Nothing in the New Testament \u201ceven remotely suggests\u201d the perpetual virginity of Mary.<\/span><\/p>\nBut there is nothing in the Bible that even remotely suggests the biblical canon, either, yet you accept a tradition handed down to you by a local council, approved by the pope (excepting the \u201capocryphal books\u201d which were also accepted by that council and never separated from the other books in Scripture until the 16th century).<\/p>\n
This is the point: we all accept some traditions which are not, or may not be (arguably) explicitly biblical, or in the Bible at all. You haven\u2019t answered my question yet (this is now my 3rd time asking \u2014 Ted Koppel style) about why Protestants have shifted away from this and why Luther and Calvin accepted it, but I am happy to answer your question (Why do I believe in this doctrine?). I believe it first of all because it is received Christian tradition; denied by virtually no one until liberal theology started becoming a force. That\u2019s an argument in and of itself, of course, but we all accept received traditions in some manner.<\/p>\n
You accept the Westminster Confession and TULIP and the Protestant canon, and so forth. A Catholic accepts the perpetual virginity of Mary, as it is a dogma, proclaimed early on by an ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431). That\u2019s more than enough reason for us, given our epistemological presuppositions and our Rule of Faith.<\/p>\n
But of course you are probing beyond that and want to know the biblical and theological \u201cwhy\u2019s\u201d. That\u2019s fine; that\u2019s what I do as my profession: an apologist, and I appreciate the opportunity and your congeniality and graciousness to this Catholic guest on your blog.<\/p>\n
The Catholic believes about this the same thing that he believes about the Immaculate Conception of Mary: neither doctrine is ontologically, intrinsically necessary. Rather, both are seen as \u201cfitting\u201d and the way things should properly be. I can\u2019t think of a Protestant parallel to this offhand but I\u2019m sure there are some.<\/p>\n
It was fitting (but not absolutely necessary \u2014 where it couldn\u2019t have been otherwise in any other world) for Mary to be without sin (actual and original) because she was the Mother of God (Theotokos<\/i>). Likewise, we think it is altogether fitting that she remain a virgin after bearing Christ.<\/p>\n
Partly this is because of the nature of the miracle itself: Mary was a virgin and we believe that even the birth was miraculous (that Mary\u2019s virginity \u2014 without getting physiologically graphic \u2014 was retained even during and after the birth). This is traditional Catholic dogma (and, I believe, Orthodox, too).<\/p>\n
It strengthens and supports the doctrine of the Virgin Birth (Mariology is always christocentric). It\u2019s a miracle to have a virgin birth: a conception without the participation of a man. If Mary had had other children, and a normal sexual life after, people could always say, \u201cwell, how do we know that Jesus\u2019 birth was before she started being sexually active? Why should we believe all this Holy Spirit \u2018overshadowing\u2019 foolishness?\u201d<\/p>\n
I believe that is part of the traditional theological reasoning on this, though I am basically speaking for myself here, not necessarily \u201cofficially\u201d for what the Catholic Church would say. If we pursue this, of course I could look up what Aquinas and Augustine and others said about it.<\/p>\n
The second thing is the appropriateness or propriety that the womb which bore the God-Man should not bear another child. One either grasps and accepts that notion or they don\u2019t. It is not an argument from reason or Bible but from propriety (which is a very subjective thing and often culturally determined). It can\u2019t and won\u2019t be perceived or understood by the usual Protestant outlook of \u201ceverything must be fairly explicit in the Bible or else we reject it utterly.\u201d<\/p>\n
Traditional Catholic thought (particularly regarding Mary) does not operate along those lines. The Church ponders things for centuries. It did so with regard to christology (up to 451 and even after if we include the Monothelite controversies); it did with regard to the biblical canon (up to 397) and it did so with Mariology.<\/p>\n
So that is the argument from tradition and \u201cfittingness.\u201d I know it sounds very foreign to Protestant ears, but I can\u2019t help that, in explaining why we believe as we do, and how I understand the belief, in my apologetic, reason-loving mind. The biblical data is another matter; of a different nature. What we have would not require (and perhaps not even suggest) this belief on the surface, but I think that when we examine it closely, it at least suggests it, or at the very least shows us that the data we do know about is perfectly compatible with the notion. One can make many deductions from what we know: some of which rule out that blood brothers are being referred to in specific instances of\u00a0adelphos<\/i>.<\/p>\n
There are other \u201csituational\u201d arguments from plausibility, such as: \u201cwhere were Jesus\u2019 siblings when He went to the Temple at age 12? If he had them, certainly they would have been around, no? \u2014 unless there was a 12-year gap between births. The narrative (Lk 2:41-52) gives not the slightest hint that there were any brothers involved. When Joseph and Mary were looking for Him, it doesn\u2019t say they went to His supposed five brothers and four sisters (I would certainly do that first, as a parent); rather, \u201cthey sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances\u201d (Lk 2:44; RSV). When they leave, it reads, \u201cAnd he went down with them and came to Nazareth . . . \u201d (2:51).<\/p>\n
Now, this doesn\u2019t technically rule out siblings, true, but it sure doesn\u2019t positively suggest them, does it? If I took my three sons and a daughter down to Cedar Point for a day of fun, would I talk about it as \u201cI took my first son . . . \u201d without mentioning the other three? No, not likely. You could do that if you were talking about one child specifically in another context (\u201cJoe\u2019s a good kid; we have a lot of fun together; the other day I took him to the carnival . .,\u201d etc.), but chances are if you were simply describing the day, you would mention all the children.<\/p>\n
Why did Jesus ask John to in effect be Mary\u2019s son after He died? Semitic custom would have dictated that He ask His blood brothers to do so. All you have to go by, on the other hand (that I can see) is mention of \u201cbrothers\u201d \u2014 but this proves nothing because there is such a wide range of meaning for the word\u00a0adelphos<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The Bible gives\u00a0explicit<\/em>\u00a0reasons for not accepting perpetual virginity.<\/span><\/p>\nThis I deny. It\u2019s based on an interpretation of the meaning of\u00a0adelphos<\/i>\u00a0in specific instances that is by no means necessary or certain (or even plausible, I would contend). Unless you have some new arguments I haven\u2019t run across before . . .<\/p>\n
Much of\u00a0your\u00a0biblical argument\u00a0is merely an argument from silence.<\/span><\/p>\nI don\u2019t see how. I gave two positive arguments: Jesus at the temple at age 12 and John taking Mary as his \u201cmother\u201d rather than all these supposed siblings running around everywhere. I also noted that there were deductive arguments that ruled out blood brothers in various specific instances. I have yet to present that, so all my cards aren\u2019t on the table yet.<\/p>\n
Tradition trumps the (current, not traditional) Protestant position on this one. The ancient Church was right when its councils proclaimed on things like the Holy Trinity and the canon of Scripture. I see no reason to believe that it erred with regard to the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin in 431.<\/p>\n
And what is the \u201cpositive\u201d evidence to deny this? Interpreting\u00a0adelphos<\/i>\u00a0literally as \u201cblood brothers\u201d when any lexicon will quickly show you that it has a very wide range of meanings.<\/p>\n
Sometimes Protestants will say, \u201cwell then, why didn\u2019t the Bible use the Greek term for \u201ccousins\u201d? The reason is simple.\u00a0Adelphos\u00a0<\/i>and the Hebrew equivalent (I forget what it is) functioned much like our word \u201cbrother\u201d in English. We have the word \u201ccousin\u201d too, but we use \u201cbrother\u201d for friends, ethnic groups, religions (e.g., how Catholics say \u201cseparated brethren\u201d and Protestants will say \u201cmy Catholic brother\u201d). We say \u201cbrother in Christ,\u201d \u201cbrothers\u201d in terms of fellow soldiers, the \u201cbig brother\u201d mentoring system where the man is not a sibling and functions like a father in some cases, etc. So the word can mean sibling, but it can also mean much else. In Semitic culture, extended family was much more important too, so a cousin could be called a \u201cbrother.\u201d<\/p>\n
The biblical evidence can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n
1. Many Protestants assume that whenever they read of Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers,\u201d this is referring to His siblings, other sons and daughters of Mary. But it is not that simple.\u00a0Adelphos<\/i>, the Gk. word for \u201cbrother\u201d in the NT, has multiple meanings (like the English word), and they all appear frequently in Scripture. In addition to sibling, it can also denote<\/p>\n
(1) those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17;
\nRom 9:3);
\n(2) any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29);
\n(3) persons with like interests (Mt 5:47);
\n(4) distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5);
\n(5) persons united by a
\ncommon calling (Rev 22:9);
\n(6) mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17);
\n(7) the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn
\n20:17);
\n(8) all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10).<\/p>\n
Clearly, then, this issue is not at all settled by the mere word \u201cbrother\u201d \/\u00a0adelphos<\/i>\u00a0in the Bible, and a more in-depth examination of the biblical data will be necessary.<\/p>\n
2. \u201cBrethren\u201d \u2013 Biblical Exegesis<\/p>\n
A. By comparing Gen 14:14 with 11:26-7, we find that Lot, called Abraham\u2019s \u201cbrother\u201d, is actually his nephew.<\/p>\n
B. Jacob is called the \u201cbrother\u201d of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:10,15).<\/p>\n
C. Cis and Eleazar are described as \u201cbrethren\u201d, whereas they are literally cousins (1 Chron 23:21-2).<\/p>\n
D. \u201cBrethren\u201d as mere kinsmen: Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Ki 9:13; 2:32; 2 Ki 10:13-14; Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9.<\/p>\n
E. Neither Hebrew or Aramaic has a word for \u201ccousin.\u201d The NT retains this Hebrew usage by using\u00a0adelphos<\/i>, even when non-siblings are being referred to.<\/p>\n
F. In Lk 2:41-51, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, with no sign of any other siblings.<\/p>\n
