Replies

Three things in the Bible lead some Protestants to believe that Mary was not ever-virgin: the reference to Jesus’ “brothers”, the use of the word “until” in Matthew 1:25, and the reference to Jesus as Mary’s “firstborn.” Let’s look at these one at a time.

Jesus’ Brothers:

The word “brother” or “brethren” is often used in Scripture for relationships other than that of those born of the same parents:

Verse

People Involved

Relationship

Genesis 11:26-28,
Genesis 14:14

Lot - Abraham

nephew - uncle

Genesis 29:15

Jacob - Laban

nephew - uncle

1 Chronicles 23:21-22

Children of Kish and Eleazar

cousins

2 Kings 10:13-14

42 “brethren” of King Azariah

kinsmen

Deuteronomy 23:7, Jeremiah 34:9

All Jews

practitioners of the same religion

Matthew 23:8

all who love Christ

members of the Church

John 20:17-18,
Matthew 12:49

Christ - His disciples

Savior - saved

1 Corinthians 15:6

500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ

strangers

This isn’t every reference to “brother(s)” or “brethren” in the Bible, but it’s enough to prove that the use of the words “brothers” or “brethren” doesn’t necessarily indicate “blood brothers” at all. This is true is because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for “uncles,” “nephew,” “niece,” “step-brother,” “step-sister,” etc. All were referred to as “brother” and “sister,” which were translated into Greek as adelphos or adelphe.

Nonetheless, and despite Tradition, there are four people that some Protestants claim are the blood brothers of Jesus, an idea which comes from Mark 6:3 which says that Jesus is “the brother of James, and Joses, and of Jude and Simon.” But to find out who the real mother of these four are, look at the following:

Matthew 27: 55-56 tells us of three women at the Cross: “And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.”

Mark 15:40 tells us of the three women there, “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.”

John 19:25 is the most inclusive, telling us of four women’s presence, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (Note here the reference to Mary’s “sister” who’s named Mary!)

Putting all these together, we can cross off Joses and James the Less as being Jesus’ blood brothers because their mother is the wife of Cleophas.

We can cross Simon off the list because Mark 3:18 tells us he is a Canaanite, “And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite...”

Jude, we are told in Jude 1:1, is the “servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James.”

Crossing just one name off the list is enough to prove the point that the Hebrew word “brother” means many things (just as the word does in English today, my “brother or sister in Christ!”) and to prove that this is so even in the very particular context of Mark 6:3.

St. Papias, writing in the first and early second centuries and called by St. Irenaeus a “hearer of John,” refers clearly to all the above Marys in his letter, a fragment of which survives to this day. He writes:

Mary the mother of the Lord; Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord’s. Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands. [read the complete letter fragment here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm. Will open in new browser window.]

In addition to this, Jesus could well have had step-brothers, as Church Tradition and early Church writings tell us that Joseph was an older man when Mary, a consecrated virgin, was betrothed to him so that he could act as her protector when she got to be of age enough to “defile the Temple” (though she could not, in fact defile the Temple). Please read the Protoevangelium of St. James, dated to ca A.D. 125, which, in chapter 9, clearly states that St. Joseph had other children from a former marriage. Though this document was rejected by the Church as being a part of infallible Scripture, it is very early evidence of the belief, held as possisble from the beginning of the Church, that Jesus had “brothers” because his earthly father, Joseph, had children when he married Mary, a consecrated virgin. Also see the apocryphal document, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, yet another early source which proves that many of the earliest Christians believed in Mary’s consecrated virginity, that Joseph was an aged man when he married her, and that she was kept free from sin.

You’re Joseph. Your wife gave birth to God. Would you have sex with her?

Another note on this: when Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive a child, she says to him in Luke 1:34, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” We are told seven verses before that when this happened she was “a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph.” She was already engaged, knew she was to be married, is visited by an angel who tells her she will have a Son, and she acts bewildered, as though it’s an impossibility because she “knows not a man.” She’s not confused that she will bring forth a Son who “shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David”; she is confused that she will bring forth a son at all! She doesn’t “get it” because she knows she is a consecrated virgin and will not “know a man!” She is confused that she will have a son at all!

Yet another poser: why, in the name of all that’s Holy, would Jesus give Mary to John to care for if He had all these brothers and sisters around? John 19:26-27 reads, “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”

And finally, if Jesus had brothers and sisters, don’t you think their descendants would know it? At least in the first 300 years or so of the Church? Where were they? Did they speak of “Uncle Jesus” often? I’d think that if He had all of these brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews around, there’d have been some word of it.

Preface

Some time back, a verbose work was posted on FR, unattributed which i found out was really from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html, and below are my responses as it relates to this latest assertion of perpetual Marian virginity (PMV), and which is part of a much larger response, which i have not finished or all proof read as yet, but thought i would post this part here. You can see the rest of the work in progress here Thank God for His grace and truth and longsuffering toward us.

I would like to say first that while Roman Catholics condescend to using Scripture in attempting to substantiated to evangelicals that what they hold to is Scriptural, yet in reality they cannot allow assurance to be based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, as only the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) is held to be able to provide such assurance. Thus any appeal to Scripture by them as if it could provide assurance of truth is ultimately in order to convince souls that this is not the way to obtain certitude, and that they instead need to have implicit faith in the AIM of Rome in things it has so defined (once they figure out which ones are).

Second, recognized Roman Catholic authorities and other web apologists admit that "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture" for the Immaculate Conception, and which also applies to PMV, and thus what the Catholic must attempt to do is to defend a tradition by wresting texts of Scripture to support it, often going to extremes in his own private and often careless interpretation, and which actually demeans Scripture, rather than honoring it like as he does Mary.

This is not only due to Scripture not saying what the Catholic wants it to say about Mary, but because, unlike Rome, the Holy Spirit gave little press to Mary, unlike to souls like Peter and Paul, the latter of whom sees relative little emphasis by Catholics, especially as compared with Mary, who, Ratzinger acknowledges, “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal.” (“God and the world;” p. 296)

Scripture no where states or teaches an exception for Mary as regards not being a sinner, or for her having a sexless marriage, or being a heavenly object of petitions from earth, etc,, which absence is contrary to the example of the Holy Spirit in stating like and even lesser exceptions to the norm by notable subjects,. from the length of days to extra toes to being a just person to eating locusts to being sinless, and thus Christ is said at least twice to be the latter. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22)

While no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “Co-redemptrix” “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings,” (ibid, p. 306; see comments on Co-redemptrix below) yet this is also true of other aspects of Catholic exaltation of Mary, which depart too greatly from the sober and balanced descriptions given of Mary in Scripture, showing how she was a holy saint and a virgin, but not going beyond into the extremes of Catholic devotion, which the Roman Catholic apologists attempt to find support from Scripture by many unwarranted extrapolations here.

Nonetheless i have undertaken to go through most of the list of texts so far, and in should be which it kept in mind that the objection is not to Mary being honored and allowing her to be the women of Gn. 3:15, or other like possibilities, but to the excess exaltation, adoration and appellations that such is part of (and the manner of exegesis behind it); Such as (again) as being the mighty Mother of God and a perpetually sinless virgin who is ascended to Heaven and enthroned as Queen of Heaven with almost unlimited power and having the ability and function to process virtually unlimited prayer requests, and even a more immediate and superior recourse for help than Christ Himself.

► In the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught,

as Christ was sinless, so Mary is said to be:

as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

as the Lord was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven, so also Mary;

as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) Mary is made Queen of Heaven;

as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things,

as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing great restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

and as the Lord called souls to come to Him for salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord, being coredemptorist and “the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.,”(Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses 3:22) with Mary shedding her blood through Christ, the logic behind which can lead back to Eve; And more, and is honored with with more titles than the Lord Himself.

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God	What is said above in part about titles departing too great an extent from the language of Scripture, applies in principal to the Theotokos title, which conveys that God ontologically had a mother, which is more than what it may technically allow, and is part of the supererogatory if praise which is “above that which is written,” (1Cor. 4:6) and “written” almost always refers to Scripture, it being abundantly evidenced to be the assured infallibility standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and by which the Lord established His claims and the church.
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.	Twice the Holy Spirit refers to Mary bringing forth her firstborn son, (Mt. 1:25; Lk. 2:7) but which does not make Jesus an only child nor teach that He was not, but the Holy Spirit makes exceptions evident. The constant eisegesis the which Catholic will engage in here in order to make up for what the Holy Spirit does not provide is both amazing and grievous. All throughout Scripture we see God making evident important or even notable aspects and exceptions to the norm of subjects, from the extraordinary age of Methuselah (Gn. 5:27) to the extraordinary 6 six fingers and 6 toes of the son of Goliath, (1Cor. 20:6) to the extraordinary diet of John the Baptist. (Mt. 3:4) the extraordinary virgin Israelite males of Revelation, (Rv. 14: 4) and many more, but somehow the common Catholic practice of praying to the departed finds no even one mention, nor a marriage between any child bearing couple in which there is “leave” but no “cleave,” contrary to God's description of marriage, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5) and to what would be the normal inference of “until” in Mt. 1:25. ,
Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.	See above.
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.	The careless manner in which the Roman Catholic apologist lifts any text he can force to support his tradition is irreverent. The text here is not referring to the birth of Christ nor of Him coming into the world, but of His coming into the sanctuary, which the world was not, and the temple Ezekiel refers to is different in specifications than the one built under Moses, and is yet to be built! The more the Catholic attempts to force Scripture temple to support its tradition-based doctrine the more it reveals that it does not come from Scriptural warrant and is contrary to what it does teach. What is more incredible is that the Catholic has Jesus being born without breaking the hymen, even though doing so would not disallow her from being a virgin (some females are virgins even though it has been broken due to causes outside sexual relations).
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.	The Roman Catholic apologist (RCA) sees what he wants, but rather than Jesus always being referred to as “the” son of Mary, Jesus is never called the son of Mary except once by those who merely saw Him “after the flesh,” (Mk. 6:3), but He is called the Son of God about 50 times. In addition, no where does Jesus actually refer to Mary as being “my mother,” and actually only personally address her as “women,” and though this is not a denial that she was the mother of Jesus in a human sense (versus ontologically begetting His Deity), yet among other aspects the lack of this express appellation speaks against the over emphasis and focus on Mary as the mother of Christ. And and in response to a pointed call to recognize her, he answers, “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?...whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Liklewise in response to a “blessed be thy mother,” type statement Christ responds, "But he said, Yea rather [one word, “menounge:“ “rather,” “but” (Rm. 9:20), yes or doubtless], blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. " (Luke 11:28) Mary is not blessed above all women, but “among women” (Lk. 1:28,42), being one of many whose blessing is because they obey the word of God in faith. In his desire and practice of thinking of Mary above that which is written, (contra 1Cor. 4:6), the Catholic not only has Mary being a consecrated temple virgin, and who gets married and with the intent that remains a virgin, and has Jesus being born without breaking her hymen, but he then asserts “perhaps most certainly that Joseph was a virgin” (contrary to what some CFs believed), and which shows the extremes he is willing to go to, and how he cannot allow objective analysis to threaten his desired conclusion. Of course, if Joseph was a virgin then i think he should be honored more than Mary on this respect!
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.	Here, the Catholic incredibly asserts that Mary's response “How shall this be done” (DRB) “How can this be,” (NAB) must mean she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity, which would also mean that Joseph would have agreed to it as well, even though Scripture knows of no such thing, not anywhere mentions this radical marriage, but only that Joseph “knew here not “until” he had brought forth her first born son.” (Mt. 1:25) And which results in more special pleading by RCAs in arguing against the normal import of the Greek word and in its contextual construction. What is further incredible is that the Catholic expects us to also suspend objectively asking how Mary's response could mean something besides his conclusion, for the answer is the most obvious, which is that “before they came together, she was [to be] found with child of the Holy Ghost,” as per Mt. 1:8, as Joseph and Mary were only betrothed, and which would typically last a year, sometimes longer. As for Mary being a a consecrated Temple virgin, this idea does comes not from Scripture but from the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James (Protoevangelium of James), and which is considered to be pseudepigraphical. Women did assemble at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and the very aged widow Anna “departed not from the temple,” (Lk. 2:36) and Paul alluded to widows who apparently consecrated themselves to a single life of celibacy, (1Tim. 5:11,12) and Catholic look to 2 Macc 3:19-20 which speaks of some virgins apparently living in some apartments by the temple, but besides nothing at being said about Mary being such in Scripture, the only examples of temple virgins in inspired Scripture were widows. Moreover, to suppose that Mary would leave temple dedication in order to live as a virgin in marriage is further removed from Scriptural warrant and reality. Josephus describes that outer court being open to all, except menstruating women, while the second court allowed all Jewish men and menstrually-clean Jewish women, but only Jewish men could enter the third court. And of course, the fourth court was restricted to priests who were properly attired, which be the High Priest.
Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.	While the Catholic relies upon arguments from silence* for much of his Mariology, here he used absence as a proof for his doctrine. Yet while the absence of other siblings is noteworthy, the subject is only that of one missing child, and there is no contextual reason to mention others. Nor was it necessary for Mark or Luke (Mark 10:46; Lk. 18:35) to mention the second blind man, but which Matthew does, (Mat 20:30) And while Luke does not mention the siblings of Jesus in cp. 2, he is faithful to do so, as are all the gospel writers. (Lk. 8:19-21; Mt. 12:46,47; 13:55; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 2:12; 7:3,5,10; Acts 1:14) In all these the Catholic is forced to relegate them to speaking in the larger sense, and contrary to any immediacy which context infers, (cf. Mt. 4:18; 10:2; 22:24; Mk. 5:37; 6:17; Lk. 3:1,19; Jn. 1:40,41; 11:21,32) and which could be used to rob other mothers of having children as well. In addition, Ps. 69:8, which is linked to the Messianic verse that follows, (Ps. 69:9; cf. 21) speaks of Jesus being as an alien to His “mother's children,” which Jn. 7:3,5 comports with. The Catholic has no problem with “his mother” only referring to Mary, even though “mother” can also be used in the broader sense, (Mt. 12:49,50) but when a text says "Then came to him his mother and his brethren..." (Luke 8:19) then they vehemently deny this can refer to siblings of Christ. Moreover, the Lord Jesus never exalts His mother after the manner as Catholics do, but despite prime opportunities to do so instead He makes all who obey God's will to also be His mother, and brethren. Of course, if a Catholic Spirit had inspired Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit then it would be substantially different. "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. " (Luke 11:27-28) "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! " (Matthew 12:47-49) *For example, Catholic argue that since Scripture does not say you cannot pray to the departed, then that means it can be allowed, even though it has no positive examples amid the multiplicity of prayers, and is contrary in principal to what Scripture teaches on who to pray to in Heaven, and the hermeneutic behind this could also be used to sanction such things as the Mormonic teaching that man preexisted as a spirit, etc.),
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.	What is extremely disrespectful is the manner in which the Catholic continually forces Scripture to support his desired conclusions. Here he enlists Mark 3:21 (And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself”), but the word used for brother/brethren is not there, and cannot be said to necessarily refer to brothers or relatives. As for John 7:3-4, (His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest,...”), this does refer to brethren, and distinguishes between them and His disciples, “For neither did his brethren believe in him, and this disbelief and type of alienation (no kin were seen at his crucifixion) can be seen as fulfilling Ps. 69:8, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children,” which is another verse which the Catholic is forced to disallow as even including any of His biological family. As for speaking disrespectfully, this is exactly what they did, and rather than supporting the Catholic premise, instead it supports what Scripture reveals about the nature of his brethren.
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.	By now it should be apparent that what is unthinkable is that the Scripture should reveal that Mary had a normal biblical marriage, consistent with what the Holy Spirit examples and describes marriage as being, and that Jesus had biological brothers consistent with the normal meaning of the word in its context. As for it being in thinkable that Jesus should commit the care of his mother to his beloved disciple John if he had brothers, this conclusion is only because of the Catholic cannot allow that Jesus had biological brother and who were not fit to care for his faithful mother, in contrast to the disciple of love, who by charity and longevity would be the best candidate. And rather than what we would expect if consistent with Rome's overall exaltation of Mary, Jesus did not commit the care of his mother to Peter whom Rome looks to as the perpetuated head of the church, or to the whole body of his disciples, which Rome points to Mary, effectually even more than to Christ.
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.	In his rabid devotion to defend and exalt Mary the Catholic here responds to arguments I have not even heard made for Jesus having other biological brethren.
Top
