A Mature Catholic Response Needed

[ServantofChrist]

I would first like to say I love you all…and no, I am not buttering you up lol. I am just looking for an honest and mature response from some of you. This is in no way to offend anyone, beat you up or knock your beliefs. My sister and her family are Catholic and I have many friends who are as well.

I have one topic and a question or two I would like to discuss. I have actually seen a similiar topic discussed but I wanted to approach this in a different way. The topic is about Jesus’ mother Mary and if in fact she had other children.

Maybe you all here are different, but most Catholics I have talked to believe Mary was always a virgin and did not have any other children. The questions I have are these:

If you believe that she was a virgin and did not have any other children, I would like to know why you believe this? My other question is this: If your answer to the above is because your church believes this…or something similiar, then I would like to know why you believe your church over what the Bible says?

There may be more, but below are 5 different writers that were there at the time of Jesus…how can you get more reliable than that…not to mention it’s Gods Word and either you believe all of God’s Word or you do not. So please think on this, I would really like to know what you think.

Matthew 12:46+
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Galatians 1:19
Luke 8:19
Luke 24:10
John 2:12

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… If you believe that she was a virgin and did not have any other children, I would like to know why you believe this?

I believe she remained virgin because bearing a child is a sacred thing (although modernist may disagree). I dare say, Mary was espoused to the Holy Spirit.

I believe that Joseph believed Mary and recognised her as being espoused to the Holy Spirit, and that’s why he wanted to secretly separate from her. (A righteous Jewish man would have her publicly humiliated.) But obviously, God had other plans - He needed Joseph to marry Mary to make Jesus a descendant of David, and He needed Joseph to help protect the Holy Family from the baby massacre.

The question remains; Did Joseph continue to see Mary as being espoused to God? I believe so. Joseph had a role in God’s plan, and he fulfilled it.

My other question is this: If your answer to the above is because your church believes this…or something similiar, then I would like to know why you believe your church over what the Bible says? …

If Mary had other children, it bugs me that God would split her from her other children and use his dying words from the cross to say “Behold, your mother”, when her other children could have looked after her. It seems contrary to the teachings from King Solomon. And so, this reaffirms my belief that Mary did not have other children.

 

[Eucharisted]

Mary was, is, and forever remains a virgin in light of what God spoke through His servant Isaiah: A virgin shall give birth to a child. The word “virgin” in the prophesy has multiple meanings, all of which apply to Mary: young girl, pure, and faithful to God. Mary was very young - around fourteen - when she married, which was the standard age of marriage in that time; Mary was pure, free from all sin, from the moment of her life (conception) to the end of her life (assumption); Mary was always faithful to God, and she said Yes to His Will.

 

[the_unholy_one]

This is some f****** Protestants feeble attempt at Catholic baiting.The Protestants do not even agree on Jesus’ siblings.

The flag went up,when he asked for mature Catholic response.

Presuming he is smarter than the token Catholic who is so inferior to him since Catholicism is the whore in the Apocalypse,that no Catholic could know history better than a biblidoloter,he bemouths his foot and lets Catholics live.

Also,he loves us all. Hmmm-as long as he does not praise Caesar.

We do not want your love,servantofchrist.

Take your trick questions and shove it in with your love.

Go accuse your fellow Protestants,Accuser of the Brethren.:knight2:

 

[kristie_m]

As a cradle Catholic, I’ve struggled with this subject for some time, finally realizing that the doctrine exists because people far more educated that I am, understand it to be so. I can’t, with my limited knowledge, argue the finer points of scripture with someone who has dedicated their lives to the study of it in the original language. I’d be a pretty arrogant fool to try.

Also, I have recently heard, thanks to the advent of Catholic radio, some very compelling arguments in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary. One was posted above…with Jesus entrusting His mother to John, and another was that Mary, as a vessel, had a very specific purpose, and even once that purpose was fulfilled, the vessel remained dedicated to taht purpose. The quote given after that really illustrated the point…“one does not have a birthday party in the Lincoln Memorial.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would first like to say I love you all…and no, I am not buttering you up lol. I am just looking for an honest and mature response from some of you. This is in no way to offend anyone, beat you up or knock your beliefs. My sister and her family are Catholic and I have many friends who are as well.

I have one topic and a question or two I would like to discuss. I have actually seen a similiar topic discussed but I wanted to approach this in a different way. The topic is about Jesus’ mother Mary and if in fact she had other children.

Maybe you all here are different, but most Catholics I have talked to believe Mary was always a virgin and did not have any other children. The questions I have are these:

If you believe that she was a virgin and did not have any other children, I would like to know why you believe this? My other question is this: If your answer to the above is because your church believes this…or something similiar, then I would like to know why you believe your church over what the Bible says?

There may be more, but below are 5 different writers that were there at the time of Jesus…how can you get more reliable than that…not to mention it’s Gods Word and either you believe all of God’s Word or you do not. So please think on this, I would really like to know what you think.

Matthew 12:46+
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Galatians 1:19
Luke 8:19
Luke 24:10
John 2:12

Gabriel of 12;
Welcome to the CAF ServantofChrist;

I believe Mary remained a Virgin and was without sin her entire life on earth is because God prophesied she would be without sin in his first Gospel (protoevangelium). Genesis 3:15. Isaiah the prophet makes mention of Mary’s Virginity in his prophecies see 7:14. What confirms my faith in God’s word that she remained a Virgin, is because the early church fathers never wavier-ed from this Perpetual Virgin faith in Mary. It is not until the reformation from the 16th century when Mary’s perpetual virginity was doubted, although the reformer (protestant) founders came from the Catholic faith, some of them remained steadfast in the perpetual virginity of Mary although their followers departed from their founders faith in this subject.

The other confirmation that helps my faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity is that the Catholic church canonized the New Testament books of the bible, and the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity existed before the bible books were put together by the Catholic Church. So I ask, why would the Catholic Church canonize scripture that conflicts with her apostolic teachings and faith handed to her? Answer because there are no scriptures that contradict Catholic Apostolic Teaching, in fact all scripture with apostolic Tradition supports the faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Come to find out, Late century non catholics and protestants have been misinterpreting the biblical Scriptures that the Catholic Church canonized by the power of the Holy Spirit. These are a few from many reasons why I believe Mary remained a Virgin during and after giving birth to Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[ServantofChrist]

I believe she remained virgin because bearing a child is a sacred thing (although modernist may disagree). I dare say, Mary was espoused to the Holy Spirit.

I believe that Joseph believed Mary and recognised her as being espoused to the Holy Spirit, and that’s why he wanted to secretly separate from her. (A righteous Jewish man would have her publicly humiliated.) But obviously, God had other plans - He needed Joseph to marry Mary to make Jesus a descendant of David, and He needed Joseph to help protect the Holy Family from the baby massacre.

The question remains; Did Joseph continue to see Mary as being espoused to God? I believe so. Joseph had a role in God’s plan, and he fulfilled it.

If Mary had other children, it bugs me that God would split her from her other children and use his dying words from the cross to say “Behold, your mother”, when her other children could have looked after her. It seems contrary to the teachings from King Solomon. And so, this reaffirms my belief that Mary did not have other children.

Thank you for your response. I see your point, but this however is speculation. Most of the disciples did not hang around when Jesus was arrested…this is why Peter denied Him 3 times…he did not want to get arrested as well…so it’s easy to see why none of them were there. However, the Scriptures I listed above state their were other children, what is your opinion of those?

 

[Stouts989]

This is the most articulate response I received when I asked the same question.

Originally Posted by Erich
Nope, no stretch. There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels:
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:
Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:
Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! Alphaeus is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:
John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude:
Acts 1:13 “…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and Jude the brother of James…” (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:
Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…” (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!
Luke 6:15 “and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,” (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family

 

[saskatoon]

I have been having the same argument with my mom, and she went to catholic schools! The big argument is how could Mary and Joseph be married and without the normal relations that go on between a husband and wife. God created Mary, without sin, full of grace, and she was conceived without the stain of original sin. Both Mary and Joseph at early ages pledged their virginity to God. She is told by Archangel Gabriel she is to be the mother of God. Joseph is told by an angel in a dream that Mary is with child and is to take her as his wife. Neither of them could change their vows and yet had to be obedient to God. Surely God would have taken the normal desires away from them. They lived like brother and sister under the guise as husband and wife. So there could not be additional children because of their vows of virginity. Cousins were often referred to as brothers and sisters. It seems like people conveinetly forget that or don’t belive that and that God would preserve them, but in our society sex is the only thing that makes a marriage and that is why many people belive Mary and Joseph had more children. I think people need to be careful with this. Maybe Mary bashing is too harsh when discribing this, but we are questioning her and really insulting her with this. We are picking on God’s mother and He won’t allow it too much longer.

I’m not offended by your post. I think you will learn alot from it. I like having healthy discussions about things.

:manvspc:

 

[Rolltide]

Well, here’s what some key Protestants thought about the subject:

Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

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.

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

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.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

  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 . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

  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.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

  Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

  The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

{“Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}

John Calvin on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

  Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

  [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] 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.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

  Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

  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 . . .

  'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

  Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

  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.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

 

[Rolltide]

Here are some thoughts about Mary’s perpetual virginity from the Early Church Fathers:

Athanasius: “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
**
Epiphanius of Salamis:"… the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). …“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
**
Hilary of Poitiers: “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4

**Didymus the Blind: “It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan: “Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I: “You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Origen: …And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]). [A.D. 248], Hilary of Poitiers [A.D. 354],

Augustine: “In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]). …“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]). …“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

“That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother.”

Leporius: “We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria: “[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I: “His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

Council of Constantinople II: “… the Word of God … came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her,…” (Anathemas Against the “Three Chapters” 2 [A.D. 553]).

 

[StrawberryJam]

Lot is called the brother of Abraham in the bible.
Lot was his nephew.
Laban is called the brother of Jacob.
But, Laban was his uncle.

Are you possibly taking the meanings of these ancient men’s words out of context?

Could these so called brothers of Jesus be perhaps, nephew’s or cousins?

Using the bible for exacting accuracy based on our understanding of the words used in it, could be a big mistake.

 

[Rolltide]

This is a section of a great article on the subject over at Catholicbridge.com:
**
Jesus’ Brothers**

The idea that Mary had other children first surfaced from a guy named Helvidius around 380 A.D. and it caused quite a stir cause no one held that belief at the time. Jerome, responded with a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. Jerome had access to much documentation from the early Church and he cited earlier well known Christian writers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply. His theory died and lay dormant for over 1500 years until it recently resurfaced among modern Evangelicals.

In Scripture, we see many references to Jesus as Son of Mary but never do we see a reference to anyone else as Mary’s literal son or daughter. The gospel account of 12-year-old Jesus lost in the temple does not mention siblings (Lk 2:42) nor does Jesus appear to have any blood brothers at the end of his life. Otherwise, He would have entrusted his mother to the care of his brother instead of the disciple John. (Jn 19:26-27) In Mark 3:20, “they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’” In Jewish tradition the younger brothers would never give advice to an elder brother. It would make more sense for older cousins to give Jesus advice than younger brothers.

When Jesus stays in the Temple at 12 years old, there is no mention of Jesus’ brothers or other children of Mary.(Lk 2:41-51). Jews used no birth control so if Mary was having sex it is likely Jesus would have had brothers by then. Jewish parents did not have to wait until they had a second son before they called a child “first born” because in Jewish law the first baby was always called “first born” regardless of whether or not their were any brothers. At the foot of the cross, Jesus hands Mary to the disciple John, if Jesus had brothers, He would have handed Mary to his brothers, not a disciple.(Jn 19:25-28).

Throughout the Bible, the term “brethren” (Adelphos) is freely used. For example, in 2 Kings 10:13-14, there is a reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Ochozias. In Genesis 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” but Genesis 11:27 tells us that Haran is the father of Lot and Haran is brother’s with Abraham’s brother. That makes Abraham the uncle of Lot, and shows us another example of non-siblings being called brothers.

The well-known Protestant linguistic reference An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine, defines Adelphos as follows:

**Adelphos: **denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of: 1) male children of the same parents . . . ; 2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5; 3) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3 . . . ; 4) any man, a neighbour, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3; 5) persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47; 6) persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9; 7) mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17; 8) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17; 9) believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word 'sisters' is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2).

{Vine, W.E., An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1940 (four-volumes-in-one ed.), vol.1, pp.154-155}

When I was playing music in a Fundamentalist Church, every man was referred to as “brother.” They called me “Brother David.” Nowadays, Bible Christians refer to everyone in the Church as “brother” and “sister”- which was totally cool with me. Even Catholic monastic orders call everyone “brother” (i.e., Brother John)

continued…

 

[the_unholy_one]

Not knowing,what I do not know,I find Jesus’ brothers to be Joseph’s sons from his previous marriage.

Whether that is the Catholic position,I am unsure.

Failing academic scrutiny,rabble rousers demand, Mary and Joseph concupiscied.

There is at least equal evidence for there being no further Marian conubiance.:flowers:

 

[Corki]

From our hosts:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

[Rolltide]

…continued from above

…So who were the “brothers”?

Catholics think it is likely that they were cousins of Jesus. There was no other Greek word for cousin. Catholics think they probably lived in the same household as the Holy Family and Mary’s sister, their mother. It was a common practice of the day and still is in middle eastern cultures to live with relatives. Jesus said “a prophet is not without honour in his own town, his own kin and his own house.” (Mk 6:4) It is likely that the brethren were not too thrilled with the idea of their cousin being considered the Saviour. However, they did eventually see the light and were converted. They were at the Pentecost and got hit by the Holy Spirit. I bet it was a great “Holy Ghost” party! I would have loved to be there for that Spiritual jolt of tongues of fire. (Acts 1:14)

They could also be the children of Joseph from another marriage where he was a widower. Tradition places Joseph considerably older than Mary. This is found in early Church fathers writings including the Infancy Gospel of James from 300A.D. Origen mentions the Book of James (and the Gospel of Peter) as stating that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were sons of Joseph by a former wife. This is the first mention of it, and shows us that the book is as old as the second century.

IX. 1 ....And the priest said unto Joseph: Unto thee hath it fallen to take the virgin of the Lord and keep her for thyself. 2 And Joseph refused, saying: I have sons, and I am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I became a laughing-stock to the children of Israel. And the priest said unto Joseph: Hear the Lord thy God, and remember what things God did unto Dathan and Abiram and Korah, how the earth clave and they were swallowed up because of their gainsaying. And now fear thou, Joseph, lest it be so in thine house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her to keep her for himself. And Joseph said unto Mary: Lo, I have received thee out of the temple of the Lord: and now do I leave thee in my house, and I go away to build my buildings and I will come again unto thee. The Lord shall watch over thee. (Infancy Gospel of James aprox. 2nd century)

Doesn’t the title “Firstborn” in Luke 2:7 mean Mary had other Children?

In the New American Bible notes for Luke 2:7 we read:

Firstborn...is a legal description indicating that Jesus possessed the rights and privileges of the firstborn son (Gn 27; Ex 13, 2; Nm 3, 12-13; 18, 15-16; Dt 21, 15-17)

This word “Firstborn” was a very specific term in Jesus’ time. Firstborns were consecrated to God. Firstborns inherited property etc. Also in the book of Moses, there is reference to Egyptian firstborns who died during the Passover. In Biblical times, children who were the only offspring still received the important title of firstborn so that they had the rights, privileges and obligations associated with it. I was born a Canadian. That title of “Canadian” on my birth certificate gives me specific rights and privileges associated with it.

continued…

 

[Rolltide]

…continued from above

The Annunciation - Did Mary know she would be a perpetual virgin?

When the Archangel Gabriel told Mary she would conceive a son, she asked “How can this be since I am a Virgin.” (Lk 1:33) It’s an odd question given that she was about to get married. Why wouldn’t she think she would have the baby in the usual way with Joseph, right after they got married? Perhaps because she knew she was to remain a virgin and have a chaste marriage with Joseph. Perhaps this had been revealed to her at an earlier time. The angel was not at all angry with her seemingly idiotic question. When Zachariah asked the same question “How will I know this is so” (Lk 1:17) regarding the birth of John the Baptist to an elderly Elizabeth, God punished him for his doubt. (Lk 1:20) But Mary wasn’t doubting God. She honestly didn’t know how she would have a child and remain a virgin in her marriage.

In the English language we say “I am hungry” and we say “I am human.” One state of being is temporary and the other is permanent. “Being hungry” is temporary but “being human” is ongoing. Greek has two different words for the temporary and permanent states. Mary used the permanent state of the verb “I am a virgin” which meant that her virginity would be ongoing. Why didn’t she use the temporary state of the verb in the phrase “I am a virgin” since she was about to be married? Catholics think she knew it would be a chaste marriage.

Evangelicals say that the idea of a marriage with no sex is bizarre. Sure. But a virgin birth and having the Saviour as your kid are also pretty out of the ordinary. Catholics think Mary and Joseph had a very special relationship. They were a very cool family. They were visited by angels, had prophetic dreams, and were running from town to town, from country to country, trying to keep from getting their only child killed. They were bringing up the Saviour who would redeem all mankind from the beginning to the end of history. Sure they were special. This was not an average Brady Bunch middle class comfy-cozy family. God had a very special plan for them and Catholics have no reason to doubt that part of that plan would include chastity. Catholics think God wanted it that way and let them know that that was his will from the outset. In that context, Mary’s question “How can this be since I am (will always be) a virgin?” makes perfect sense.

Evangelicals have pointed to Mt 1:25 that says “but had no marital relations with her until she had borne son”. They say it is proof that she had children after she had Jesus. The word “until” implies that an action did not take place up to a certain point. It says nothing of what happened after that point. For example, 2 Sam 6:23 says, “Michale the daughter of Saul had no children until [heõs] the day of her death.” This doesn’t mean she had children after her death. In heõs 1

Did Mary retain her virginal integrity while giving birth to Jesus?

Overall, Catholics liked the movie “The Nativity” but had several problems with it. For one thing they changed Scripture during the closing of the movie. On the screen they flashed the Bible passage from Luke 1:46-54. But they left out the words “for me” from middle of the sentence “The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is his name.” I don’t think they should have taken that out of the Word of God, without using any elypses to show they skipped it. Another issue with the movie is they showed Mary screaming and pushing in pain as she gave birth to Jesus.

The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary’s virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn’t break. St. Augustine said “Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass.” Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:

* Conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost
* Generated without injury (to her virginity)
* And her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth

This was confirmed by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after. If Jesus emerged from a sealed tomb, and passed through closed doors, surely he could pass through Mary’s womb without breaking her hymen and causing her pain. If pain is the punishment of original sin and birth pangs the first punishment at the fall (Gen 3) for Eve’s disobedience. It follows that Mary as the new Eve, who was obedient to God (Lk 1:38), would not have suffered giving birth to the “new Adam”. If Eve came out of Adam’s rib with no pain while he slept, it follows that Jesus (the new Adam) came out of Mary (the new Eve) without pain.
So what about the Book of Revelation Chapter 12? Don’t Catholics believe that Mary is the woman giving birth in Revelation, and doesn’t Revelation say the woman was in birth pangs?

There is a long answer and a short answer to that. The short is that Mary became spiritual mother to disciples of Jesus at the foot of the Cross when Jesus said to her “Woman, behold your son” (Jn 19:26). As Jesus died, a sword pierced Mary’s heart (Lk 2:35). That was painful. There is physical birth and Spiritual birth. For Mary the painful part of giving birth to Jesus was on Calvary, not in Bethlehem. The book of Revelation goes on to talk about the children of the woman, being those who follow Jesus. This is the Church, and its birth was painful. St. Paul had had Spiritual birth pangs

“My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal 4:19).

Labour pains are used metaphorically elsewhere in scripture (Rom 8:22, Jer 13:21, Hos 13:12-13, Mic 4:9-10).

 

[Rolltide]

Not knowing,what I do not know,I find Jesus’ brothers to be Joseph’s sons from his previous marriage.

Whether that is the Catholic position,I am unsure.

The Catholic Church has no opinion on this idea one way or another. Catholics are free to either believe or deny this as a theory.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I forgot to ask, but is this a matter of importance to the point that someone believing one way or the other on this would end up in hell if they were wrong?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here are some thoughts about Mary’s perpetual virginity from the Early Church Fathers:

Athanasius: “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
**
Epiphanius of Salamis:"… the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). …“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
**
Hilary of Poitiers: “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4

**Didymus the Blind:

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan: “Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I: “You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Origen: …And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]). [A.D. 248], Hilary of Poitiers [A.D. 354],

Augustine: “In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]). …“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]). …“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

“That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother.”

Leporius: “We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria: “[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I: “His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

Council of Constantinople II: “… the Word of God … came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her,…” (Anathemas Against the “Three Chapters” 2 [A.D. 553]).

Gabriel of 12;
Niiiice Rolltide that is a very hard “Rock” you set here, who can attest these great heavy weights from both Catholics and Protestants agreeing in the same faith of Mary’s perpetual virginity supported by Scripture. Now that all of heaven believe this, all the past heavy weights in Protestantism and Catholicism believe this, why are some doubting this Apostolic Biblical teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity?