claim in this matter. I realize that there is some value in studying them and their Theology and teachings, but at the end of the day, they are ordinary men capable of making mistakes. In my estimation, this teaching about the brothers and a previous marriage of Joseph’s is one of them. Remember that a fair number of the early Church Fathers were committed to the primacy of Celibacy for believers as the preferred option for life. The option of sex and marriage was 2nd best. Even if the preference of celibacy wasn’t quite in vogue yet, it was starting to catch on if I recall correctly. I may have to reread(or read) Schaff on this at some point.

Just my two cents.

[Jeremy Horn]

One problem I have with Jesus’ brothers being from a previous marriage of Joseph’s is the issue of being given the title “Son of David”. It seems to me that one of his half-brothers(being older) would have a better claim to inheriting that title from Joseph, if Jesus were the youngest. I am basing this off of OT inheritance laws BTW…

I keep going back to the same question: where is the Scriptural support for the perpetual virginity of Mary? If there is none, why is this not an open and shut case? If there is convincing evidence, then why is it not being discussed on this thread?

Also, why are protestants being challenged to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary? Instead, why aren’t those who espouse it being challenged to prove it from Scripture? We don’t start with an assumption that this is, or perhaps may be true, do we? Shouldn’t we start with the assumption that this is patently untrue unless clear Biblical evidence is brought forth to prove it?

[G. N. Barkman]

I keep going back to the same question: where is the Scriptural support for the perpetual virginity of Mary? If there is none, why is this not an open and shut case? If there is convincing evidence, then why is it not being discussed on this thread?

Also, why are protestants being challenged to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary? Instead, why aren’t those who espouse it being challenged to prove it from Scripture? We don’t start with an assumption that this is, or perhaps may be true, do we? Shouldn’t we start with the assumption that this is patently untrue unless clear Biblical evidence is brought forth to prove it?