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

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"

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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)

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'!

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?

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?

I have no problem being firm with doctrinal beliefs that have been handed down to us throughout the ages so long as there is a srong basis for those viewpoints. The core beliefs of the Christian faith are rooted in scripture. Even other topics, such as the sins of homosexuality, abortion, and predicting Christ’s return (e.g., Camping) also have strong basis in scripture.

The reason you have certain churches that accept homosexuality, abortion, and predicting Christ’s return is because of their liberal views on scripture and not necessarily because they don’t always fall in line with official Catholic church teaching. Liberal churches believe they can pick and choose what to believe even when there is strong scriptural opposition to their positions.

In the case of perpetual virginity, the Bible doesn’t explicity state that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin forever. Instead, there are many verses that can be used to infer the proper understanding. Both sides of this issue present reasonable arguements based upon scripture, IMO. Therefore, I don’t believe this issue can be settled to everyone’s satisfaction by examining scripture alone.

Catholics also believe, based upon tradition, that those close to Mary knew she was a virgin and passed along that knowledge to others. If there was evidence that the tradition really did originate from those close to Mary, then I would accept that as pretty convincing. However, all I have seen is appeals to early church fathers who would have been pretty far removed from the original source of the tradition.

Victorinus — not quite. Jerome says he was an opponent of this but later on in the same text says that “ But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel — that he 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.” (Against Helvidius)

yet, TP, take the cases of divorce or contraception. Is there a "firm" viewpoint on these, in your opinion?

The Anglicans didn't think so in the 1930s and once the little step was taken, here we are 80 years later with the Anglican church sadly in near total apostasy

That being said -- as you point out there is no direct scriptural evidence for or against. If you are to leave it at that, so be it.

Absolutely. And you are so right about Mary. As the church says about her, she is the first and most perfect of disciples.

I do not take lightly the difficulties that protestants have with coming into the church. Even after being raised a Catholic, coming back after a twenty year absence took a lot of study and prayer.

The Church is beautiful and mysterious and eternal and I, too am a grateful Catholic. I love that it is a well so deep it is impossible to imagine plumbing all its wisdom.

The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is just one example of the richness of the Church’s theology. Though protestants insist the doctrine is a means to support the Church’s deification of Mary, in reality, it defends the person of Jesus as God and human.

The Church tends to see the long view of theology rather than grasp on to the popular exegesis of any given generation. And that is why she is ancient and eternal.

will, your post is disingenuous. What did I say "slowly but surely it ended up" --> I use the Anglican example as a learning point for us all. namely it's easy to take the first step away from orthodoxy, which is what the Anglicans did by allowing divorce and contraception

What does it matter so much, these strongly devout and still very Christian people would have said

But the one little step, moves to another and another and finally it is a precipitous cliff.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church wrote in 2003"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.

"No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives."

, When divorce is allowed, it is just the first little step to gay marriage as we see.

It’s not disingenuous to point out that your post shows homosexuality in the priesthood/bishopric to be the end result of doctrinal or traditional compromise.

You offered no explanation for the occurrences of homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood/bishopric

It could be argued that at least with Anglicans, you can identify which of the priests are homosexual

will

There is strong scriptural support to condemn divorce; although there is some dispute if it's allowed in the sole case of sexual immorality. Contraception, on the other hand, is not condemned explicitly in scripture, IMO. Abortion is condemned in scripture because it's equivalent to murder.

I don't think the reason Anglicans are headed (or are already in apostasy) is because they slowly rejected more and more of the Catholic church's teaching. I think their problem, like many other liberal churches, is their approach to scripture. They don't treat scripture interpretation carefully but allow the culture of the day to bias their positions. They have become too connected to the world's philosophies rather than relying on the unchanging truth of the Bible.

"That being said -- as you point out there is no direct scriptural evidence for or against. If you are to leave it at that, so be it."

That is where I personally am it - I don't see direct scriptural support for or against perpetual virginity, so to me it's a non-issue. As I mentioned earlier, if I did see strong support for the tradition that those close to Mary told others she was a virgin, then I would consider that evidence as well.

sorry, no win. It's not "foundational"

Any stone, when toppled, that brings down the entire structure ... is foundational.

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"

lol ... ah ... No ...

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church wrote in 2003”The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.

“No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.”

*******

Reading this definition, scriptural references and I believe Catholic annulment guidelines, a marriage unconsummated is not a marriage; yet the persistent belief in the ever virginity of the wife of Joseph. Was she married or not?

I believe the term you’re fond of is ‘disingenuous’

will

As Jesus said

Matt. 24:13

13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Matt 25:31-46 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
1 Pet. 3:20-21: " It (Baptism )saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Note -- also in Acts 16:31 we are told to believe and you will be saved

repent, believe, confess the name of the Lord, be baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and endure to the end. Christ's words...

In your zeal to switch topics ... you accidentally provided evidence that the early church did not teach infant baptism.

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.

How would an infant child obey the command to fast one or two days?

My point all along is that the early church fathers present neither a complete nor uniform systematic theology ... and the tendency of theologians within your persuasion is to pick and choose that which supports doctrine not clearly spelled out in the New Testament; using the "sacred tradition" card as justification.

This....

perfectly illustrates the Church’s defense of Mary as defense of Jesus.

Mary, though fully human, was not just any human.
Joseph, though fully human, was not just any human.

They were the holy parents of Jesus, God Incarnate, set apart by God the Father in order to fulfill His plan of salvation.

Why so insistent that they must have had sexual relations?
Why the juvenile charge of frigidity?

Jesus, though fully human, was not just any human. He was not just a good man who went about preaching love and forgiveness and working miracles. HE US LORD! God the Son who lived and died and rose for our salvation.

One cannot separate Jesus from his mother, cavalierly throwing out a “your mamma” joke as if one may insult Mary without offense to her Son.

Jesus said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”

One may truly believe that one is merely mocking Mary and through her the Church, but in believing thus, one would be wrong.

firstly, it says you shall order, secondly, infant baptism is not doctrine, but baptism for the Remission of sins and Baptism in the proper Trinitarian method IS doctrine

you want to baptise your young later, ok -- but the problem is that you don't believe that Baptism is for the remission of sins, do you?

Again ... your interpretive methods are severely flawed; not just flawed ... completely invalid and self-contradictory.

1 Then He brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces the east; and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.

Continue reading in Ezekiel 44 ...

Ez 44:7 when you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to profane it

If we apply your method of interpretation, and link sanctuary with Mary ... this would nullify your position in its entirety.

This passage has nothing to do with Mary at all; it is simply describing a vision of the temple that was given to Ezekiel. Only by applying a subjective and allegorical method of reading into the text can you arrive at your interpretation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.