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?

[Turtlepower]

I’m not the one that got your post pulled so need to argue with me...I’m just pointing out this topic is not off limits.

[lastchance]

The Orthodox also believe in her perpetual virginity.

[lastchance]

To a non Catholic or non Orthodox the question should by logic be one of Adiophora. That so many sects argue so fiercely against the doctrine is a puzzle.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

It was pulled due to the reference to a particular body part.

Just out of curiosity. Which body part? :-)

[lastchance]

I think the word and the whole concept offends most of Hollywood.

[lastchance]

The you know I can’t say body part one of the blush, blush, stammer, lady bits.

[Ransomed]

Most Christians believe that Mary was ever virgin. It would be interesting to know who was the first person after the Reformation to write about rejecting it. I tried to google that once but I couldn’t find anything, I have sad search skills.

Freegards

[DManA]

I didn’t mean they claimed exclusivity on the doctrine.

[DManA]

Not that it’s a poll question but I would guess a majority do not believe that.

[lastchance]

Thanks for the clarification.

[what's up]

For the record, I thought your post appropriate. It brought the debate down to a pragmatic level by laying out just what virginity is...some consider it a holy state, others such as yourself purely a physical state.

I wonder what other word the mod would have preferred you use other than the scientific one? There are other, less scientific ones, but that would be the crass way to go.

[SoothingDave]

It depends if your poll is of American Christians or worldwide Christians.

Also, if we speak historically, there is no comparison. Denying Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is an historical newcomer.

[what's up]

Denying Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is an historical newcomer

Not so. Victorinus did not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity...nor did Tertullian.

[Ransomed]

It would depend on who has more members, Orthodox + “Oriental” Orthodox + Catholics + some other smaller groups vs. Protestants + various nonDenominational Christians. I think Orthodox + Catholic alone has more, maybe Catholic by itself has more.

And yes, the truth of the matter, or any matter, isn’t dependant on how many people believe it or don’t.

Freegards

[Sioux-san]

I have two children. I refer to my daughter as my first born. If she were my only child, that’s what I would say, unless or until there were more children. This is getting stupid - I’m done.

[Cronos]

Most Christians believe this -- all those in the Apostolic Church (Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Assyrians etc), plus many Anglicans etc. -- fully about 2/3rd of Christians

however, as ransomed pointed out, this is not a numbers game

What is more relevant is how long have we believed this? And the answer is that we have believed this since the time of the Early Christians who were I think a little closer to the time when this happened than folks 1800 years later

The 3 main reformers: Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed this.

however, the third and fourth and fifth and sixth generations of reformatters slowly chipped away at all aspects of Christian belief

[Cronos]

I'm not pointing it out as a sign of infallibility. Rather I am pointing out that all Christians right from the Early Christians to the first and second generation reformers (Luther and Calvin) believed this, just as it was handed down to them

For folks in 2011 to dispute what Early Christians believed is a bit strange -- those guys were closer in time than we were...

[SoothingDave]

It was stupid when you started it. “First born” has a meaning in Scripture and it does not require that there be a second born.

There are better arguments against Mary’s perpetual virginity. I suggest you choose one of them next time. This argument you chose is puerile.

[Cronos]

yes, this is not the core doctrine of our belief which is

Nicene Creed

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.  We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.  We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The core of our belief is on Jesus. This is just secondary, a belief that the Early Christians believed and handed down to us.

The problem comes when people in 2011 say they know better than those Early Christians -- this leads to errors like the voting for gay marriages or Harold Camping etc.

[what's up]

I'm not pointing it out as a sign of infallibility.

Obviously, however, you were pointing it out to try to convince Protestants that because the Reformers believed, they might believe it too.

But Protestants don't think of their leaders as infallible, unlike the Catholics who believe the church fathers' words have the same weight as Scripture.