Jesus had siblings?

[hopefull]

Nazirite vow-- Very few took this vow compared to the entire Jewish population. Also, it was not necessary for it to be a perpetual commitment, it could have been taken for only a certain period of time.
Answer: And very few women gave birth to the Son of God either; like one?
Ok, but your statement has nothing to do with my comment so if you disagree with me please post something more pertinent. I did think it was quite relevant. I agree that few took the Nazarite vow, but I thought you were trying to make the point that it was exceptional and therefore an argument against Mary and Joseph taking the vow. But THEY were exceptional, so I rather think it argues for, not against, their taking such a vow.

John the Baptist-- Where does it say he was a virgin? Let alone a perpetual one?
Answer: He was in the desert, wearing animal skins and eating locusts…read the words of the angel to Zechariah…abstaining from strong drink was part of the Nazarite vow.

Thanks. But again your comments have nothing to do with what I said. What do your comments have to do with the issue of virginity? Is the concept of virginity getting mixed up with celibacy? They are not the same. I was saying that John’s whole life was dedicated to heralding the Lord, that he wasn’t married. I didn’t say anything about virginity, although it seems logical that he would be also a virgin. My point was that he was called to a Nazarite vow by the angel, so how could anyone think he’d be married?

Essenes, what source do you know of that claims they were perpetual virgins? I’ve never read anything that suggested perpetual virginity for them.
Answer: How can anyone say the Essenes didn’t profess celibacy? Google “Essenes” and “celibacy or celibate” and you get over 29,000 HITS!

Well, Google is not my first recourse for authoritative information. Nor is it mine. And the fact that some large number of hits are returned for certain search parameters is not terribly convincing.Do you have any specific reference that says they were NOT celibate? I don’t consider Google authoritative either. But I’m not going to examine all 29,000 hits. It just appears that given the volume, Essenes and celibacy have some recognition as going together. Anyway, to get back to the topic, no doubt celibacy or asceticism or continence was an important part of that group. But there’s no indication that perpetual virginity was part of it. There have been numerous ascetical movements in all religions/philosophies/societies. The fact that some parts of a group choose to be continent (no sexual relations) does not by itself indicate it was a normative pattern for the group, or a preferred pattern.Is there any indication celibacy was NOT part of the group?

Jesus–I don’t think we can say for sure that his choice of celibacy had anything to do with his being Jewish? Nowhere in the Bible does it say he chose that life because of his Jewish background. I’d think the dominate influence of a Jewish background would be to get married–go forth and multiply. The vast majority of Jews were married.
Answer: BUT HE wasn’t.married…and it wasn’t because He was Jewish, it was because of His total dedication to His Mission. So too, Mary and Joseph were totally dedicated to their Mission.

Good. You agree. The fact that Jesus wasn’t married had nothing to do with his Jewish background. That was part of the point raised by others that I agreed with and was responding to. Then we agree on this.

One point about Christ being “Lost” in the temple. He wasn’t lost, of course, He was where He wanted to be. But it is true that Mary and Joseph couldn’t find him. We don’t know why, but there are many reasons other than being busy with other children. Most likely, it was His age. At 12 he would be preparing for “becoming a man” and that would be the time when he would likely switch from the women’s caravan to the men’s caravan. It is very possible that both Mary and Joseph could think he was with the other. And without text messaging, and the impropriety of entering the other gender’s “CAMP” it would be hard to find out. Personally, I think that is the most likely explanation. The three days is also prefiguring the 3 days in the tomb in Jerusalem as well. I have often wondered if any of those leaders with whom He was engaged in Scripture discussion would have been on the Sanhedrin 21 years later, condemning Him to death.

Hopefull (in red)

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Many have already posted great posts FYI, I have a priest friend from India and one fro Africa - in both of their mother tongues - even today - there is no word for cousin or uncle/aunt … As in Aramaic and jewish tradition any male family member Uncle/brother/cousin or even a man from the same village is called a “brother” …

Lot is called a brother of Abraham but we know that Abraham was Lot’s uncle …

So that begs the question … your post implies that this is perhaps the reason this 'Seminarian" left the faith … if so he was poorly catechised, not very well read and weak in faith … one has to wonder what the real reason for his leaving was …

Or if he was really ever a catholic and this story of being in seminary is just that - a story …

Please take no offense at that questioning … it just seems very odd … the sibling issue being a common question for even RE grade schoolers, more so for youth and high school … That a seminarian would be thrown off is almost too much … and without extensive study of many sources in the history of the church where this is dicussed …

YADA:

Same for the Orthodox Seminary… My father’s parish was one of the first of the Anglican parishes which left PECUSA which joined the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church (1981). So, although he was an Episcopalian for almost 25 years (until he left PECUSA in 1977 to join the fledgling ACNA), he lived the last years of his life as an Orthodox and died an Orthodox. and, My first Rector when I came back to the Lord after my 20+ year “Walkabout” had at least some of his theological formation in an Eastern Orthodox Seminary.

This is the first time that I’ve heard of the Eastern Orthodox teaching that the Blessed and Ever Virgin Mary was NOT “Ever Virgin”. The Orthodox may not teach the Immaculate Conception, but they do teach that the “Blessed and Ever-Virgin” Theotokos was “Ever -Virgin”.

You may want to verify this with Fr. Ambrose and a few of the more faithful Orthodox brothers, but I don’t think they’ll dispute what I’ve said.

I hope this helps to put this to rest.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[diggerdomer]

My understanding has been that the Orthodox Church did not proclaim the perpetual virginity of Mary as the Catholic Church did. This doesn’t mean they don’t believe it, but simply that it’s not been proclaimed formally as it has been in the Catholic church.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Harrowing, that readers here have to take note of the fact, that many Catholics prefer their own secular thinking to Church teaching.

To overturn the teaching of everlasting virginity of Holy Mary by close-minded arguments like “THEY WHERE MARRIED” is unbelievable, for such views not only equalize the Holy Family to any common family, but it also doubts the divineness of all events around Holy Mary, yes, God Himself. It supports doubters, supports mocking about God and His Church.

Surprising, that “Catholics” making suchlike down the teaching of the Church, still consider themselves as Catholics. Surprising too, that who brings the Holy Family near sexual customs and conventions of any everyday-family, never thinks twice about who triumphs about such stereotyped thinking.

Hell is celebrating festivals about her success, bending so many Catholics minds into the direction: “Mary-Joseph-Jesus; just a family as any. Don’t think twice about it. Fight for this very normal idea. Fight with us – we know better.”
**

 

[Epeenchin]

So the most meaningful point from all this as you note is that Paul wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord. That’s the most significant point. Whether that happens in the married or single life is secondary.

Cheers

Thank you Randy for all the infos I am happy to have this doubt cleared, I now truly believe that Mother Mary has remained a virgin. Hail Mary full of Grace, pray for me, a sinner, please forgive me for ever doubting your status. Amen.

Isn’t this forum great?

 

[Pons]

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Great, though there’s a flaw: Paul doesn’t restrict the term apostle to the 12. So James “the Lord’s brother” may not have been part of the 12.

My breakdown:

It’s also possible James the brother of the Lord was the son of Joseph (stepbrother); this seems to be the oldest tradition. What is definite is that this James has a brother named Jude (Epistle of Jude), which ties in with the mentions of Jesus’ brethren. Taking those literally, James and Jude would have to have brothers named Joses and Simon. It’s possible these four are all sons of Joseph.

But, taking the “scripture alone” route:

…there’s the James who’s the son of “the other Mary” who’s the wife of Cleophas and possibly Mother Mary’s “sister” (Passion/Resurrection accounts). This James has a brother named Joses. Now Mark uses “Joses” for this son while Matthew uses “Joseph”. Mark uses “James and Joses” while Matthew uses “James and Joseph”. This exact combination appears both in the listing of Jesus’ brethren and in the Passion/Resurrection accounts, so it’s reasonable they had the same brothers in mind. Since “James and Joses” are brothers, it’s reasonable that Jude (Judas) and Simon are also their brothers or at least relatives. If “James and Joses” aren’t sons of Mother Mary but of another Mary, Judas and Simon cannot be also. Seems logical to me.

It seems James the brother of the Lord was the son of Cleophas (cousin), along with Joseph and possibly Jude and Simon, if you follow sola scriptura. (So concluding that Jesus had uterine siblings based on some isolated passages is just that, cherry picking. Didn’t Luther and other original Protestant reformers maintain belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity?)

But who’s the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus then? Some say Alphaeus and Cleophas are the same name in Aramaic or Hebrew (Halpai), just differently converted to Greek, but this isn’t certain.

Also, the Apostle Jude (Thaddeus) may not be the Epistle author Jude the brother of James. The actual expression used for Jude in the Gospels is “Jude of James”. This usually refers to a paternal relationship but this has traditionally been understood as fraternal. If Jude is a son of James, we probably know nothing else about this James who is his father. If Jude is a brother of James, wouldn’t that James refer to the just-previous one, the son of Alphaeus? (Or wouldn’t Jude Thaddeus be the son of James son of Alphaeus? Now I know I’m taking this too far.)

