Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[RedDawgMCM]

I pulled this topic out of another thread where it was off topic. Catholics of course maintain Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. Protestants view several verses as contradicting that idea. Let’s discuss the issue.

First my personal defense of the Catholic doctrine stems from one of Jesus’ final acts. Entrusting the care of Mary to the beloved apostle

[BIBLEDRB]John 19 26:27[/BIBLEDRB]

This was called a conjecture in another thread I’m looking at you Johnny Reb

I say perhaps it is conjecture but wouldn’t it tick you off if your big brother assigned someone else even a close family friend to care for your mother.

Now there are several other scriptural reference that I can and will probably bring to light in this discussion. There are also a couple blog posts that I have read recently that helped me flesh out some more ideas in this regard too.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/search/label/perpetual%20Virginity

Let’s engage this topic as I have heard several Protestant converts say for them Mary was the last domino to fall in their conversion.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

That bible verse btw was
[BIBLEDRB]John 19 :26-27[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Red,

It seems some people cannot imagine a vow of chastity being upheld by a married couple. This probably stems from a ‘modern’ thinking on the subject…

The blog you provided gave a good explanation. If someone wants to argue those points made in that blog, I’d like to suggest that they read a part of the law as appointed to Moses, in Numbers 30, and include that in their response.
**

Num 30:1 (30:2) And he said to the princes of the tribes of the children of Israel: This is the word that the Lord hath commanded:
Num 30:2 (30:3) If any man make a vow to the Lord, or bind himself by an oath: he shall not make his word void but shall fulfil all that he promised.
Num 30:3 (30:4) If a woman vow any thing, and bind herself by an oath, being in her father’s house, and but yet a girl in age: if her father knew the vow that she hath promised, and the oath wherewith she hath bound her soul, and held his peace, she shall be bound by the vow:
Num 30:4 (30:5) Whatsoever she promised and swore, she shall fulfil in deed.
Num 30:5 (30:6) But if her father, immediately as soon as he heard it, gainsaid it, both her vows and her oaths shall be void, neither shall she be bound to what she promised, because her father hath gainsaid it.
Num 30:6 (30:7) If she have a husband, and shall vow any thing, and the word once going out of her mouth shall bind her soul by an oath,
Num 30:7 (30:8) The day that her husband shall hear it, and not gainsay it, she shall be bound to the vow, and shall give whatsoever she promised.
Num 30:8 (30:9) But if as soon as he heareth he gainsay it, and make her promises and the words wherewith she had bound her soul of no effect: the Lord will forgive her.
Num 30:9 (30:10) The widow, and she that is divorced, shall fulfil whatsoever they vow.
Num 30:10 (30:11) If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath,
Num 30:11 (30:12) If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised.
Num 30:12 (30:13) But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her.
Num 30:13 (30:14) If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it.
Num 30:14 (30:15) But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfil: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.
Num 30:15 (30:16) But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity.
Num 30:16 (30:17) These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father’s house.

**

 

[JohnnyReb]

You’re calling me huh. I don’t mind.

I found this an interesting resource: It also points out that many Protestant reformers held that Mary was a perpetual virgin: Note, its a Protestant website

christian-apologetics-society.blogspot.com/2008/03/apologetics-perpetual-virginity-of-mary.html

It quotes Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley supporting Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Many non Catholics, in an attempt to disprove Catholicism, will point to the Perpetual Virginity as an error taught by the Church.

Here is a Catholic source, I believe, with quotes from the Church Fathers.

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm

As you know from the other thread, I do not waive the white flag of surrender easily. I’m stubborn. That’s what’s nice about being Anglican, you can admit it when the Catholics are right about something.

**As I referenced before, I have been back and forth on this issue and don’t really see it as a big deal. **

 

[JohnnyReb]

I pulled this topic out of another thread where it was off topic. Catholics of course maintain Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. Protestants view several verses as contradicting that idea. Let’s discuss the issue.

First my personal defense of the Catholic doctrine stems from one of Jesus’ final acts. Entrusting the care of Mary to the beloved apostle

[BIBLEDRB]John 19 26:27[/BIBLEDRB]

This was called a conjecture in another thread I’m looking at you Johnny Reb

I say perhaps it is conjecture but wouldn’t it tick you off if your big brother assigned someone else even a close family friend to care for your mother.

Now there are several other scriptural reference that I can and will probably bring to light in this discussion. There are also a couple blog posts that I have read recently that helped me flesh out some more ideas in this regard too.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/search/label/perpetual%20Virginity

Let’s engage this topic as I have heard several Protestant converts say for them Mary was the last domino to fall in their conversion.

I will still say by itself, the argument is a conjecture. However, in light of the other evidence provided (scripture, ECFs, Protestant reformers beliefs etc…), a strong case can be made for the perpetual virginity of Mary. It shouldn’t cause anyone to become Catholic in itself either, I think alot of Protestants are ill informed about Mary, and shy away from Mary in fear of being “Too Catholic”. So when the evidence is presented, they feel they have been dooped.

 

[mark_a]

I think alot of Protestants are ill informed about Mary, and shy away from Mary in fear of being “Too Catholic”.

Hhhhhmmmm… Wait a minute!!!

Who was it that said something very similar??

Oh, that’s right, it was Billy Graham.

And similarly, who was it that said after years of silence and even denial that “abortion is not a Roman Catholic problem, it’s a morals problem”??

Oh, that’s right, it was Jerry Falwell.

Wait a minute. . . . . . . .I think y’all are onto something!!

 

[RedDawgMCM]

I will still say by itself, the argument is a conjecture. However, in light of the other evidence provided (scripture, ECFs, Protestant reformers beliefs etc…), a strong case can be made for the perpetual virginity of Mary. It shouldn’t cause anyone to become Catholic in itself either, I think alot of Protestants are ill informed about Mary, and shy away from Mary in fear of being “Too Catholic”. So when the evidence is presented, they feel they have been dooped.

On its own I can see the conjecture argument when you read the blog I posted he rips the old familiar proof texts open so coupled with that its less conjectural. Be that as it may you still never answered my question in either thread How would you feel if your big brother gave away your mom?

I don’t think it necessarily caused any of the men I am thinking of to become Catholic but it was sort of their last hold of protest if you will.

You know the tired old Catholic’s worship Mary. I wanted to respond to that point directly as such now I will read your links.

 

[Erich]

**As I referenced before, I have been back and forth on this issue and don’t really see it as a big deal. **

Catholics believe that Mary represents the Ark of the New Covenant, which has special significance to the Catholic belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Perhaps this link will help explain why it’s a “big deal.”

 

[elvisman]

That bible verse btw was
[bibledrb]John 19 :26-27[/bibledrb]

**The verses from John’s Gospel are highly significant for another reason as well:
John’s own mother was standing next to the blessed Mother at the foot of the cross. Jesus’ remarks to John would have been highly insulting to her as well unless she understood the meaning of what he was saying. John’s mother KNEW the context of what Jesus was saying.

 

[elvisman]

**As I referenced before, I have been back and forth on this issue and don’t really see it as a big deal. **

It IS a big deal as it pertains to OT typology and prophecy about Mary.
Those things aren’t in the OT for nothing. ALL righteousness and truth HAD to be fulfilled - and NT fulfillments are always more glorious than their OT types.

 

[Reuben_J]

That bible verse btw was
[BIBLEDRB]John 19 :26-27[/BIBLEDRB]

And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

If really Jesus gave his mother to John because his own siblings did not believe as the other argument asserts, these siblings even if they did not believe, we can be sure that they were Jewish. They would not take kindly that their mother was being taken away by a person (John) who was not their brother.

Considering if all are conjectures - Mary was given to John because Jesus had no other siblings OR Mary was given to John because Jesus’ siblings were unbelievers, the fact that in the final act of it, John ACTUALLY took Mary with him did not square with the latter. They might be unbelievers but they were Jews and Mary would still be their mother. There is no way that they allowed their mother to be taken by another person no matter what Jesus final instruction was. We could actually picture the so-called siblings to take their mother and together they grieved over their loss. Unbelieving did not mean that they did not love Jesus. They just simply thought Jesus was ‘over it’ and in that passage tried to take him away from ridicule from the public. They had concern for Jesus.

Thus the only reason why John could take Mary with him and cared for her was because Jesus had no other siblings. Any other conclusion would make Jesus family very abnormal indeed. There is no such indication that it was so in the Bible. They were not abnormal but only acted like any ordinary Jews of the day seeing and hearing Jesus making the claim he did.

 

[JohnnyReb]

If the perpetural virginity is true, the one verse that I always found troublesome for it was the one in Matthew that said Joseph did not know Mary “until she bore a son (Jesus)” . In this case, to know is to know intimately (ie sexual intercourse).

So what does that mean in light of the doctrine? How do people who believe it interpret that verse?

 

[regression]

If the perpetural virginity is true, the one verse that I always found troublesome for it was the one in Matthew that said Joseph did not know Mary “until she bore a son (Jesus)” . In this case, to know is to know intimately (ie sexual intercourse).

So what does that mean in light of the doctrine? How do people who believe it interpret that verse?

Taken from here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

Now, does Matthew’s use of “until” mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see the Christs words spoken with His final breaths on the Cross in another significant context.

1st again Christ confirms Mary is His mother.

2nd When he said to John Behold Your Mother. That is also a relevant message to all mankind as Mary being the mother of all Christianity.

I see the Virginity of the Blessed Mother really as a no brainer. I see women accomplish this today! In a most difficult time and age, its still accomplished. What in the world would make one assume one chosen by God and Blessed, wouldn’t have stayed true to that covenant with God?

I suppose, when ones reality hasn’t in some way been touched by God, then a leap to judge is human.

Yet anyone who in anyway has been blessed by the Lord, wouldn’t see Marys Virginity as far fetched at all.

Come On, Gods Angel is personally sent to YOU? You wouldn’t take that serious? Then the magnitude of realizing God is your Son? And it unfolds before your eyes as Truth. And the Propecy of Simeon and the suffering? The gravity is so emmense, I don’t even believe sex would have been a topic or issue. Who would have went to bed with Mary??? In good consciousness you could have done that?

NAaaaa It would have been just as the Bible states…Take her and Jesus to Egypt and Hide them!

Honestly I don’t think Sex “ever” was an issue with Mary. And if the message to the Seer at Fatima is in anyway sigificant, which I’m sure it is. Christ isn’t to big on the blasphemies of Mary, which includes Her perpetual Virginity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If the perpetural virginity is true, the one verse that I always found troublesome for it was the one in Matthew that said Joseph did not know Mary “until she bore a son (Jesus)” . In this case, to know is to know intimately (ie sexual intercourse).

So what does that mean in light of the doctrine? How do people who believe it interpret that verse?

Actually that would be an assumption also. In any Bible where Biblical scholars have left footnotes about that verse its explained by the Author as such, to confirm there was no relations before Christ is born, thus the prophecy of Isaiah being completed.

To think past that point is pure speculation and assumption. A leap, and a judgement on the Holy Family.

 

[elvisman]

If the perpetural virginity is true, the one verse that I always found troublesome for it was the one in Matthew that said Joseph did not know Mary “until she bore a son (Jesus)” . In this case, to know is to know intimately (ie sexual intercourse).

So what does that mean in light of the doctrine? How do people who believe it interpret that verse?

I’d like to expound on Regression’s post #13.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we can see – the Bible does not support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.**
2 Samuel 6:23** tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.**
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died*?***

---

**Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’ **

---

Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that the people attemtpt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

---

Finally, Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel is very telling about her intention to remain a virgin:
Luke 1:34**:* Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
*Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” **

---

***She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had no intention of having marital relations.

---

This actually supports the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, which said Mary was consecrated a Temple virgin by her parents – much like the prophetess, Anna (Luke 2:36-38). She was to marry the older Joseph, a widower, who was to be her protector.

---

It is also interesting to note that the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is one that was held by the early Protestant Reformers. Men like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli held Mary in high regard venerated her as a perpetual virgin:
***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),

---

**“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.) **

---

As a matter of fact, the abandonment of these beliefs has evolved over time by those seeking to further divorce themselves from the only Church established by Christ himself, following instead the precepts and traditions of men that our Lord spoke against (Mark 7:5-9).

 

[Erich]

If the perpetural virginity is true, the one verse that I always found troublesome for it was the one in Matthew that said Joseph did not know Mary “until she bore a son (Jesus)” . In this case, to know is to know intimately (ie sexual intercourse).

So what does that mean in light of the doctrine? How do people who believe it interpret that verse?

That’s one of the verses which purports to “prove” that Mary and Joseph had other children and that Jesus had blood siblings. Below is something I came across years ago, but (several computer upgrades later) I have lost track of the original link.

There are only four brothers 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.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

If the perpetural virginity is true, the one verse that I always found troublesome for it was the one in Matthew that said Joseph did not know Mary “until she bore a son (Jesus)” . In this case, to know is to know intimately (ie sexual intercourse).

So what does that mean in light of the doctrine? How do people who believe it interpret that verse?

Johnny do you have kids? Do you ever leave and tell them to be good and behave for their mother until you get home? Does that mean that when you get home they can destroy the house and misbehave?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

God has spoken into existence this mystery of Mary being full of Grace by placing enmity between the serpent (sin) and the woman and her seed (offspring).

Genesis 3; 14 Then the LORD God said to the serpent:… 15 **I will put enmity between you and the woman, **and between your offspring and hers;

The Virgin Mary with child is the sign given for all humanity in every age from the Lord himself that reveals “God is with us” (Immanuel).

Isaiah 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

The prophet Isaiah prophecy states that; it is God who allows this virgin to conceive, remain a virgin while giving birth, and closes her womb after the virgin conceives a child “Says your God”.

Isaiah 66: 7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8 Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her,

We are parted grace, the blessed Virgin Mary is “full of Grace”. What need would she have apart from full of Grace?

 

[jlhargus]

I pulled this topic out of another thread where it was off topic. Catholics of course maintain Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. Protestants view several verses as contradicting that idea. Let’s discuss the issue.

JL: Ezek 44:1 Then THE MAN BROUGHT ME BACK TO THE OUTER GATE of the sanctuary, THE ONE FACING EAST, and IT WAS SHUT. 2 THE LORD SAID to me, THIS GATE IS TO REMAIN SHUT. IT MUST NOT BE OPENED; NO ONE MAY ENTER THROUTH IT. It is to remain shut BECAUSE THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, HAS ENTERED THROUGH IT.

Ezek44:1 is an OT prophecy. One of Mary’s titles is Gate of Heaven. This gate, Mary’s womb, is to remain shut. It must NOT BE OPENED, NO ONE may enter THROUGH IT, She is to remain ever virgin, NO ONE, no other children are to enter through it. Because The Lord God, Jesus, has entered through Mary the gate of heaven. Mary is also seen as the Ark of the Covenant, which no man could touch or enter.

NBRS 30:3 “WHEN A YOUNG WOMAN still living in her father’s house MAKES A VOW TO THE LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 AND HER FATHER HEARS about her vow or pledge BUT SAYS NOTHING TO HER, then all HER VOWS and every pledge by which she obligated herself WILL STAND. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her. 6 "IF SHE MARRIES AFTER SHE MAKES A VOW or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 AND HER HUSBAND HEARS about it BUT SAYS NOTHING to her, THEN HER VOWS or the pledges by which she obligated herself WILL STAND. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

[Lk1:30 And THE ANGEL SAID unto her FEAR NOT MARY for thou hast found favour with God 31 And behold THOU SHALT CONCEIVE in thy womb AND BRING FORTH A SON and shalt CALL HIS NAME JESUS 32 He shall be great and shall be called THE SON OF THE HIGHEST and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever and of his kingdom there shall be no end 34 THEN SAID MARY unto the angel **HOW SHALL THIS BE SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God] Unless Mary had taken a vow of virginity, as the early Church Fathers taught, why would she a betrothed woman ask, “HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? Wouldn’t conceiving be the most natural and desired thing for a betrothed to expect, especially a Jewish woman?

First my personal defense of the Catholic doctrine stems from one of Jesus’ final acts. Entrusting the care of Mary to the beloved apostle

[GAL 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him fifteen days 19 **But OTHER of the APOSTLES saw I none SAVE JAMES THE LORDS BROTHER ] The Apostle James was Bishop of Jerusalem. He was not a literal brother of the Lord, as our Lord hand NO literal brothers. James was a kinsman and one of the original twelve apostles.