V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi) = Cousins or Kinsmen	As will be seen, the Greek has words it uses for cousins (“suggenēs”, “anepsios”), which are different from the word for brethren (“adelphos”) which often refers to biological siblings. And while adelphos can also often mean brethren in the larger sense, when used with the name of a parent then that is less likely, while celibate marriage is unknown in Scripture, and is contrary to its description, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5) and again, the Holy Spirit abundantly records significant deviations. Thus the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to established perpetual Marian virginity, that this was the case as per his tradition — but which he cannot and does not do.
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.”	“Cousin is not required or excluded here, but the Catholic judges himself superior to the Catholic translators of the classic Catholic DRB Bible which has “cousin” here, while determining the meaning of this word by appealing to the Hebrew and Aramaic insults the Holy Spirit who chose Greek with its greater range of expression to give the N.T. to the world (with Greek being the most common language in world of the early church). And and who is shown (in duplicate accounts) sometimes expanding or recasting what Christ said on earth, in providing a more comprehensive revelation in doing what Jesus tells Him to inspire the writers of the N.T. to pen. (Jn. 16:13-15) Greek also enables a distinction between the many words which can be translated “love.”
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.	The dispute is not that “adelphos” in its almost 350 occurrences can often mean “brethren” in the larger sense of the word, but that it is a forced and unwarranted conclusion to assert that it must mean other than biological siblings in the context of “his mother” or father or close familial context, as it would also disallow other “brethren” from being biological brothers or sisters. See Mt. 4:18; 10:2; 22:24; Mk. 5:37; 6:17; Lk. 3:1,19; Jn. 1:40,41; 11:21,32, and other remarks here and here among other places.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.	Here the Catholic fails to see the grammatical distinctions and significance to the order in which the Holy Spirit gives his record. "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) " (Acts 1:13-15) The Catholic here seeks to make "his brethren" referred to the 120, but as in John 2:12 ("After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days"), Mary once again is mentioned together with Jesus brethren, and only after that are the total multitude of "disciples" mentioned, in which a specification can be seen being made as to Jesus brethren now being part of the believing multitude. As for brother meaning kinsmen in Hebrew, this is misleading, as the Hebrew word (''âch”) used for brother approximately 600 times in the Old Testament often means biological siblings, as even a cursory search would reveal.
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.	Again this is not the argument, but that must mean something other than biological siblings which the Catholic cannot establish no matter how much he tries to argue against the biblical norm of marriage and the normal sense of “adelphos” with mother or in like context of close family.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.	See above. The problem is none of these prove what the Catholic must as he it is who is making this extraordinary proposition.
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.	The Catholic is referring to the Septuagint not the Masoretic text but there is nothing new here except that the Catholic again fails to prove that “adelphos” cannot refer to biological siblings of Jesus, after the manner that it does in similar contexts. As for cousin, in the New Testament the Greek uses “suggenēs” to refer to cousin or kinsmen, (Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 21:16; 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom.9:3; 16:7,11,21) as well as “anepsios” in Col 4:10: Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas...”
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.	“And Joseph's ten brethren ['âch] went down to buy corn in Egypt.” (Gen 42:3) To which multitude more texts can be added. Thu the Catholic here continues to be misleading in inferring “brethren” only means kinsmen, or disallows biological brothers/sisters.
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.”	Ditto. Many words in Hebrew or Greek are not precisely restricted to this degree of specificity, and thus a word is translated according to normal usage unless otherwise demanded by context, and which weighs in favor of Jesus having biological siblings. What is driving the Catholic to absolutely disallow adelphos from referring to Jesus having biological siblings is that of his requirement to support a tradition of men, that of the perpetual virginity of Mary with its own resultant exegetical errors. In other words, his interpretation is driven by his desired conclusion, not what the text best warrants.
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.	But we do not have any word, context or cause within Scripture that would restrict adelphos to exclude it referring to Jesus having biological siblings.
2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.	Gen: 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.	Gen 34:25: And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”	Gen 42:6 And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land: and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth.
Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”	Gen 47:5 And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee: Gen 49:5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.
Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).	Gen 50:8 And all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father's house: only their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen.