Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

Seton Magazine ^ | Dave Armstrong

[narses]

In my previous article, I wrote about the “Hebraic” use of the Greek adelphos: as applying to cousins, fellow countrymen, and a wide array of uses beyond the meaning of “sibling.” Yet it is unanimously translated as “brother” in the King James Version (KJV): 246 times. The cognate adelphe is translated 24 times only as “sister”. This is because it reflects Hebrew usage, translated into Greek. Briefly put, in Jesus’ Hebrew culture (and Middle Eastern culture even today), cousins were called “brothers”.

Brothers or Cousins?

Now, it’s true that sungenis (Greek for “cousin”) and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.”

In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use adelphos even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.

Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.

Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isn’t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine Mark 6:4 (RSV), where sungenis appears:

And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him”)

What is the context? Let’s look at the preceding verse, where the people in “his own country” (6:1) exclaimed: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus’ reference to kin (sungenis) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His “brothers” and “sisters”: His relatives. Since we know that sungenis means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus’ “brothers”.

What about Jude and James?

Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe.

Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19: dealt with above). It’s true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion, and (to say the same thing another way) nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture. Moreover, no Scripture can be produced that absolutely, undeniably, compellingly defeats the perpetual virginity of Mary. Human Tradition

The alleged disproofs utterly fail in their purpose. The attempted linguistic argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity from the mere use of the word “brothers” in English translations (and from sungenis) falls flat at every turn, as we have seen.

If there is any purely “human” tradition here, then, it is the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary, since it originated (mostly) some 1700 years after the initial apostolic deposit: just as all heresies are much later corruptions. The earliest Church fathers know of no such thing. To a person, they all testify that Mary was perpetually a virgin, and indeed, thought that this protected the doctrine of the Incarnation, as a miraculous birth from a mother who was a virgin before, during and after the birth.

[roamer_1]

Throwing out part of the Old Testament is an explicitly anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee dictate.

Your comment might have some effect if there was proof of some authority to dictate any canon, not to mention authority to amend the Tanakh - Canon being an invention of the Roman church...

Neither Christ or the Apostles ever once in any way implied any portion of the Septuagint shouldn't be accepted as the inspired Word of God.

Your mistake is in presupposing the Septuagint was what was used... which is by no means convincing. Further, one would have to prove the acceptance of the anagignoskomena within the jurisdiction of Jerusalem - That being one of the hot spots between the Temple Faithful and the Libertine sect (Greek, Alexandrian Jews).

If that's the "whole bit" you mean you've hit upon the easiest way to identify modern day Pharisees, they obey anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees and throw out portions of His Holy Word to avoid the Truth contained in those portions of Scripture.

No, the violation of the Pharisees, and their signature, is the promulgation of their oral torah (their tradition) as equal to or in many cases above, Moses' written Torah and associated books composing the Tanakh, including the prophets... In every case, Yeshua stood against their traditions.

The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded

PROVE IT. You can't.

[Rashputin]

"PROVE IT. You can't."

(16) Simon Peter answered and said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God". (17) And Jesus answering, said to him : "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona : because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. (18) And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
- Matthew 16 verses 16 thru 18

Christ Himself gave the name Rock (Matt 16:17 above) to Simon Bar-Jona who the Father chose to head His Church until Christ returns. That's clearly stated in the above verses as anyone who is open to the Holy Spirit rather than only to their own Most High and Holy Self can see.

If you can't accept what Jesus Christ Himself clearly said, so be it.

[Elsie]

"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.”

A really good example of #6!

---

Logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful.

 

1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

 

2. Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
Example: Convert or die.
 
3. Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.

 

4. Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

 

5. Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
 
6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.

 

7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
 
8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question
Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.

 

9. Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

 

10. False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over)
Example: Do you still beat your wife?

 

11. Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.
Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.

 

12. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another.
Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.

 

13. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.
Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.

 

14. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

 

15. Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.

 

16. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.
Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.

 

17. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.
Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

 

18. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.

Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.

