Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - Brothers and Sisters of Christ?
http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm ^ | Denis Keohane

Posted on 06/14/2011 6:53:10 AM PDT by 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?


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-233 last
To: smvoice; kosta50
No, wasn’t it you who told me that a lot of Bible scholars think that Babylon was code for Rome? This was a few days ago and obviously on another thread. My apologies if it wasn’t you. :)

Actually, it wasn't. I happen to believe that, but I didn't post it to you in the last couple of days. It is fascinating looking at the development of the NT before canonization, don't you agree?

221 posted on 06/18/2011 5:14:03 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; kosta50
No, wasn’t it you who told me that a lot of Bible scholars think that Babylon was code for Rome? This was a few days ago and obviously on another thread. My apologies if it wasn’t you. :)

Actually, it wasn't. I happen to believe that, but I didn't post it to you in the last couple of days. It is fascinating looking at the development of the NT before canonization, don't you agree?

222 posted on 06/18/2011 5:14:03 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
There are plenty of self described Christians that believe that Jesus and the Apostles preached from the KJV in English.

There are always "self described Christians" who believe all sorts of things.

Just wanted to point out that your phrase "it is believed" does not represent the entire landscape of orthodox believers.

223 posted on 06/18/2011 5:19:57 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming
There are always "self described Christians" who believe all sorts of things.

Just wanted to point out that your phrase "it is believed" does not represent the entire landscape of orthodox believers.

You are correct. For instance, the entire landscape of orthodox believers believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

224 posted on 06/18/2011 5:39:33 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Not so.


225 posted on 06/18/2011 5:41:12 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming
Yeah, so.
226 posted on 06/18/2011 5:47:28 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Well, it looks like we are done with our dialogue as we will never agree on your assertion of having to believe in transubstantiation in order to be a full member of His church, a full believer in Christ.

Like O'Reilly I will allow you to go ahead and have the last word as no doubt you would like.

227 posted on 06/18/2011 5:58:19 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming
Well, it looks like we are done with our dialogue as we will never agree on your assertion of having to believe in transubstantiation in order to be a full member of His church, a full believer in Christ.

You spoke of orthodoxy. The Real Presence is a requirement of orthodox Christianity, not some variant of fallible men's copy of the Faith. If you believe in self-doctrine, well then, you may do so.

228 posted on 06/18/2011 6:03:40 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: narses
Facts in regard to Our Lady

Her progenitors were chosen and guided by the Holy Spirit

Her mother, (Saint) Anne was made aware that her daughter, Mary, was the one chosen to Immaculately conceive, and carry in her womb, the infant Jesus, the Redeemer.

From the moment of her conception, Mary was and remained pure, innocent, and without sin.

After the 'announcement' from Gabriel, Mary only desired to be 'married' to God.

Obeying God's wishes, she married (Saint) Joseph.

Mary was an adept seamstress, and oft made clothes to be given to the poor. When women would request a garment sewn by Mary, solely for the sake of owning such a garment, she politely refused.

Mary died thirteen years and two months after Christ's Ascension.

Before she died, all the Apostles, excepting Thomas, who arrived after her death, were present.

Before dying, Mary blessed each Apostle according to Divine instruction.

Mary was interred in a cave which was situated below the cave of Jesus' interment.

Upon death Mary"s soul ascended immediately to Paradise.

Later, her spirit, accompanied by Angels, collected her human body and again ascended to Heaven, where Mary joined her Son and the Father.

Mary, by decree of God, was named Mother of the Church.

Ave Maria.

Aside: Many will scoff at, and attempt to deny, what I've posted above. If you do not believe it now, you will at some point in the future, be shown it to be true.
Also, we, Roman-Catholics, do not 'worship' Maria. Though we do, unabashedly, love her, and oft ask that she intercedes on our behalf to her Son.

229 posted on 06/18/2011 6:36:51 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

The passage does not say one way or the other.


Matt 12
46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark ch 3
32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!


It is plain in mark that he was talking about those who sat about him, his mother and brethren were not setting about him.

In matt he stretched his hand toward his disciples.

In fact both passages makes it very plain.


230 posted on 06/18/2011 7:39:35 PM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
“Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and Wesley “

I guess I missed the book of Luther.
I guess I missed the book of Calvin.
I guess I missed the book of Zwingli.
I guess I missed the book of Bullinger.
I guess I missed the book of Wesley.

231 posted on 06/20/2011 9:31:59 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

Three different words used to describe those present.

The crowds or multitude
His mother and his brethren
His disciples

We do not know if his disciples were his mother/brethren or if they were among the crowd.

It just doesn’t say what is wanted here.

It does not say those who came to speak to him were not his followers.

What we are to learn from this, the take away if you will,
is that those whosiever does the will of God is his mother and brethren.

This is not a rebuke of Mary. It certainly does not mean that Mary was not a follower.

Mary comes to speak to him, he is surrounded by people.
The word is passed up that she and his brethren are there wishing to see him.

He uses their appearance to tell the crowd that when one does the will of his Father in heaven, one is his brother or sister or mother.

We are not told what immediately follows this exchange.

Often times people read into passages what they want it to say rather than reading it, considering the time and place in the story and trying to discern why the writer felt the need to include it.

It is just not as plain as one would like to believe.


232 posted on 06/20/2011 7:51:34 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

It is just not as plain as one would like to believe.


He points to his disciples, (not to his mother and brethren) and says these are my mother and my brethren.

We do not know if his disciples were his mother/brethren or if they were among the crowd.

It plainly says his mother and brethren stood without, they were not the disciples, nor were they in the crowd that sat about him.


233 posted on 06/21/2011 7:00:55 PM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-233 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson