DeoOmnisGloria.com

Well stated. It may also be relavant to point out that Jewish families in the time of Christ, and long before, were patriarchal. The oldest living male was the head of the family and all descendents were considered brothers and sisters in one family, what we would call today the "extended" family. The concept of the nuclear family that we have today (Dad, Mom, 2.5 kids and a dog) did not really exist. To say that "brothers" in the NT refers to children of the same biological parents is a classic example of applying modern standards to a historic context.

Yes even Martin Luther, and John Calvin believed in her perpetural virginity... Why can't evangelicals and fundamentalist believe this... Many of them that I know look at Mary as a incombator(hope the spelling is right) as if she was not special for GOD but just a body to use to give birth to Jesus.... But look at themselves as GOD's special gift... PRIDE!!! and fear that the Church could be RIGHT!

Wow. I am impressed. I am only 15 right now, but this is the best source of information I could have looked up for my purposes. Thank you for giving me another hope with the Church.
Just a note: Would it be wrong to add that Thomas declared he was a twin? And then explain how Jesus could not have had a twin, but rather, as Thomas taught Gnosism, he actually meant a "fellow" in the Scripture. This may or may not explain anything, but it sure flexes the basis for the Protestant belief that James' title as Jesus' brother was all legitament.

Shane, when someone 15 years of age cares enough about the Roman Catholic Church to learn what it teaches, it fills me with hope to know that the Holy Spirit is working wonders in the young people of today.

Hi,

I'm 15 too, and i have a question. Is the gospel of thomas actually written by Thomas? and if it is, then is Thomas actually Christian?

David,

The Gospel of Thomas (GThom) was not written by Thomas, or rather, "Dydimus Judas Thomas" as the text actually has it - who early Christians in Syria thought was Jesus' brother Judas (or Jude) mentioned in Mark 6:3. In fact, another non-canonical text called the Acts of Thomas mentions that this Judas Thomas was a blood relative of Jesus - so says the Acts of Thomas.

GThom is a list of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Most Catholic biblical scholars recognize that GThom is likely to be of Gnostic origins, that is, that it was written (or the sayings were compiled together) as early as the second century, but more likely later than that.

Was the author, or compiler of GThom a Christian? Yes he indeed was a Christian, although his understanding of Jesus was very different than the understanding that would eventually become that of the Catholic Church. Eventually, as early as the second century we know that important Bishops like Irenaeus of Lyon were vigorously writing against various teachings and teachers of "Gnostic" Christianity.

So, in the end, the beliefs that stand behind the Gospel of Thomas were pronounced heretical by the emerging Orthodoxy.

I hope this helps.

Two minor points to add to your otherwise superb defense of the perpetural virginity of Mary:

1) Ancient Hebrew had no word for cousins or nephews, period. They used the same word for "cousin," "brother," and "nephew."

2) The anti-Mary argument that Protestants use the most, in my experience, is the "till" argument:

"And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son."

The Greek adverb that is being translated as "till" here is "heos ou," which does NOT mean "until" as we understand it. It means "up to and beyond." Most Protestants would call that hairsplitting, but "heos ou" is used in another verse:

In Matthew 28:20, Christ says to his disciples, "I am with you always, even until the end of the world." Again, it's the exact same Greek word: "heos ou" translated as "until." If "heos ou" really means up-to-but-no-further, then Christ will be with us until the end of the world, but then we're on our own. Bummer.

It's a weird feeling, watching Christians tear down Christ just to get a good swipe at Mary.

Tobias

Nice note Tobias. Where have you been?

In Love

when we were one

Well, I had let my gangsta- and pimp-duties slide in recent months, and decided to concentrate my efforts on bringin' in my chips. Seriously, my wife's been pregnant with our first, and I ain't had much time to do anything fun.

Tobias

Tobias

Congrats and welcome back.

wwwo

Hi Jay

Maybe reason number 6 could be Mary's own words, spoken to Juan Diego, when she appeared to him on 9 December, 1531, at Guadalupe, Mexico.
She identified herself as "the perfect and ever Virgin Holy Mary, Mother of the God of truth through whom everything lives, the Lord of all things near us, the Lord of heaven and earth".
If anyone knows whether she had any other children after Jesus, she should.

Praised be Jesus
Brian R

I am a Christian and I agree that this is excellent information. I knew there were different opinions regarding this matter and I was interested to know what the church has to say about it. That would really be rough to be a blood brother of Jesus! How would you ever measure up? That wouldn't really seem very fair. I guess it really doesn't matter that much, it's pretty ridiculous that small matters like this have to divide the church of Christ. I think it really hurts the heart of God to see Christians dragging Jesus through the mud. I guess about Mary being a perpetual virgin-that's wonderful if she was. She was a blessed saint and I'm sure she is very important to God. Regardless, she still was a person. Jesus was the only one who ever was able to live without sinning. I think that's the one thing that is hard for protestant and Catholics to come together on. I feel like sometimes, much of the emphasis is on Mary, mother of Jesus, and I think we all just have to be careful that that does not take away the focus of our attention on our savior's sacrifice of His life for our sin. Salvation is only found when your sin is covered in the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ. Our time should be spent worshipping and praising him and telling others how he changed our hearts and lives. Let's keep trying to bridge the gap and show God's love, regardless of denomination! May God Bless!

Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters?
-by Tony Warren

When we carefully consider the Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous, because it is so clear even from the context of many of the scriptures that He did. The only major religion that chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion. Roman Catholicism dogmatically maintain that following the Lord's birth, Mary continued in her virginity the rest of her life and never bore any more children. This in direct contradiction to everything in scripture which shows that though Joseph and Mary did not come together before Jesus was born, they did afterward, and the Lord indeed blessed them with Children.

With so much Biblical validation for this, the question is, why would anyone attempt to dispute it, or even want to? The answer is as simple as the word 'tradition'. It is because these scriptures directly contradict Roman Catholic tradition which glorifies Mary as a perpetual virgin, Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix. If this church were to confess that the scripture is correct and Mary had other children, it would destroy their well oiled myths about Mary. Therefore, a way had to be devised which would justify this teaching.

It is hard to imagine the argument against Mary having other children being more thin or groundless. Number one, nowhere does the Word of God say she had no other Children and so it is a doctrine which is not based on solid scripture. Number two, Roman catholics have made the fundamental error of building a house from the roof down. In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call "technicalities" in the Greek to try and give the appearance their conclusions have support. But any logical Bible scholar knows that sound Bible hermeneutics doesn't start out with a conclusion and then search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the Word, and then follows it to it's conclusion. Since there is nothing in God's word which says or even implies that Mary had no other Children, that starting conclusion is based on man's thoughts, not God's.

What they have done in one instance is taken the Greek word [adelphos], that is translated brethren, and attempted to make it's meaning vague and unclear. But while it is true that this word can have a couple of meanings in different parts of the Bible (Brethren/in Christ, Brethren/Kin), it cannot be used this way in the pertinent passages we are dealing with, nor is there is any reasonable justification to claim that this word in it's context could mean cousins. As for the spurious claim that it means brethren 'in Christ,' the very context of the passages precludes it. Moreover, even without the word "brethren" we can see clearly that Mary had other children. To simply "ignore" these things would be handling the scriptures tortuously.

The best way to find an answer of what is true is to go right to the Scripture and let it speak for itself. Remember, the scriptures (the Word of God) are the ultimate Authority. Note carefully that you would have to "tortuously" wrest the scriptures to even begin to make them imply Mary didn't have other children. for example...

Matthew 13:55

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
Matthew 27:56

"Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."
Here we see from many different levels that Mary is identified as the "Mother" of James and Joses. This has nothing to do with the translation of the word "brother". And it is clearly stated again in Matthew 13:55 that James and Joses were Jesus' brothers! And so unambiguously, on two separate levels, we have the truth of the Word that Mary was mother of Jesus, James and Joses, and that James and Joses was the brother of Jesus. That should settle it for any rational, objective thinker. But Roman tradition is not rational, it's indoctrination. Nevertheless, the clear sense of scripture (to those without any preconceived ideas) is made manifest in it's clarity.

Mark 3:31

"There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him."
Mark 6:3

"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
Again, the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It's identifying a blood family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we're going to say that word Brother doesn't really mean His brethren, we have to also say that word Mother doesn't really mean Mary was Jesus Mother. For it's the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.

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;"
Mark 16:1

"And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him."
Anyone looking at those scriptures both "carefully" and "honestly" can come to no other conclusion but that Mary had other children. The problem is not that the scriptures don't clearly state this, the problem is that the Roman Catholic church places tradition over and above the Authority of the Word of God, making it non effectual (mark 7:13). There is nothing in God's Word that either implicitly or explicitly says Jesus was the lone son of Mary, or that Mary remained a virgin. But the context of many verses show that their was physical sexual union between Joseph and Mary after Christ was born.

Matthew 1:24-25

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him HIS WIFE:

And knew her not Until she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name, Jesus!"
He 'Knew her' not (didn't have physical sexual union with her) until she had brought forth her Firstborn, Jesus. From this statement, it is clear that He knew her (in the biblical sense) AFTER the birth of Jesus. As a practical example, if someone were to say that they took a wife, but didn't consummate the marriage until after January, and in reply I stated that this means they never consummated the marriage, you would think that ridiculous. And you'd be right. But this is exactly what Roman catholics do in regards to the above verses of scripture.

And so, that anyone can read all these scriptures and still believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin is a testimony to the indoctrination of traditions. To believe this, they must ignore or wrest scriptures that say Mary was the Mother of Jesus' Brethren, ignore scriptures which say Jesus was the brethren of Mary's children, and ignore scripture which says Joseph knew (in the Biblical sense of union) her not "until" after the birth of the firstborn (Jesus). And that's just for starters!

The deeper question is not was Mary a perpetual virgin (no scripture says that), but why should/would she be? Mary was a Chosen vessel, not a deity! Is there anything wrong with Joseph and Mary having more children? It was a perfectly normal thing for a husband and a wife to do. In fact, it would be abnormal for them not to do (1st Corinthians 7:3-5).

Another Biblical indication that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a myth is that Jesus is referred to as her firstborn Son. If Jesus was the only child of Mary, would He be referred to as her firstborn Son? Of course not, because this designation assumes the existence of more than one son. It designates more than one child, among whom a specific one is the first. Mary certainly had other children after the birth of Jesus. Not only does the Bible clearly tells us that, but it also gives us the very names of those children. From the very beginning God ordained that wife and husband should be fruitful and multiply. The only thing which would preclude this, is man-made traditions invoking the idolizing of Mary. Because God's Word is abundantly clear on the matter.

Matthew 12:46

"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him."
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."
Lest anyone should try and wrest the Word and claim that this word brethren is talking about those in Christ (spiritual brethren), here we see God showing us the disciples (spiritual family) were distinct "from" his Brethren and Mother (Blood family). It was his Mother, his Brothers, "and" the Disciples. Again, the very context confirms these were Jesus Brethren, not the Church brethren. You don't say, "His Mother and His Brothers" in a context like this, and have it mean the Church.

John 7:3-5

"His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

For neither did his brethren believe in him."
Again, we can see clearly that at first even Jesus's brothers did not believe on Him. This again clearly illustrates that these were his flesh brothers, not brothers in the sense of brothers in Christ. The context makes that very plain. And the scriptures use the Greek word [suggenes] or [suggeneia] when referring to kinsman, relatives, or cousins, not [adelphos] Brethren. These brethren were Mary's other children. Note also that his brethren said this, that his Disciples may also see the works. Again, a distinction between His brothers and the brethren which were the family of the Church.

Acts 1:14

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."
Galatians 1:19

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."
Clear scripture which illustrates to us that Mary had other children. Unfortunately, when one cannot justify their teachings with scripture, they must come up with some other way to justify tradition, and so rationalizing away scripture is usually the rule of the day. Their authority becomes men instead of God. But what is man's word worth compared to the Word of the living God? it is written, "let God be true and every man a Liar".

The fact is, you cannot argue anyone into believing anything. Either they are noble to receive what is written, or blinded by tradition that they won't receive it. The key is not to let their frustration become your frustration. Go into any discussion with the proponents of this doctrines with your eyes wide open. Don't expect people to listen to the Word of God, because they probably won't. Nevertheless, here and there there will be a remnant, a few who will hear, being called of God that they won't blindly follow man-made doctrines. The Spirit of truth will guide these to listen with all readiness of mind to rational consistent Biblical teachings. Just as the more noble Bereans (Acts 17:11) did. As these Bereans didn't blindly accept what their Priests said, so a few will search it out to see if what is witnessed is true.

Acts 1:14

"These all continued with one accord in Prayer and supplication, and with the women, and MARY the Mother of Jesus, and with HIS Brethren."
The truth is both clear and Concise. It's not ambiguous, nor is it hard to understand. But as Jesus said about His witness, "if you will receive it".

So what can the faithful Christian glean in information about the Lord's Brothers and Sisters from all of these pertinent passages? First of all, we can know that Jesus had at least four brothers and at least two sisters. The brothers names were, James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and one of the sister's names was Salome. We are unaware of the name of the other.

These things are so clear and so straight forward in the scriptures that it seems totally irrational to deny them. But with some groups, it doesn't matter what the scriptures say, because church leaders or teachers are paramount rather than the authority of the Word of God itself. We should understand (though not condone) that this is the way it has to be with them because that is the only way they can claim that the clear context and text, doesn't "REALLY" mean what it says. By not having the Word as ultimate authority, but church, they can make these claims in their private interpretation of scripture, and arbitrary defining of terms.

The normal process of hermeneutics does not allow us to force upon the scriptures the idea that Mary had no other Children, ever! Both the context of the sentences as well as the common usage of these words and structure elsewhere, testifies that this refers to Jesus Christ, His Mother, Sisters and Brethren. ...Not cousins, or brethren (as in Church members).

In all matters of doctrine, it seems to always boil down to the same common denominator. What is our Authority? Is it God, where we receive and obey God's Word as the ultimate authority, or is it man, where we receive and obey our teachers words as the authority? Those who reject scripture in favor of their teachers (no matter what religion) have another authority other than that of the Bible. And as long as they do, they will never come to any agreement with any scripture unless their church leaders (man) says they can (or God decides to open their eyes). Our hope and prayer is that God will open many eyes.

The true believer doesn't need to build Mary up, she is already Blessed and honoured. Yes, Mary was a chosen vessel and was blessed of God to bear the Lord, but she must not be set up as a idol, or prayer tower, or intercessor. There is one intercessor and it is Jesus Christ. Let us not loose sight of that. There is one Mediator between God and man, and one redemptrix and it's the Lord Jesus Christ. And the idea of mary as a Co-redemptrix is anathema. We don't have to artificially make her Holy, she is Holy just like all the rest of God's Chosen vessels. ..by the Blood of Christ.

Hey Brian,

"Satan can transform himself into an angel of light" - says the word of GOD.

Is it possible that Satan transformed himself into an image of MARY and said "the perfect and ever virgin ....."

Jay,

The "biblical proofs" that Jesus did not have brother's that you list, are not proofs at all. They are rather, interpretations of various data, that is all.

The best, and most reasonable response that a Catholic can give to the question of whether Jesus had brothers or not, is the same that the late Fr. Raymond Brown (the most important New Testament biblical scholar of the last 50 years, and a Catholic!) offered - The Bible offers no definitive proof that Jesus had brothers, or not. But the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches that he did not, so I (Brown) will go with that.

Arun

I believe it was Josef Goebels (the head of Hitler's Department of Propaganda) who notes "A lie if repeated enough times eventually becomes the truth."

I believe it was Christ that said, John 8:44 - "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

The passage you quote from Warren fits both of these descriptors. These horrid misunderstandings at best serve only to support the work of Satan against the "one faith" Eph 4:5.

The reason we Catholics go to the actual Greek is because the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, that we have, were written in Greek, we seek the truth. Uniformly, however, scholars agree that Aramaic was the spoken language of Christ and the Apostles. Warren would have us believe that 21st Century English is wholly appropriate to understand the beauty and depth of Scripture. This is the height of "form fitting" which he accuses the Church.

Arun do you believe the word "gay" today means the same as less than 100 years ago? say 1940? This is what Warren wants you to believe. How about fat (phat)? When someone says "Dude that is fat!" You really believe that means the same as 10 years ago?! That is what Warren Claims.

Catholics want the truth... we want to know what Adelphos "brother" meant 2000 years ago. He doesn't want you to know because that would be the truth (remember "Satan can transform himself into an angel of light" - says the word of GOD).

