Brothers of Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
johnbmcnamara.com/images/apostles.jpg *
*

**Biblical Evidence that Proves, **
Jesus did not have Biological Brothers
Re-visited
+

The alleged “Brothers of Jesus”, identified as; James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55-57) Can be clearly identified in the New Testament and they are not the biological brothers of Jesus!
*
There has been a much written regarding whether or not Jesus had any of biological brothers or sisters, sharing the same biological mother and father, Mary (the Mother of Jesus Christ) and Joseph the carpenter and the husband of the Holy Mother. First of all let me make something clear; Joseph is not the Biological father of Jesus. Jesus’ Father is God, not Joesph! He (Jesus) is the “Son of God”.
*
Roman Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Mother of God and all non-Catholic, Protestant Christian’s and “Born Again” Christian’s deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is a Hugh difference in belief.
+
We were all warned about this difference in belief in Luke 2:35-35
+
" and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted
35 ***
(and you yourself a sword will pierce) 11 so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." *
+
Their hearts were revealed alright. Many so-called “Christians” today, show an utter contempt and disrespect for Mary the “Mother of God” and get downright up-tight at the mere mention of her name.​

There exist no doubt that the “hearts of Catholics are known”. Jesus knows that we love and respect his Mother, Mary.
+
If you notice in (Matthew 13:55) it is written “Is he not the carpenter’s (Joseph’s) son”.
+
As Christians we know that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, God is the Father of Jesus.
+
Apparently the ones making the comments in Mathew 13:55, the “non-believers” did not know Jesus or his family very well. If one were to except Matthew 13:55, literally and out of context, one would have to reject the Virgin Birth and the fact that Mary conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.
+
If one were to believe that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus, and not God, then he would be in error and is not, by definition a Christian.
+
Furthermore; if Mary had other biological children, where were they when Jesus was crucified? It would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of Mary, at the foot of the Cross, especially when, James the “brother of the Lord” was alive in 49 AD (Gal 1:19). He should have taken care of her.
++
Remember; if Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, then all of his siblings would have been younger and presume to still be alive when Jesus was crucified, yet not one of his so-call “brothers and sister” were there at the foot of the cross! If that was the case, surely it would have been commented on in the Bible, as Peter’s denial was.
+
We know John was not the biological brother of Jesus and that the Virgin Mary was not John’s biological Mother, yet Jesus said to John, “Behold your Mother”. What was meant here, was that from that point on, Mary became the mother of us all, as described in Revelations 12.
+
Note in Revelations 12:6-17;
+
"Then the dragon became angry with the woman (Mary) and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring (children), *those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus." *​

The “offspring” of Mary is those who *“bear witness to Jesus”, that means *“Christians”! …

For the full story and Bible verses that prove that Jesus did not have biological brothers go here;

jimbrousseau.blogspot.com/2007/01/biblical-evidence-that-proves-jesus-did.html
 
I am no scholar, particularly on this subject, but in years past, including the time of Jesus, the rate of death of women in childbirth was extremely high. My suspicion on the source of the stories of the “brothers of Jesus” is that they were step-brothers, if anything. Or even cousins.

It is perfectly logical that Joseph may have had children with another woman before he married Mary, a woman who died, either in childbirth or from some other cause. Do I have any evidence of that? No, but that is certainly one very logical way that this sort of story could have started. We often tend to look at history through our 20th or 21st century eyes. This was first century life, quite different and much more precarious than today.
 
MelanieAnne;2048071… My suspicion on the source of the stories of the “brothers of Jesus” is that they were step-brothers, if anything. Or even cousins.

It is perfectly logical that Joseph may have had children with another woman before he married Mary, a woman who died, ,.
Click to expand...
Hello MelanieAnne,

Thank you for your response.

In a courtroom, I think a lawyer would say; “I object, that call’s for speculation”. And it does call for speculation. It is ALL speculation and some of it; the false beliefs that have been passed down; are flat-out lies to try to discredit the Catholic Church or to minimize Mary. This has been going on for nearly two thousand years.

It was heretical 1600-2000 years ago and it is heretical today. Research the ancient heresies of the Catholic Church and you will discover where and when most of these, anti-Christian and anti-Catholic false beliefs and lies started.

It is NOT perfectly logical that “Joseph may have had children with another woman before he married Mary, a woman who died, either in childbirth or from some other cause.”

Joseph was a “Holy Man” and virgins were revered in the New Testament.

There is absolutely No, None, Zero evidence anywhere that Joseph was married before or that he is a widower, or that he (Joseph) had any children. It cannot be found in the bible, historical documents, and writings of the Early Church Fathers, nowhere. It is all speculation, which takes ones eyes off the Lord.

Usually when this topic is sourced, one finds ancient Church documents where the Church addressed heresies in the first, second, third and forth centuries.

Saint Jerome** (340-420 A.D.)**
***Jerome argued not only for Mary’s perpetual virginity but for Joseph’s as well. Other doctors went so far as to firmly adhere to the theory that Joseph was sanctified in his mother’s womb, as John the Baptist, owing to his unquestionable higher dignity and sublime calling as the husband of Mary. The evangelists seldom mention Joseph. St Matthew could pay him no higher or greater honor than by stating that he was the spouse of Mary. Mary’s husband, ***
Click to expand...
“Stories” about St. Joseph and the so-called “brothers of Jesus” and “Mary having other children”, are a bunch of made-up non-sense that is not only anti-Catholic it is anti-Christian, which means it is anti-God.

It is a rejection of the truth. Jesus is the truth.

As I have clearly demonstrated above, using bible verses, Jesus had no biological brothers. All of the so-called “brothers” of Jesus can be identified (click the link above) or go here; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121657

Galatians 1:19 clearly states that James is an Apostle and Jesus’ brother. There exists only two apostles named James, one being the **son of Zebedee **and the other; the **son of Alphaeus. **Obviously “brother” does not mean "biological brother.

How can this point be made clearer? The most often mentioned “”brother of Jesus”, James; had different parents! Moreover, the bible tells us who the parents were, period!

Why this argument continues to this day, baffles me.

I can understand how heretics could cause people to believe this non-sense and this false information in ancient times, or even during Luther’s time. However, today we live in an age of information and everybody has access to the bible.

My guess is; these lies will not survive much longer, as people ask questions now and they have instant information readily available.

Lies cannot stand up to scrutiny or truth.

One day all Christians will be Catholic!

If the Protestants are wrong about something as important as whether or not Jesus had brothers and deny the perpetual virginity if Mary, then how can they be a trusted source for any other Christian doctrine. They cannot. They all fall under the category of “False Prophets’”. In addition, their churches are “the fruit of the poisonous tree”.

Do you remember “the fruit of the poisonous tree” story?..

A bad tree - cannot bear good fruit …and a good tree - cannot bear bad fruit.

Finally, the Catholic Church gave us the bible. If we accept the fact that they got that right (the bible), which everybody believes they did, then according to the parable of the “good tree and bad tree” and the parable of "the fruit of the poisonous tree” the Catholic Church must have gotten it All right.

Think about it.
 
Hi Jimmy,

Thank you for your detailed reply. I appreciate it. Please note, I did offer what I did ONLY as speculation, as you so aptly point out. Please note, I also suggested that, in addition to the possibility that these persons called the “brothers of Jesus” could have been step brothers, that they could have also been COUSINS. Cousins, in many societies, especially in ancient times, but even today, were considered to be “brothers” in many ways within the extended family.

My real point, and perhaps it was not clear, is that we who live now are so likely to look at anything in the past with our modern eyes that we may have difficulty understanding the profound differences in the way people lived in the past. As I stated in the very first sentence, I don’t pretend to be any sort of scholar, Biblical or otherwise, but I do have a smattering of common sense, enough to know that we cannot look through our modern eyes at events thousands of years ago and expect to perfectly understand how life was then.

THAT, and only that, was the point of my reply. Please do me the courtesy of considering that. Please refrain from leaping to all these other conclusions based on things I didn’t say and end up with accusations of heresy. THANKS!
 
+JMJ+

Hello MelanieAnne,

Thank you for your response.
I know that you were only offering what you did, “only as speculation”.

I saw your profile and I know that you too are a Catholic, as I too am Catholic.

I was not addressing you specifically, I was proving a point, for others who may read this, and to clear up any confusion on this subject.

I’m aware of the information that you provided. I wanted to make sure that readers knew that the opinions or proposed theories, that you provided, are not in the bible.

I was worried that a young Protestant or Born-Again friend might read your comments, take them out of context and argue that Jesus had additional, biological brothers and sisters;

Or, that one would later comment “I’ve read somewhere,” that “Joseph was married before Mary and had other children”. When in fact, there exist absolutely no evidence that this theory is true. It is not biblically based and it may later be repeated as “evidence” that Mary had other children.

When you wrote about the “possibilities” that these persons called the “brothers of Jesus” could have been step brothers or that they could have also been cousins, I understand that argument. It is used often by Apologists. However, the"logic" you used is the same “logic” people use for the “until” theory involving Mary (the-preposition theory), to try and prove an argument against Catholic beliefs and doctrine…

It isn’t a “possibility” that the word “brother” meant “cousin” ; or “follower”; or “ kinsman, (in the first century)…It is a fact that “brother” used back then, did have multiple meanings just as it does in modern English today.

That two quotes of yours that sounded somewhat “Protestant” to me are list below. I was not addressing you, I was arguing against the two points you made, which I have heard many times before. I was arguing against the comments which sounded similar to ones I have seen written by people who try and disprove aspects of Catholicism.;

Here is what you wrote:
  1. “My suspicion on the source of the stories of the “brothers of Jesus” is that they were step-brothers”…
  2. “It is perfectly logical that Joseph may have had children with another woman before he married Mary”
There exist no biblical bases for this and that was my point.

That is an exegeses which has been used by heretics to confuse Christians, during the time before the formation of the bible.

Speculation was often used to try and prove that the Doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was in error.

Obviously you didn’t come up with the theory and you are not a 3rd century heretic, so how could I possibly be talking about you?

I always try to be courteous and I wasn’t leaping to other conclusions based on things you didn’t say. I did address some of your specific quotes, thing you did say.

I never said that you were acting in a heretical manner.

I will however except full responsibility for any misunderstanding, because I alone wrote the response and even through I was addressing your comments in a more broader sense. I thought comments like “This has been going on for nearly two thousand years” would let you know I wasn’t taking about you. I would never intentionally write anything to offend you.

**I was trying to make the very important point: **

That point being: That the “cousin theory” isn’t necessary because All of the supposed “brothers of Jesus”, biological or otherwise (and this would also include so-called “step-brothers”) can ALL be Identified in the bible and NONE of them share Joseph as their father!

I don’t know why this argument is still around today, doesn’t anybody read the Bible? All the information is in there!

Melanie Anne, I apparently failed to make it clear, that I knew that you were Catholic and I wasn’t directly responding to you. I am sorry, please forgive me.
 
If Jesus had siblings (which he did NOT) then where were they when he was lost in the Temple?

Plus, between his birth in Bethlehem and the return to Nazareth when he was probably (my guess) 2 or 3, when would they have had the time to raise another child? They were on the run (Flight into Egypt) from the time Jesus was small, possibly when he was just an infant. The next time we see him was when he was 12.

He chose John to care for his mother, if he had brothers or sisters, then the next oldest brother would have cared for her, right?

I believe in one of the bible passages, Jesus says “who are my mother and my brothers and my sisters?” and then he answers, pointing to many in the crowd gathered, “they are my mother, and my brothers and my sisters”.
 
Galatians 1.19 says he saw Peter, and no other apostle he saw, but only (“ei me Iakobon”) James. That allows James to be a non-apostle , distinct from Peter as an apostle. Otherwise, it would say he saw just the 2 apostles, and no others. Jesus’ family is confirmed by people telling Jesus that his mother and brothers were there, and Jesus pointed to the disciples nearby and said those were his mother and brothers. Obviously there were 2 groups, one family and one spiritual, because if they were all spiritual his words would make no sense - and the person telling him would be making no sense either.
chimera
 
chimera said:
Galatians 1.19 says he saw Peter, and no other apostle he saw, but only (“ei me Iakobon”) James. That allows James to be a non-apostle , distinct from Peter as an apostle. Otherwise, it would say he saw just the 2 apostles, and no others. Jesus’ family is confirmed by people telling Jesus that his mother and brothers were there, and Jesus pointed to the disciples nearby and said those were his mother and brothers. Obviously there were 2 groups, one family and one spiritual, because if they were all spiritual his words would make no sense - and the person telling him would be making no sense either.
chimera
Click to expand...
Hello Chimera,

Thank you for your reply.

If you believe, Jesus has any biological brothers or that Jesus had any stepbrothers, then Give Me a Name.

If you believe, Jesus has any biological brothers, what is the source of your belief?

The writers of the New Testament Books went through a great deal of trouble, to identify the persons in the New Testament.

In the Bible, everybody important is identified by parent’s name(s).

“Descendant Lines” were very important to these ancient writers. Everybody who is important is identified!

Perhaps this was done, in anticipation of the “brother” controversy and many other controversies…

If you provide a name here, any name. I will demonstrate to you that it is impossible for the person described to be a biological brother or stepbrother of Jesus. This is because their fathers are identified along with their mothers and they are not Joseph or the Blessed virgin, Mary.

**Cousin maybe, brother impossible. **

Give me a name, any name and I will show you this to be true.

I submit to you, that any person today, who has access to a bible and still insists that Jesus had either stepbrothers or biological brothers, have not read or do not know the Bible.

The only people who still believe that Jesus had “brothers”, either haven’t read the bible or are clinging to false Protestant teaching’s which are solely based on one or two verses taken out of context.

If you are one of those who still believe that Jesus had “brothers”, my suggestion is, instead of spending an hour or two describing what one or two verses “mean”, read the Bible for one or two hours and then and only then, will the truth become apparent.

For all non-Catholic Christians **- *Believe it on not, Catholics read and know their Bible. ***

Just because a person can memorize a handful of Bible verses, doesn’t mean that, that person has read the Bible (He/She probably hasn’t read the Bible) /

Moreover, just because a person can memorize a handful of Bible verses, it doesn’t mean that, that person understands the Bible! (He/She probably doesn’t understand the Bible).

Whenever I hear someone say (or write) that Jesus had brothers, I know that they haven’t read the Bible.

If you think, Jesus has “brothers” - Give Me a Name! (0f the 'brother")

Thanks again.
 
+JMJ+

One more thing regarding the Bible.

Our protestenant friends believe the there exits verses in the Bible which conflict. There exists No conficlt in the Bible!

One cannot understand or appreciate the New Testament without the Old Testament and visa versa.

Moreover, one cannot understand or appreciate the New Testament Gospels without Paul’s letters and visa versa.

The Bible is a Complete Book for a reason.

There exists No conflict in the Bible!

There can’t be any conflicts!

Catholics do not believe that any conflicts exist in the Bible.

Any “conflicts” that “appear” are caused by miss-translations or verses taken out of context, which is exactly what has to be done in order, to try to disprove aspects of Catholicism.

For instance; If one subscribes to a “brother” theory, he/she would need to believe that a conflict existed.

If you read the entire Bible, it will be very apparent, that it is a “Catholic” book.

The more a Protestant reads the Bible, the more “conflicts” they see and the fewer books of the Bible they “like” or believe.

See the problem here?

One more thing regarding Mary; (for all the Mary haters)

Nowhere in the Bible can fault be found with Mary! She is the only person who has ever lived, who was with Jesus from the very beginning (before His birth), by His side His entire life, and with Him until the “End” at the foot of His cross and in heaven with Him (Revelations 12).

Why would any true “Christian” religion ever slander or minimize Mary?

Roman Catholics know and Love Mary!
 
chimera said:
Galatians 1.19 says he saw Peter, and no other apostle he saw, but only (“ei me Iakobon”) James. That allows James to be a non-apostle… ,
Click to expand...
Hello Chimera,

I noticed that you added “ei me Iakobon”. Are you fluent in Hebrew or Greek, or did you just “cut and paste” this for added “credibility”? How does this “prove” that James was the biological or stepbrother of Jesus or that Jesus has "brothers? It doesn’t!

As demonstrated already, it is impossible for either “James” in the New Testament to be the “brother of Jesus” because we know who their (James’) fathers are and he is not Joseph.

Knowing that the two James’ in the New Testament have a different father; other than Joseph, your comment makes absolutely no sense.
 
Hi Jimmy,
I used those Gr. words in Gal. 1.19 because they are the central point of that verse which you used to make your point. After someone is identified , the Bible does not need to keep on. James is the brother of the Lord, needing no explanation. Jesus is named, without “son of Mary and Joseph” every time he is named (thank goodness!). In Matt.13:55, the people said “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters…”
You ask for Bible verses, which is why I give them. Can you explain how further reading will reveal more understanding of those?
chimera
 
Jimmy, you seem very bitter and bent on arguing. You would get your point across better without the “attitude” you’re carrying.
 
wonkadog said:
Jimmy, you seem very bitter and bent on arguing. You would get your point across better without the “attitude” you’re carrying.
Click to expand...
+JMJ+

Hello, wonkadog,

Welcome to the CA forums???.

Thank you for your kind advice, which is good and we all from time to time, need to be reminded to approach our faith and our relationship with God from a position of Humility, Love, Kindness, Patients and Forgiveness, but mostly Love.

I think all Christians can agree with this.

Sometimes the sources of any comments are more enlightening than the comments themselves.

I am curious, Is this really your first post or were you involved in this discussion earlier, under another user name? Your comment seems somewhat “personal" and “aggressive” considering it is your “first post."

Do you think that I am the only one here “arguing”?

Where is the line draw between ‘arguing’ and having an “attitude” and simply, vigorously defending ones faith?

The comments used to describe me as “bitter” or “argumentative” and having and “attitude” are a good example of possibly taking something or somebody, me, out of context.

This is the root cause of much of the differing positions on this thread and other Catholic and non-Catholic, Christian forums. The main thing to remember, especially as Easter Sunday approaches is that we as Christians agree on more issues than we disagree.

Much time is wasted, lost in the personalities and that can negatively affect open and honest dialog.

I have written many hundred posts and I do not believe that a few posts on one thread, are a measure of ones character or nature.

Please do not confuse my “vigorous” and “lively” defense of my faith and of Mary as a negative character trait, such as “bitterness” or having an “attitude”…

That is why dialog is so important and once and a while a good “vigorous”, “lively” discussion can be very fruitful.

I repeat; *“A few posts on one thread, are not a measure of ones character or nature.” *

A few words on paper do not reflect a person or a lifetime.

Therefore, I will not judge you by your “One Post”.

If you have a theological point to make, what is it?

If you had followed my posts of the years, you would discover that I am not “bitter” nor am I “argumentative’. I am however very defensive of my Roman Catholic Faith, which is under attack from all sides and this is true for Christianity in general.

I will always defend Mary’s virtue. Is that a bad thing? After all, she is the mother of Jesus…

I have tired prove my point using Bible verses.

Are you in support or disagreement of the “brother” theory and why" (biblically).

Much like the discussion here, where I constantly emphasis “context”, I think if you were to read all of my posts (not necessary) I do not believe that you would really think that I was “bitter” or "argumentative’.

I am merely defending my faith and in this particular case, Mary the mother of Jesus, whom I love very much.

One cannot think about Mary without thinking about Jesus.

I will continue to defend her virtue!

Happy Easter!
 
wonkadog said:
Jimmy, you seem very bitter and bent on arguing. You would get your point across better without the “attitude” you’re carrying.
Click to expand...
+JMJ+

Hello, wonkadog,

Welcome to the CA forums???.

Thank you for your kind advice which is good and we all from time to time, need to be reminded to approach our faith and our relationship with God from a position of Humility, Love, Kindness, Patient’s and Forgiveness, but mostly Love.

I think all Christians can agree with this.

Sometimes the sources of any comments or lack of comments, are more enlightening than the comments themselves.

I am curious, Is this really your first post or were you involved in this discussion earlier, under another user name?

Your comment seems somewhat “personal" and “aggressive” considering it is your “first post."

No harm taken.

Do you think that I am the only one here “arguing”?

Where is the line draw between ‘arguing’ and having an “attitude” and simply, vigorously defending ones faith?

The comments used to describe me as “bitter” or “argumentative” and having and “attitude” are a good example of possibly taking something or somebody, me, out of context, which doesn’t bother me but it doesn’t move this discussion further.

This is the root cause of much of the differing positions on this thread and other Catholic and non-Catholic, Christian forums.

The main thing to remember, especially as Easter Sunday approaches, is that we as Christians agree on more issues than we disagree.

Much time is wasted, lost in the personalities and that can negatively affect open and honest dialog.

I have written many hundred posts and I do not believe that a few posts on one thread, are a measure of ones character or nature.

Please do not confuse my “vigorous” and “lively” defense of my Roman Catholic Faith and of Mary as a negative character trait, such as “bitterness” or having an “attitude”…

That is why dialog is so important and once and a while a good “vigorous”, “lively” discussion can be very fruitful.

I repeat; *“A few posts on one thread, are not a measure of one’s character or nature.” *

A few words on paper do not reflect a person or a lifetime.

Therefore, I will not judge you by your “One Post”.

If you have a theological point to make, what is it?

My Roman Catholic Faith, is under attack from all sides and this is true for Christianity in general.

It is good to defend our Christian faith.

Discussions like this, encourage people to read the Bible more often.

I have tried to prove my point using Bible verses.

Are you in support or disagreement of the “brother” theory and why? (biblically).

I am merely defending my faith and in this particular case, Mary the mother of Jesus, whom I love very much. Please don’t take it personally.

I will always defend Mary’s virtue. Is that a bad thing? After all, she is the mother of Jesus…

One cannot think about Mary without thinking about Jesus.

I will continue to defend her virtue! If you think that is a bad thing, then I would like to hear why?

Happy Easter!
 
chimera said:
Hi Jimmy,
I used those Gr. words in Gal. 1.19 because they are the central point of that verse which you used to make your point. After someone is identified , the Bible does not need to keep on. James is the brother of the Lord, needing no explanation. Jesus is named, without “son of Mary and Joseph” every time he is named (thank goodness!). In Matt.13:55, the people said “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters…”
You ask for Bible verses, which is why I give them. Can you explain how further reading will reveal more understanding of those?
chimera
Click to expand...
I couldn’t help but noticed that your user name “chimera”. Is that based on a "mythycal goddess “Chimaera”? or the mythycal creature/‘goddess’ *“Chimera of Arezzo”…*If so we disagree on more than Bible verses…

www3.unifi.it/surfchem/solid/bardi/chimera/origins.html
 
  • “Roman Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Mother of God and all non-Catholic, Protestant Christian’s and “Born Again” Christian’s deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is a Hugh difference in belief.”*
Jimmy,
Not all non-catholics deny the perpetual virginity of Mary.

“4. That he was born in this manner: he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, without the cooperation of man,and was born of the pure, holy, and ever-virgin Mary.”

Smalcald Articles, from the Lutheran Confessions. Lutherans who believe their own confession believe that Mary was full of Grace, ever virgin, Mother of God.

Blessings,
Jon
 
JonNC said:
  • “Roman Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Mother of God and all non-Catholic, Protestant Christian’s and “Born Again” Christian’s deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is a Hugh difference in belief.”*
Jimmy,
Not all non-catholics deny the perpetual virginity of Mary.

“4. That he was born in this manner: he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, without the cooperation of man,and was born of the pure, holy, and ever-virgin Mary.”

Smalcald Articles, from the Lutheran Confessions. Lutherans who believe their own confession believe that Mary was full of Grace, ever virgin, Mother of God.

Blessings,
Jon
Click to expand...
Hello Jon,

Thank you, good point and you are correct. However, today there exist so many non-Catholic Christian religious that it is impossible to list all of the churches who do not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which is the vast majority of non-Catholic Christian religions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top