Looking at internal evidence other than meshing familiar ties: Jesus’ brethren at first appear separate from the disciples, who were believers. Why would his family be looking for him if James son of Alphaeus and Jude Thaddeus (son or brother of a James) were already with him as part of the 12?

There could have been more than two people called James:

James son of Zebedee
James son of Alphaeus
James son of Joseph from a previous marriage, brother of Jude the Epistle author
James son of Cleophas and the other Mary, brother of Joses
(and even James father of Jude Thadddeus)

Also, two Judes other than Iscariot: the Epistle writer and brother of the Lord and of James, and the Apostle who also had a brother called James.
.
Jesus could have had a stepbrother and cousin both named James.

Why are there so many people called James? I was surprised that the original name is just Jacob, which most likely accounts for its popularity.

Whew, that was long.

 

[Pons]

Addendum (since I can’t edit the above any more): Some interpret “the other Mary” as Mother Mary, Mary wife of Joseph herself since they literally interpret James and Joses as her natural sons. But why would Gospel authors define Mary of Nazareth by her less important children at the crucifixion and resurrection no less? Also, do people generally believe Jesus’s mother accompanied Mary Magdalene to the tomb? I would guess no, since tradition teaches and the Catholic Church knows otherwise; it was another Mary (Mary is a common name because it’s just Miriam in the original languages).

 

[Yogilegend]

The bible did not mention thoeriticaly that Jusus had sibling. His brothers and sisters implied in the book of Luke ment his deciples whom he took as a family and He pointed out that his brothers and sisters are those who do the will of God. Mary the mother of Jesus was always with the deciples even on the day of pentecost, she dedicated her life to God and therefore remained pure and holy. If Mary had children apart from Jusus, it would have been stated in the HOLY BIBLE.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

“… and I ask Blessed Mary, EVER VIRGIN…”

If you want to think like a Protestant, or think like a heretic, fine. Just don’t fool yourself into believing that the Church teaches Mary bore other children.

 

[MarieCB]

If that was the case, why didn’t the law force Jesus to marry, or St Paul? Those are 2 rather famous celibate Jews we are aware of. Pax Christi

Well, from what I’ve read on Jewish sites, Paul had to have been married because he was a rabbi. In order to be a rabbi, and especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin, Paul had to be have been married. The only reasonable answer is that he was a widower. And considering his not-so-generous thoughts on marriage, I’d guess it hadn’t been a very happy marriage.

As for Jesus, I don’t know. We know nothing about what he did or did not do, other than a brief episode around his bar mitzvah and then a few years when he’s in his 30’s. If he was a rabbi, instead of it being an honorary title, then he certainly had to have been married. In that culture, he wouldn’t have had much credibility as a leader and teacher unless he was/had been married. If he was an Essene, it’s possible that he wasn’t, but he didn’t have the anti-woman attitudes that the Essenes seem to have had, nor was a hermit living in the desert as they were.

We know that his parents were careful to obey the Law of their people - they had Jesus circumcised at 8 days, Mary did the normal purification, they went to Passover in Jerusalem each year, and they brought Jesus once he was old enough - and we know that Jesus was obedient to them. Joseph - or Mary, if Joseph had died - would have had a duty to arrange a marriage when Jesus was about 16.

And, no, I don’t think he was married to Mary of Magdalene. And while I don’t know whether or not he was married, I lean to the side of “definitely maybe”. The fact that no wife is mentioned is not proof that he did not have a wife. That’s a logical fallacy called “argument from ignorance”. Peter was married, yet the only mention is a brief story about his mother-in-law. MOST people, with very few exceptions, were married, but there is little mention of the spouses of Jesus’ followers, male or female.

Not everything Jesus did was recorded. When he began his ministry, was he completely friendless? No friends are mentioned, only his followers.

However, as horrible as the idea seems to be to Catholics, I have no problem with Jesus being married and having children while still remaining sinless and “all God/all man”, just like I have no problem with the idea of Mary actually having normal marital relations with her husband. Then again, I don’t think, at ALL, that sex is sinful or corrupting or less than holy. If God had no problem ensuring Mary’s virginal pregnancy with the Son of God, I don’t think it would have been a real difficulty ensuring that any offspring of Jesus were completely human. He had cousins and others who were related to him through Mary, so I don’t think it’s so terribly impious to consider that he had siblings or children.

But you know what? That’s my opinion, and my very non-Catholic thoughts, and that’s all. Obviously, a Catholic is going to accept what the Church says.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So the most meaningful point from all this as you note is that Paul wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord. That’s the most significant point. Whether that happens in the married or single life is secondary.

Cheers

If that is what you take away from these verses, fine.

But there can be NO doubt from the Bible itself that Paul thought it was better to remain single AS HE WAS and the Jesus Himself indicated that some WOULD be called to celibacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you Randy for all the infos I am happy to have this doubt cleared, I now truly believe that Mother Mary has remained a virgin. Hail Mary full of Grace, pray for me, a sinner, please forgive me for ever doubting your status. Amen.

Isn’t this forum great?

:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Point three.
Who said there are only “two apostles named James”? There could just as easily be three including a third James. As you well know, being an apostle is not limited to the twelve.

Can you point to any evidence that there was?

But putting that aside, based on the sriptural evidence I presented, would you be willing to agree that there is at least some doubt that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus may have been kinsmen as opposed to uterine siblings?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, I suppose one must first accept as fact that she took a lifetime vow of celibacy, which I find very difficult to believe.

As far as I can tell, the idea of a lifetime vow of celibacy would have been completely alien to the ancient Jews. And you folks say that not only Mary vowed celibacy, but Joseph, too? Jewish law allowed the courts to force a man to marry if he was still single after the age of 20. Celibacy was illegal for men. Refusal to have sex with your wife was grounds for divorce.

Where does all this vow of chastity stuff come from, anyway? It seems quite alien to everything I can find about Jewish thinking, and Mary and Joseph - and Jesus - were Jews.

**A Biblical Basis For Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? **
singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html

Vows Taken by A Young Woman in Her Father’s House
[3] Or when a woman vows a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house, in her youth, [4] and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself, and says nothing to her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. [5] But if her father expresses disapproval to her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

Vows Taken by a Married Woman
[6] And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, [7] and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. [8] But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

Vows Taken by a Widow or Divorced Woman
[9] But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her. [10] And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by a pledge with an oath, [11] and her husband heard of it, and said nothing to her, and did not oppose her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand. [12] But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning her pledge of herself, shall not stand: her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.

Context: Vows to "Afflict Herself"
[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. [14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. [15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."

All right: so what does all of this mean? The key is in the final section; the chapter is concerned with a woman’s vows to “afflict herself,” which, as the great Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom points out, was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to *fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. *Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15). Once this terminology is clear, the whole chapter makes sense. It is discussion three kinds of vows:

1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.

In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding.

Now, what this means is that if a young Jewish woman–say, Mary, in this instance–took a vow of sexual abstinence, and her legal husband–in our case, Joseph–heard of the vow and said nothing, then the vow stands, and she is bound to keep it. This provides a solid historical basis for Joseph and Mary having a perpetually virginal marriage: indeed, Numbers is very explicit in the final verse that if the husband changes his mind “and makes them null and void after he has heard of them,” the the sin will be upon him: “he shall bear her iniquity” (Num 30:15). One can easily imagine a situation where some husbands would think better of deciding to accept such a vow! But as Matthew’s Gospel tells us: Joseph was a “righteous man” (Matt 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence–and her words “How can this be, since I know not man?” in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34)–*and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin. *

 

[Randy_Carson]

MARY AS PERPETUAL VIRGIN? OTHER CHILDREN?

I’ve already suggested that it doesn’t make any difference whether or not Mary had other children. They would have been a blessing regardless. And certainly sexual relations usually are an normal and positive part of a happy marriage, That is recognized both in religion and law.

And there are references - already cited - that suggest that Mary had sexual relations with her husband and that there were other children, at least other brothers.

Wrong.

There is not a single verse that states that Mary bore a single child other than Jesus or that she ever has sexual relations with Joseph.

 

[MarieCB]

**
To overturn the teaching of everlasting virginity of Holy Mary by close-minded arguments like “THEY WHERE MARRIED**” is unbelievable, for such views not only equalize the Holy Family to any common family, but it also doubts the divineness of all events around Holy Mary, yes, God Himself. It supports doubters, supports mocking about God and His Church.

And we’re more close-minded than “Na-na-na-na, no they weren’t, because they were Holy and the Church says so”?

Just as you’ve clearly grown up with your ideas about Mary, I have spent over 35 years being taught that Mary and Joseph were ordinary people given an extraordinary duty. I can remember the first time I had even heard of the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin - it was about two years ago. I laughed because I thought it was a joke.

For me, this is much like someone coming up to you and insisting that physics doesn’t exist, and it’s all gnomes. (Google that: Physics doesn’t exist, it’s all gnomes) You’d listen and laugh, thinking it was funny, and then … realize that the person you’re talking to is completely serious. You’d say “But … but … but that’s just silly.” Every argument you had, they would have a completely serious explanation, which would seem completely strange to you. Why? Because this person and you would be starting with completely opposite premises. If one starts with the premise that all physics is tiny gnomes, than the argument makes sense and the science idea is silly. If one starts with the premise that atoms, gravity, etc. are all valid sciences, then the gnome idea is silly.

And there’s the problem. We are beginning with completely opposite premises.

By doubting Mary’s perpetual virginity, I’m doubting God? Thanks, but no. I believe in God, and in Jesus. I believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that his mother was a virgin - until AFTER his birth. I believe that Jesus was the only Son of God, not that he was the only son of Mary. I believe that Mary was an incredibly brave young woman - probably around 13 or so - and that she showed a lot of faith in a scary situation. I believe that the entire Bible shows, repeatedly, how God has used ordinary people to do amazing things. Raising Mary to something super-human, to me, denies God’s amazing power, denies Mary’s humanity, and reinforces the Madonna/whore complex that good women, even mothers, don’t have sex.

I feel much more respect for Mary than you think: a young woman, terrified and alone except for her young betrothed, giving birth in a dirty manger. No midwife, no aunts, no mother. Only her faith in God kept her going, even though no one was willing to give a young, pregnant woman a place to sleep and give birth. They were in Joseph’ home town, yet none of his family gave them a place to stay. The courage and challenges that Mary faced as a young - probably ostracized - mother mean much more to me than any notion of a sinless, no-pain-in-childbirth, perpetually virgin goddess-on-earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, from what I’ve read on Jewish sites, Paul had to have been married because he was a rabbi. In order to be a rabbi, and especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin, Paul had to be have been married. The only reasonable answer is that he was a widower. And considering his not-so-generous thoughts on marriage, I’d guess it hadn’t been a very happy marriage.

Let me get this straight…

The Jews have already rejected the Messiah. They have every motivation in the world for discrediting Chrisitanity, the New Testament, and the Apostle Paul. Yet, you’re looking to these people for evidence that Paul HAD to have been married? And then you add your own speculation that he was unhappily married and divorced???

Wow.

Well, at least you are internally consistent. Martin Luther rationalized his rejection of the Deuterocanonical books of the OT based upon the fact that the Jews in the second and third centuries denied that they were canonical because the Christians of that era were using those books to support and prove uniquely Christian doctrines and thereby winning converts. Since Luther rejected certain Catholic doctrines, he found the “Jewish” canon more to his liking than the “Catholic” canon.

And Protestants have been adding new ideas such as sola scriptura, sola fide, the rejection of infant baptism, the ordination of women, and so forth to the historical faith for almost 500 years, so what’s another novelty of your own regarding Paul?

I mean, when you’re making it up as you go along, why not?

 

[Pons]

Can you point to any evidence that there was?

Paul doesn’t restrict the term apostle to the 12. He calls Barnabas and Silas apostles, for instance. So James “the Lord’s brother” may not have been part of the 12.

See my last two posts for a conjecture where there are more than two Jameses, but none of them are offspring of Jesus’ mother, though at least one also has a mother called Mary, evidently a common name.

James son of Zebedee
James son of Alphaeus
James son of Joseph from a previous marriage, brother of Jude the Epistle author
James son of Cleophas and the other Mary, brother of Joses

I arrived at this using the Catholic Encyclopedia, Wikipedia’s (gasp!) entry on James the Lord’s brother (whose sources seems reliable for Christian teachings, never mind revisionists - both the Encyclopedia and Catholic Answers tracts are used), and individual reasoning.

 

[MarieCB]

Let me get this straight…

The Jews have already rejected the Messiah. They have every motivation in the world for discrediting Chrisitanity, the New Testament, and the Apostle Paul. Yet, you’re looking to these people for evidence that Paul HAD to have been married? And then you add your own speculation that he was unhappily married and divorced???

I’ve never said that he was divorced. Where did I ever say divorce? I said his marriage might not have been terribly happy, considering some of his attitudes. Might. Not was. Maybe. Might. Could have been. But if he was a rabbi, he was married. I’m pretty certain he describes himself as not married at the time of his writing, so he must have been a widower. I’m sure I said that.

 

[twb1621]

I believe in what the Church teaches including the perpetual virginity of Mary. I don’t think I ever wrote anything that questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary, sorry if you got that impression. Thanks again for asking.

Cheers

Thank you for clearing up my misinterpretation. Sometimes things written come across differently than intended… God Bless