When we look back, we see at least that Warren agrees that Adelphos has wide meaning which includes the Catholic interpretation of cousin or kin. But his twisting of scripture disposes both logic and truth. Here I think you would really like this site since you seem to be a person of reason http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/index.php

Martignoni points out how the commonly laid claims of Warren are false if you just read scripture: " You said that Mary had other children besides Jesus. I say you are spreading false teaching by saying that. So, either you're spreading false teaching or I am. And all you can say about that is, "Who cares?" I say, and Christians for 2000 years have said (even non-Catholics like Martin Luther and John Calvin agree) that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I asked you about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:19 who is described as being the "Lord's brother." And, in Mark 6:3 it says that the Lord had "brothers" and "sisters." One of those was named James. So, James the Apostle mentioned as the Lord's brother in Galatians 1, must indeed be the James mentioned as the Lord's brother in Mark 6:3, right? Well, he has to be the same unless the Lord had two brothers named James. But, there is a bit of a problem, here. Matthew 10:2-3 gives us a list of the Apostles. There are two Apostles named James. Now, one of those must be the son of Mary and Joseph, according to what you believe. After all, there is an Apostle named James who is the Lord's "brother." But, we have a problem when we actually read the list in Matthew 10. The two James' are the sons of Zebedee and Alphaeus, respectively. Well, that just can't be, can it? Doesn't one of them have to be the son of Joseph? Well, one of them does have to be the son of Joseph if you interpret "brother" in an absolute sense as being a son of Mary and Joseph. But, if you interpret the word "brother" as the Jews of the time did, then it keeps Scripture from contradicting itself. The Jews did not have a word for cousin or nephew or uncle or brother-in-law or step-brother - they used one word for all of these close relations...brother. So, the Catholic intepretation, that the "brothers" of Christ were actually cousins or some other family relation, fits all of scripture in this regard...the common Evangelical interpretation, which is your interpretation, does not."

Martignoni gives us another antidote to the lies spread by Warren: "When we carefully consider the Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous, because it is so clear even from the context of many of the scriptures that He did. The only major religion that chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion."...really?

Did you check this for truth Arun or did you just eat it because it fit your form? Wikipedia notes: "The perpetual virginity of Mary, a doctrine of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity..." Lets see, Catholics number 1 billion, Orthodox number 300 million, we see Luther and Calvin in agreement and then there is Tony Warren and his pretend church what 40k at best? He wants us to believe that only the RC's hold to this? LOL! Did you even question this Arun? Lie #2

Then he twists the Berean passage... if you read my interaction with Pete under "10 questions for Bible Christians" you will see how I was able to reason with Pete showing that pages of his regurgitated lies were indeed lies, you will see I quote 2 former Evangelical scholars that were converted to the Catholic church... that "one faith" listed in Ephesians by simply reading the verses before his truncated quote.

Brother Arun, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ prayed that we be as one Jn 17: 20-23. Not that we be as 30000 (the current number of Protestant denominations by Newsweek April 2001 each believing it has the full truth and the other 29999 are mislead!) He prayed this "so the world would believe." Are your Hindu bros listening to you? Which one of your 30000 has the truth? You Arun? Tony Warren? Is he your Pope?

In Love

when we were one

when we were one,

Im usually the type of person that argues point for point. But I don't believe it'll do any good here. The arrogance in your words is so unattractive. Few things frustrate the work of God like pride. You believe you have all the answers it seems, mocking those who oppose you. I hope that this is not an accurate portrayal of the Catholic definition of "love."

-Alan

Alan

Thats funny. When Protestants romp through the blog decreeing that we are the idolaters the antichrists and the Whore of Babylon you are silent. If you read my words as mere arrogance that is your decision. Yet your silence on your "brothers" behalfs speaks volumes of your true mind.

In Love

when we were one

WWWO, for what it's worth, I find no evidence of arrogance or mocking in your rebuttal of Tony Warren's claims. Nowhere have you suggested or implied that you have all the answers (though this accusation is often leveled at one who dares to have a different answer than the accuser). You portray love at least as well as those who oppose you.

Burnt

Thanks for the above.

I can't remember if you responded a few months ago to my observation about the "Last Battle" (C.S.Lewis).

I see the Narnians as the one true church...based on Aslan via the high king Peter. The problems start when the ape (Luther) feels that he can interpret truth although it was left to the Narnian Kings to interpret. The dwarves (non denominationals) are sick of the in-fighting and the dwarves become "for the dwarves," deterimining truth for themselves. In the end they are unable to discern the beauty of even the greatest feast (Eucharist) sensing it is only food from a trough. Sometimes I feel the invicible ignorance of dwarvism here and need to recognize this for what it is.

In Love

when we were one

WWWO,

I must have missed your post about the Last Battle. It's been a while since I've read it. Though I find it hard to believe that Lewis believed the Ape to parallel Luther (Evangelicals would probably say that Luther paralleled Prince Caspian). This raises the possibility that Lewis may have stumbled upon an unintended parallel.

From what I have read of CS Lewis, he rejected the authority of the Magisterium not because of a specific doctrine but because they demanded he submit in advance to Magisterial teachings before knowing what teaching they will produce in the future. This was my struggle in my own return to the Roman Catholic Church.

If the Narnian Kings interpreting truth appropriately parallels the authority of the Magisterium, then what we have is CS Lewis publishing to the world at large an answer to his ultimate objection to joining the Roman Catholic Church!

I apologize if I am a bit late to the "table". There really are some quite impressive replies to Arun. Forgive me if I am out of my league, but I believe the issue is more simple than siting verses. As a matter of fact, I would say that it cuts to the core of our beliefs and what makes us "Christian".

I am assuming that we all agree to the sacredness of marriage. Prior to the arrival Jesus, God was quite clear about the marriage bond. From the beginning, He is calls husband and wife "one body". He tells Moses that we "shall not" have intercourse outside of this bond. And there are a fair amount of stories within the Old Testament reinforcing this union to be sacred before Jesus confirms it himself.

(Oh yeah, one other note as a Christian--The believe that Jesus was begotten of the Father (divine), not made.)

If one does not believe in the virginity of Mary, then you have yourself a bit of a Christian dilemma: Did God abandon Mary, or did Mary "cheat" on God?

And therein lies the conundrum!
1. If Jesus had brothers, (as some Christians would have us believe), Mary must have taken on another husband. That means she would not have been faithful to God!
2. This would also mean that God (with infinite knowledge) chose a woman who would betray both him and the bond that He Himself set up from the beginning of all things. Remember this is no ordinary situation, this is the one He is setting up for His Son!
3. It is hard to believe, but maybe some believe that God abandoned Mary, thus forcing her to take another husband. This means that God Himself does not respect the unity of family. Or here is another one....
4. Maybe God had several children with Mary. If God had more children with Mary, how do we then believe the sacrifice of Jesus to be all that great?

So how are we left to interpret this senario with reason as our guide?
Did God abandon Mary, thus forcing her to take another?
Does Mary ignore the teaching of her culture & her God and take on a second husband?
Do we believe that God was not smart enough to choose someone with greater respect for His own laws to raise His Son?
Do we believe that God begot many children thus watering down the importance of this sacrifice of His Son when he had 4 more to spare?
...Or do we believe the Catholic Church?

Of all these senarios, the Church is the only one logically consistent with Jewish teachings, consistent with interpretation, and consistent with our own Christian faith. Our Savior came from one favored by God, respectful of all His teachings, and remaining pure and faithful to Him throughout her life. And just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son to show his love of God, God in His infinite love sacrificed His only Son to show forever His love for us.

Independent of that senario there is no great sacrifice, independent of which there is no Christian faith. There may be several thing that separate us from our Christian brothers in faith, but I humbly submit that this should not be one of them!

Thank you for the forum,

MarkV

MarkV,

None of your reasoning was really a "conundrum".

You said, "And therein lies the conundrum!
1. If Jesus had brothers, (as some Christians would have us believe), Mary must have taken on another husband. That means she would not have been faithful to God!
2. This would also mean that God (with infinite knowledge) chose a woman who would betray both him and the bond that He Himself set up from the beginning of all things. Remember this is no ordinary situation, this is the one He is setting up for His Son!
3. It is hard to believe, but maybe some believe that God abandoned Mary, thus forcing her to take another husband. This means that God Himself does not respect the unity of family. Or here is another one....
4. Maybe God had several children with Mary. If God had more children with Mary, how do we then believe the sacrifice of Jesus to be all that great?"

For #1, since Joseph was her husband, it is not out of the ordinary for husband and wife to have children, am I correct? Since they are married, how is this not being faithful to God? God wasn't her husband.

For #2, that would not have been betrayal. What he DID set up from the beginning was that Jesus would be from the lineage of King David, as to say that he was a true king of the Jews. However, JOSEPH was the one who fulfilled this, since he was married to Mary and he was the one who was of this family line (Check Matthew 1).

#3 states that God would be abandoning Mary, or that if he did he would be disrespecting family unity? That wouldn't be the case at all. Catholicism states that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were the Holy Family, so how would Mary having relations with Joseph be taking this away? In fact, I would say it is promoting it.

#4 God did not "have children with" Mary as we think in human terms. They did not go through the institution of marriage or anything; he gave her the Holy Spirit. How does Mary having other children take away from the sacrifice of Jesus? In reality, the two don't have much to do with each other.

Just thought I'd post, because I don't think most Christians would agree with you when saying Mary having other children is "cheating" on God. She had a husband, so it's not a radical idea to believe she had children.

The Catholic Living Bible states that she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit "while she was still a virgin", and that "she remained a virgin until her Son was born" implying that she was not a virgin AFTER the fact(Matthew 1: 18, 25).

NewKid

A reply to one of Tony Warren's points -- Using Matthew 13:55 ("Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?") to establish that the last four named are blood brothers of Jesus from Mary's womb is weak. The verse begins with another relational word -- son. If we are to take the comment of the folks in the synagogue about James, Joses, Simon and Judas being Jesus' brothers in the usual, modern nuclear family sort of way, logic would also compel us to accept their comment that Joseph was Jesus' father in the usual sense -- by sexual intercourse. This is denied in Matthew 1. Neither Roman Catholics, nor Evangelicals nor other Protestants believe that Joseph impregnated Mary to conceive Jesus.

Joe, in the early 20th century Protestants experienced a major split and one of the points that divided them was the Virgin Birth. They argue, based on the historico-critical method, that when Matthew quotes Isaiah, the Hebrew word in Isaiah is just as ambiguous as the english word "maiden" which can mean a sexual virgin and/or a young woman.

Many liberal Roman Catholic scholars also cast doubt upon the virgin birth. Raymond Brown kept himself onside of the Magisterium by saying that although the Virgin Birth cannot be established historically (relegating it to a post-resurrectional retrojection), the Magisterium has pronounced it as an article of faith and so it can be established based on the authority of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit (as is this case with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption).

I am still of the impression (though I would welcome correction or new information) that a Roman Catholic who accepts the Marian dogmas based on the authority of Tradition rather than the direct authority of Scripture can still "believe all that the Roman Catholic Church proclaims to be revealed by God" and thus be considered in full communion with the Church.

While I don't accept the "liberal" conclusions of the historico-critical scholars, a significant number of such people do exist in both the Roman Catholic and Protestant communities.

By the way, another way of reading the "brethren of the Lord" was to treat them as step-brothers of Jesus, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. St. Augustine proposed this idea but abandoned it when St. Jerome suggested that "brethren" meant "kindred". To my knowledge, if someone believes Joseph to have fathered James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas they might still be considered Roman Catholic unless the virginity of Joseph has become dogma. Though this theory is out of favor because Joses son of Joseph would be highly irregular by Hebrew naming conventions.

Well, i've thoroughly enjoyed reading the "debate" regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. It appears to me there are strong arguments for both conclusions. I guess the point i'd like to put out there for consideration, is that perhaps there is no clear dialog or solid proof in the Bible regarding this matter is because it simply does not matter. It is not pertinent to salvation. Of course it is something we are curious about, but the matter should not be a polarizing issue. I can't help be but think if her perpetual virginity were something God wanted us to celebrate, teach, protect as truth or build into Christian worship, He would have made a point to spell it out in the Bible. I doubt it was an oversight on his part to give us the details. He didn't simply forget to include that chapter. Whether or not Mary remained a virgin does not change one iota of what Jesus did for us or who he is to us every day. The debate in itself is a distraction from Jesus. Anything that takes our focus off of Jesus and what He did for us is not worth our time. Satan loves to distract us from seeking Jesus. Mary was God's chosen vessel, she was/is not our Savior.

Hi Ann,
What would you say is the pillar and foundation of the Christian faith?
In Christ,
Matthew

Could you please address this ;)
Matt 1:18 RSV* Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph,before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

Matt 1:25 RSV* but KNEW her not UNTIL she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
this "Knew" refers to sexual intercourse just as Adam knew Eve,
*I only used the RSV because im pretty sure catholics use it, bad translation philosophies though

Phil

Good and very common question. For questions like these I love this book.

http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/CATHOLICISM+FUNDAMENTALISM/cid=238/page_no=1/edp_no=3066/shop.axd/ProductDetails

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Coming Home Network. Its a network started by former Protestant Pastors who have become Catholic... believe it or not about 5 Protestant Pastors per day inquire about becoming Catholic over there. http://www.chnetwork.org/

Anyway they have a tv show every mon nite on 8pm eastern on EWTN. There you can call in and ask the pastor questions like these. They have all kinda people but very often they say that this book by Keating really answered false beliefs they had re: Catholics because it was so well researched and directed to our Evangelical brothers. And I'm not talking about bumpkins converting, even the President of the Evangelical Theological Society converted!... that is the top Evangelical thinker today ... by the way.

Anyway I found a quick answer for you on Catholic.com
Q: Can you provide a New Testament example which parallels how Matthew uses the word "until" with respect to Mary in Matthew 1:25? I’ve had Fundamentalists tell me the word translated "until" in most modern versions, is different in the New Testament than in the Old Testament and that Catholic arguments in support of Mary’s perpetual virginity based on Old Testament examples of how "until" is used won’t work.

A: Such examples do work because, while two different words are used (one Greek, the other Hebrew), they mean the same thing ("until") and don’t mean that something which didn’t happen up to a certain time, necessarily happened afterward. Those who say "until" in Matthew 1:25 proves Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus, then, are wrong.

Although Old Testament examples commonly cited by Catholics paralleling the use of "until" in Matthew 1:25 are perfectly valid, a New Testament example you can cite is Luke 1:80 which says, "And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel."

The Greek word translated "until" in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who, after as well as before he appeared in public, resided in the desert (Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

Another site I like is www.cuf.org

Hope that helps

In Love

when we were one

Phil,
I assume that your insinuation is that, according to your interpretation, these verses "prove" that Mary was not a consecrated virgin AND that she bore children or at least copulated after Jesus' birth. Unfortunately, this is a common, yet relatively recent and false charge. Read the quotations below very carefully--I think that they answer your question quite well. Please remember that these men are the "founders" of Protestantism.

John Calvin:

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. … [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband... No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words...as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin... What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us... No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."
-Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39, A.D. 1562

"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity."
-Commentary on John 7:3, circa 15??

Huldreich Zwingli:

(According to G.R. Potter) He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ... "To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God...and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting-not prayer-'Hail Mary'... God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels-it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be...to God alone..." [In] 'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen... There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
-The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, A.D. 1522, as represented by G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976

"I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil... I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity."
-Sermon on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, A.D. 1524

Martin Luther: (the "Father" of Protestantism)

"A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ... Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity... When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her... This babble...is without justification...he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom."
-That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, A.D. 1523

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb... This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that... Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
-Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4, A.D. 1539

So Phil, did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli get this wrong? Do tell.
In Truth,
Matthew

Hi David,
Good thinking but not enough to make your point and some of them are very feeble to believe.It is always better to go according to the Bible.
The main contravercy is Mary's motherhood to God. God selecteda vergin,innocent God fearing and devoted Women to be a part in the manifestation of Emmanual(God is with us) so we should respect that woman but not to worship her.The only one worthy to worship is God alone,so sorry to say Catholics are doing something against God's commandments,THE UNBREAKABLE LAW.

Jac,
We DO NOT worship Mary. Take some time to look into Catholicism before making ridiculous statements.

Just to clarify: Catholics worship God alone (Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit). We do not worship anyone else. I recommend reading the Catechism so you'll know what we actually believe.

God bless,
Jay

Post a comment