[Elsie]

They claimed the authority to even bisect sentences to draw out the 'true' meaning of Torah, even causing their interpretation to be the full and exact opposite of what the sentence said in full.

We have folks trying to do this very thing on FR these days!

[Elsie]

Luther knew The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded preached, taught, and practiced exactly the same way the early Christians did and so he resorted to the same elimination of Scripture as a means to hide his evasions of the Truth.

I wonder where ol' Martin ever got an idea like that???

---

 

Jerome (325-420 A.D.) The Biblical scholar of his day, and the translator of the Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate, clearly agreed with the Hebrew canon, being limited 39 books of the present Old Testament to the exclusion of the additional books of the Apocrypha. 

 

With the rise of Christianity in the first century, the Septuagint (LXX[3]) was the Bible (Old Testament) used by the early church.  The early members of the church felt no urge to denounce the additional writings (the apocrypha) which came along with the Greek translation (LXX) of the Hebrew Scriptures.   These same books (Apocrypha) were not found in the Hebrew canon, the writers of the New Testament; though they quote from the Septuagint, do not quote from the Apocrypha.

http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/

 

[Elsie]

People who prefer Pharisees and Luther to Christ will one day hear, "I never knew you" from the very same Jesus Christ they imply is a liar by pretending the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error.

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

[Elsie]

Christ Himself gave the name Rock (Matt 16:17 above) to Simon Bar-Jona who the Father chose to head His Church until Christ returns. That's clearly stated in the above verses as anyone who is open to the Holy Spirit rather than only to their own Most High and Holy Self can see.

Your selective use of a few verses to TRY to prove your point is noted.

THESE verses CLEARLY show that Simon was known as PETER way BEFORE the verses you posted.

---

---

Is Peter the 'rock'?

 

---

NIV Matthew 4:18-19
 18.  As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
 19.  "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

 

NIV Matthew 8:14
  When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

 

NIV Matthew 10:1-2
 1.  He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil  spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
 2.  These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

 

NIV Matthew 14:28-31
 28.  "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
 29.  "Come," he said.   Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
 30.  But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
 31.  Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

 

NIV Matthew 15:13-16
 13.  He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
 14.  Leave them; they are blind guides.  If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
 15.  Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
 16.  "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.

 

---

As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'

BEFORE the following verses came along.....

---

NIV Matthew 16:13-18
 13.  When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
 14.  They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
 15.  "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
 16.  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,  the Son of the living God."
 17.  Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
 18.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades  will not overcome it.

 19.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be  bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[Elsie]

If you can't accept what Jesus Christ Himself clearly said, so be it.

What MUST we do...

[roamer_1]

Christ Himself gave the name Rock (Matt 16:17 above) to Simon Bar-Jona who the Father chose to head His Church until Christ returns. That's clearly stated in the above verses as anyone who is open to the Holy Spirit rather than only to their own Most High and Holy Self can see.

Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

e-Sword: KJV

That is, a building stone... look it up. Next.

[roamer_1]

We have folks trying to do this very thing on FR these days!

*eyes boggled* What a coincidence!

; )

[daniel1212]

"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.”

A really good example of #6!.. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

..The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. (Manning)

Thus the fact that the Church teaches Tradition, Scripture and history support as being assuredly infallible is a guarantee that it is true.

Oddly enough, the mutual excommunication of 1054 was partly due to one of the significant forgeries (among others) Rome used to assert her supremacy, that of the Donation of Constantine, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850, and often cited during during the Middle Ages in support of the Roman Church's claims to spiritual and temporal authority (and later exposed as a forgery by a humanist Italian Catholic priest and others in the early 1400s, though its authenticity was occasionally defended till about 1600.)

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a letter to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, that cited a large portion of the forgery called the Donation of Constantine, believing it genuine.[56] The official status of this letter is acknowledged in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, entry on Donation of Constantine.[57]

"The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon it was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood."[58]

Leo IX assured the Patriarch that the donation was completely genuine, not a fable or old wives' tale, so only the apostolic successor to Peter possessed that primacy and was the rightful head of all the Church. The Patriarch rejected the claims of papal primacy, and subsequently the Catholic Church was split in two in the Great East-West Schism of 1054. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Mutual_excommunication_of_1054

[Elsie]

bump

[The Bard]

Sorry, can’t by the whole Mary thing. Mary is part of the creation. God has always been. Something finite (Mary) cannot give birth to something infinite, eternal, pre-existent to the creation (God). God has always been. God always will be. Mary cannot be greater than God.

Unless you start thinking like Mormons, who say we can eventually become Gods ourselves, which would imply that somehow Mary gave birth to a being that evolved into God. But again, where did Mary come from if God had not already existed.

Scripture is clear. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always been and always will be. Mary is definitely blessed, but not greater than her son. Respect and honor is due her, but she was a part of the fallen creation, who needed a Savior as much as any other sinner. I thank Mary for her part, bearing the Son, being obedient to God, her (and Joseph) being of such character and devotion to be given this per elide, and for suffering as she did at the foot of the cross. An exceptional woman for any time frame... But I will never ask her to play any sort of intercessory roll in my life. She will never hear a prayer from me. Those are for Jesus alone, as my Saviour and intercessor.

Mary was the vessel used by God to bring Jesus, God incarnate, into our finite existence, but Jesus existed from the beginning, as part of the trinity.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

Something finite (Mary) cannot give birth to something infinite, eternal, pre-existent to the creation (God). God has always been. God always will be. Mary cannot be greater than God.

Mother of does not mean greater than. It just means gave birth to. The Incarnation is just that, God Incarnate, the Word become flesh.

Yes, it is incomprehensible. But that is what happened. The Word became flesh, born of a woman. You cannot have this without: the Word, become flesh, born of a woman. It requires at the least God and woman, mother of, born of.

Why did God choose to appear in this way? Why not just come down from the sky? Why not just materialize from nothing? We do not know. We do know, if we are Christian, that He chose to be incarnate, in the flesh. God the father is Mary's father; God the Holy Spirit is Mary's spouse; God the Son is Mary's son.

That this is hard to comprehend is understandable. But this is what Christians believe.

Do you see? Do you at least see that this is what happened according to Holy Scripture and according to our faith?

[trebb]

“Yet it says he was not an only child.” No, not at all. And why would that matter to you (since you appear to reject the teaching authority of the Church)?

I guess that mentioning his brothers and sisters can be rebutted if a church has some interest in giving extra glorification to Mary and insisting on her remaining a virgin even though it would be another swipe at Joseph.

I prefer the authority of the Bible to the authority of any religion. I have trouble with a church that has folks praying to dead mortals (the saints) when Jesus gave them a direct line to Himself and the Father - it's akin to asking the janitor of a bank to put in a good word so you can get a loan. I find religion, in and of itself, to be sinful in nature and prone to developing pharisee-like hypocrites - profess to have the same God, but then look down noses at hose of "inferior" religious sects. The church has no authority - the authority rests in that which the church claims to worship.

[Elsie]

---

I guess that mentioning his brothers and sisters can be rebutted if a church has some interest in giving extra glorification to Mary and insisting on her remaining a virgin even though it would be another swipe at Joseph.

---

This just in!

Long lost transcript of Joseph of Nazareth's interview with the Jerusalem Times, dated circa AD 13:

I did NOT have sex with that woman, Mary.

Matter of fact; I NEVER have!

[Elsie]

I prefer the authority of the Bible to the authority of any religion.

I guess this means you'll soon be leaving that religion based in Salt Lake City.

For it claims ALL authority; religion wise.

[Elsie]

I have trouble with a church that has folks praying to dead mortals (the saints) when Jesus gave them a direct line to Himself and the Father...

Have you any aversion to a church that thinks it can intercede in the fate of those that are already DEAD?

[Elsie]

---

---

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

Ezra Taft Benson

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)     http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

[Elsie]

I guess this means you'll soon be leaving that religion based in Salt Lake City.

I apologize!

I confused you with another Freeper: teppe

He is the Mormon...