The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - Brothers and Sisters of Christ?

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm ^ | Denis Keohane

[narses]

Would you willing to try a small test, to see what happens if you try a different approach to the Scripture? It will only take a few minutes, I promise, and we'll use nothing but the Bible. It is based on the exegetical principle that any interpretation of Scripture must be done in harmony with all the other Scripture that speaks to that subject. In others words, it is ALL true. We have four Gospels, and one of the manifest blessings of that is that we can compare them, as small things in one or two can and do clarify for us what is in another. That is, of times, called Scripture interpreting Scripture.

When Protestants insist that Mary had other children, they quote these verses, among others:

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

Mark 6:2-3 - "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother"

James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon - Blood Brothers of Jesus?

These verses, importantly, actually named the Lord's brothers, whereas all the others shown did not. That is why I suggest we look at these four men: James, Joses (or Joseph), Judeas (or Jude) and Simon.

First .... James and Joseph

Let's begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:

Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome." (emphasis added)

So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That's two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:

Matt 10:3: "...'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." (emphasis added)

This too is talking of James the Less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! Alphaeus is this James' father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now let's do serious Bible Study, and go to Strong's and the KJV (both Protestant, by the way).

http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/

Go to that link, and search for these two passages, one at a time: Matt 10:3 and John 19:25. In the first, click the 'C' icon for the Strong's Concordance, then click the Strong's number for the name Alphaeus.

Comes up 'father of James the Less'.

We knew that. Now hit the back button to start again with John 19:25. Go to the Concordance ('C' icon), then hit the number for Cleophas, and gosh: it comes up father of James the less!

In other words, Alphaeus and Cleophas are simply two forms of the same name, and that is all we had to establish. Happens a lot in Scripture (John 11:16 Thomas, who is called Didymus; Acts 13:1 Simeon who was called Niger, etc...). So, James and Joseph are the sons of Cleophas (or Alphaeus) and a woman named Mary. Right?

Now, remember when we read in Mark 15:40 where a Mary who was the mother of James the less was standing off from the Cross? Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:

John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." (emphasis added)

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the 'sister' of Our Lord's mother - Mary!

This still leaves Jude and Simon, though, of the brothers named, right? The Protestant hypothesis is still hanging on by a thread! Two of the four 'brothers' have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary!

Next ... Jude

Acts 1:13 "...James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo'tes, and Jude the brother of James..." (emphasis added)

There goes Jude out of the mix! Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:

Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James..." (emphasis added)

It is not only NOT being held up that these brothers 'may' be Our Lord's siblings, but that idea is being REFUTED by the Scripture, when one harmonizes the Gospels! We should also point out that the Scripture nowhere calls them Mary's children.

Lastly ... Simon

Oh wait! One more! There is still Simon, the fourth brother!

Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!

Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 "Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean..." (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)

Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a 'brethren' or 'brother' of the Christ. Let's go to John's Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called 'brethren'!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to 'Do as He says.'

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast..

So Simon is from Cana, and a 'brother' of the Lord! He's not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus' mother Mary. Even here 'sister' may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

So, why do Protestants still want to convince everybody that where you read 'brothers and sisters' it is clearly intending blood siblings, in spite of what the Scripture shows?

Sisters of Christ?

We do also read about Our Lord's sisters, correct? Maybe scriptures will bail the Protestants out on this?

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome (emphasis added)

If this Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is the mother of James the less and Joseph, and also of Salome, then Salome could be called a sister of the Christ just as her blood brothers (same mother) could be called brothers of Christ, without being a sibling, right?

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

As we can see, in every instance in which a brother or sister of Christ is named, each one can clearly be shown to be a son or daughter of someone other than the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now that's the look from the Bible alone, and with serious respect for the word of God, not man's opinion jumping to conclusions.

Now, after you've searched the Scripture and studied it, and harmonized all the Scripture, maybe ask - why is the perpetual virginity of Mary important to the understanding of the eternal Divinity of Christ? What does it say about an important proof of His Godhead, enough that even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and Wesley all strongly proclaimed that doctrine, in the defense of Our Lord?

[Cronos]

TP: doesn’t impact salvation at all and is a lesser topic.

TP is correct that this is a lesser topic compared to the central theme of salvation

We hold to the belief that was taught to us by Jesus Christ through the Apostles.

We do not change it by vote to allow gay marriage or take Harold Camping's words, we don't think we know better about the Early Christians than they did themselves.

As JVette correctly pointed out the Eucharist matters and it is only in the Apostolic churches that one can receive the Eucharist. The Bread of Life which is Jesus and the Cup of the New Covenant which is His blood.

It matters and it is of the utmost importance because one risks eternal life with the rejection of Christ’s church and His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

[Cronos]

Christians can disagree on topics such as this since it doesn’t impact salvation

I agree to an extent. The problem is that this then moves to rejecting everything that has been believed since Apostolic times like the Eucharist etc.

[will of the people]

“Guess you will find out at the moment of your death. However there is a belief that anyone who mocks the mother of Christ is in big trouble at that moment of his or her death.”

Yeah- “Your mama had sexual relations with her husband”
Go to Hell Go directly to Hell- Do Not Pass GO- Do Not Detour to Purgatory!

We all know that the unforgivable sin is Blasphemy of the Ever Virgin Coredemtrix, Queen of Heaven- who of course no one worships- just venerates and adores.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and his mother’s frigidity and thou shalt be saved!

Balderdash!

will

[Turtlepower]

I understand the concern that Catholics have that rejecting this doctrine leads to a slippery slope that one may reject all other doctrine that the Catholic church considers to be fundamental.

However, my point is that this doctrine, by itself, doesn’t impact one’s standing before God with respect to their salvation. Others have said that a person is in danger of condemntation to Hell if they don’t accept perpetual virginity. There is no basis for that statement, and it’s only a scare tactic.

[Turtlepower]

“Guess you will find out at the moment of your death. However there is a belief that anyone who mocks the mother of Christ is in big trouble at that moment of his or her death.”

What rubbish! You’re adding to the gospel message that one must accept perpetual virginity in order to be saved. Nowhere in the Bible does it state you must accept this doctrine or else you will be damned or that you will be “in big trouble”.

What does “big trouble” even mean to you? If a person accepts the gospel message and goes to Heaven how can they be in big trouble?

[ravenwolf]

I have always figured that marys husband had maybe been married before and had children much older than Jesus, but after reading the comment it really does make sense, at any rate i think we can be assured that Jesus was mary,s only child.

---

John ch 19
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

---

The reason for this was that mary had no one to care for her,
if she had other children jesus would have had no reason to appoint John to care for her.

[ravenwolf]

In Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV), it is written: “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife (Mary): AND KNEW HER NOT TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON: AND HE CALLED HIS NAME JESUS.”

Implicit in that passage is that Joseph and Mary (a faithful and loving Jewish couple) did have intercourse but not until after baby Jesus was born. It doesn’t say “her ONLY son, but her FIRST born son.

Really, why this convoluted ignoring of the obvious? It’s for things like this that I could never be a Catholic — going beyond the scriptures into cultism.

---

I am not a Catholic and would never be, but what does it matter if they had or did not have intercourse? does not all of the facts that has been pointed out not mean anything to you? no slur meant here.

Jesus,s family were not his followers, including his mother until after his death and then they saw the light.

Common sense along with the scriptures tells us that if jesus had of had younger brothers some of them would have followed him.

Not to mention all of the scriptures that indicate that if Jesus had any siblings they were older than him.

To say the least there are no scripture that points to younger brothers, but there are scriptures that indicate that his brothers were older than him, if in fact he had any brothers.

I agree with you, i could never be a Catholic either, but i will go even farther i could never belong to any religious organization.

[dartuser]

You hit the nail on the head here. The belief that Mary had no other children is foundational to RCC theology, if it is false their theology crumbles to dust ... ours could care less.

[ravenwolf]

When you cite Calvin and Luther you’re beating a dead horse.

Protestants understand that their leaders’ statements/interpretations can be fallible. Catholics don’t seem to understand this...it’s foreign thinking for them.

---

This seems to be more about religion than the truth, but at any rate its about the only thing i agree with the Catholics on, was the siblings of Jesus younger or older? I believe the brothers and sisters of Jesus was either cousins or the children of joseph by a former marriage, older.

Does it matter? i don,t know that it matters but i have even surprised myself of what i have learned just by reading things that may not matter.

[dartuser]

On the contrary, it is for reasons like this that many come to the Church because we hold to what the Early Christians believed.

So you believe in the Phoenix?

[dartuser]

Whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth is of no relevance, unless you worship her!

Extra credit for you ...

[Cronos]

Actually, rejecting this leads to the slippery slope culminating in Gene Robinson. Namely, if our spiritual ancestors didn't know their own times, how can they speak for us now?

this doctrine, by itself, doesn’t impact one’s standing before God with respect to their salvation -- you are correct, with the condition by itself it does not, however we do not toss or change one part of the faith handed down to us.

Jvette correctly pointed out that Just look within this thread and you will see posits that Mary could have divorced and remarried. Or married again after becoming a widow. I don’t have to remind you narses of the heinous remarks of a certain poster(in a different thread) that Mary could have been a prostitute after the birth of Jesus and that would matter not a whit.

The reason it matters is the same reasoning why the Church does not permit divorce or contraception -- the Anglicans were the first to permit divorce and slowly but surely it ended up with Gere Robinson. They were the first to allow contraception and now we have an Anglican pastoress saying "Abortion is a blessing".

I know you mean well and you can see this slippery slope

We have to be firm on the faith that has been handed down to us, because it's very easy to slip one little thing at at time and finally one ends up as the ECUSA..

[ravenwolf]

IV. Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Top

V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (”anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -”brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

---

Please do not confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.

[Cronos]

I believe in Jesus Christ, Lord, God and Savior, 100% man and 100% God, of one being with the Father, part of the ONE triune God with the Father and the Holy Spirit

I believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate who came, preached, died for our salvation and was buried and rose again from the dead

I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come

Do you believe this?

[Cronos]

ours could care less.

sorry, no win. It's not "foundational" as is the foundation stone that Jesus Christ is God incarnate who died for our sins and who rose from the dead to win us eternal life.

"yours" as in which one? Is this the same theology that says that "homosexual discrimination is a thing of the past, let's have gay marriages as that is the message of Jesus"?

[dartuser]

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Do you even read the Bible?

[Cronos]

Let's take another Early Christian belief.

Justin Martyr wrote about this in the 160s in his "apologetics"

"Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

or, the Didache in AD 70 which described the Early Christian rituals as

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

so, yeah, we do believe those folks in Apostolic Times were on to something...

[dartuser]

You’re injecting facts again ... please refrain.

[Cronos]

Now Jesus is both man and God, both the Prince as in the descendant of David and the King as part of the Trinity.

You are wrong to say that in verse 4 And he brought me by the way of the north gate, in the sight of the house: and I saw, and behold the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord: and I fell on my face. to say this is worship of the tabernacle -- that is wrong, Ezeckiel is worshipping God within.

The tabernacle is but the holding place, holy because it has been filled with the grace of the Lord. It remains holy because it has been graced as such, not because of its own doing

The means by which the Lord has entered the world remains holy -- the Lord, God that is Jesus Christ

[will of the people]

“The reason it matters is the same reasoning why the Church does not permit divorce or contraception — the Anglicans were the first to permit divorce and slowly but surely it ended up with Gene Robinson.”

Really?
Pointing to a homosexual priest/bishop in another church is the defense for Roman Catholicism’s belief in Mary’s ever virginity?!

Really?
The reason it matters is so the priesthood and bishopric remain vessels of purity and holiness.

Really?
I mean- whether or not Mary was ever virgin, we know for sure some priests aren’t.

Whether Mary ever had sex with a male, we know that some priests did (do).

I’m having trouble typing through fits of apoplectic laughter.

Will