G. Jesus Himself uses \u201cbrethren\u201d in the larger sense (Mt 23:1,8; 12:49).<\/p>\n
H. By comparing Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; and Jn 19:25, we find that James and Joseph \u2013 mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrethren\u201d \u2013 are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Mary\u2019s\u00a0adelphe<\/i>\u00a0in Jn 19:25 (two Marys in one family?! \u2013 thus even this usage apparently means \u201ccousins\u201d or more distant relative). Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and \u201csisters\u201d along with James and Joseph, calling all\u00a0adelphoi<\/i>. Since we know that James and Joseph are not Jesus\u2019 blood brothers, it is likely that all these other \u201cbrethren\u201d are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above.<\/p>\n
I. Even standard evangelical Protestant commentaries such as Jamieson, Fausset & Brown admit that the question is not a simple one: \u201can exceedingly difficult question . . . nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . vexed question, encompassed with difficulties.\u201d (commentary for Mt 13:55)<\/p>\n
J. Some Protestant commentators maintain that Mt 1:24-5 (\u201cJoseph knew her not till . . .\u201d) implies that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. This does not follow, since \u201ctill\u201d does not necessarily imply a change of behavior after the time to which it refers (cf. similar instances in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 12:20; Rom 8:22; 1 Tim 4:13; 6:14; Rev 2:25).<\/p>\n
K. Likewise, \u201cfirstborn\u201d (Mt 1:25) need not imply later children. A mother\u2019s first child is her \u201cfirstborn\u201d regardless if any follow or not (Ex 13:2). Also, in the Bible, \u201cfirstborn\u201d often means \u201cpreeminent,\u201d and even applies to those who are not literally the first child (Jer 31:9), or, metaphorically, to groups (Ex 4:22; Heb 12:23). Thus, \u201cfirstborn\u201d in Mt 1:25 actually is more of an indication that Jesus is Mary\u2019s only child, than that there were others. This position is held by many evangelical Protestant scholars on these criteria, rather than Catholic dogmatic grounds.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Rest on the Flight Into Egypt (c. 1510), by Gerard David (bet. 1450-1460-1523) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] The following is based on a chat on a blog with two Protestants (both Presbyterian, I believe, and one a pastor). It is, therefore, written in the first person. Their thoughts are\u00a0paraphrased\u00a0in\u00a0blue. (2-28-04) * * * […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":4341,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[469,39,944],"class_list":["post-4339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-incarnation","tag-perpetual-virginity-of-mary","tag-virgin-birth"],"yoast_head":"\n
Why Should We Believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"If we examine the Bible closely, we see that the data we do know about is perfectly compatible with the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Why Should We Believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"If we examine the Bible closely, we see that the data we do know about is perfectly compatible with the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-11-04T17:20:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-27T17:17:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/11\/Mary13.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"599\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html\",\"name\":\"Why Should We Believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-11-04T17:20:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-27T17:17:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"If we examine the Bible closely, we see that the data we do know about is perfectly compatible with the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Why Should We Believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Why Should We Believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity?","description":"If we examine the Bible closely, we see that the data we do know about is perfectly compatible with the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity.","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Why Should We Believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity?","og_description":"If we examine the Bible closely, we see that the data we do know about is perfectly compatible with the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2015-11-04T17:20:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-27T17:17:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":591,"height":599,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/11\/Mary13.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html","name":"Why Should We Believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-11-04T17:20:39+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-27T17:17:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"If we examine the Bible closely, we see that the data we do know about is perfectly compatible with the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/why-believe-in-marys-perpetual-virginity.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Why Should We Believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4339\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4341"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Mary13\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/11\/Mary13.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n