What Can We Say About The Virgin?

[Tom]

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical?

Yes, there are several threads, books, articles which show the Biblical references.

Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

And you, an anti-Catholic are going to explain why the Catholic Church teaches something… LOL

The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture.

Not true. Again, several threads, books, articles which show the relationship.

Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

Not true, same answer.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation of the Bible, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible.

Not true
Read thru:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11145

 

[mangy_dog]

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation of the Bible, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, “Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?” Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms from “brothers” and “sisters” in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret brothers and sisters as “cousins” or “relatives” with the mentioning of Jesus’ mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, “While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him.” See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

I could not get past the first few sentences of your dribble…suffice it to say that:

The Theotokos, that is, the Immaculate, Perpetual Virgin, Mother of God, had a vote of perpetual virginity. Joseph knew this also. But, let us put aside this revelation altogether and think like a protestant.

What you are saying is…Joseph, to whom the Archangel Gabriel appeared to (same Archangel that appeared to Mary) was waiting for Jesus to be born to be inflammed with sexual passion for the Mother of God. And that Mary,…

I can’t even type it. To speak of the Theotokos is to speak of the church and vice versa. Both are united in the same vocation…divine maternity.

The virtues of Mary are in light of the virtues of Her Divine Son, Jesus. She is the Woman clothed with the sun with her feet on the moon and a crown of twelve stars. She is the Ark of the covenant.

God rebuke you for your vapid implications!!

 

[Tomster]

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation of the Bible, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, “Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?” Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms from “brothers” and “sisters” in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret brothers and sisters as “cousins” or “relatives” with the mentioning of Jesus’ mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, “While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him.” See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

Proofs of the virginity of Mary after childbirth: Jesus alone is presented as the Son of Mary.

In the first place, the New Testament, which oftern presents Jesus as Son of Mary in formal or equivalent terms, applies this name only to Him. (Mark 6:3; Matthew 1:16, 21; Matthew 2:20; Luke 1:31, 35; 2:7, 48, etc.) Never does it apply this name to the brothers of the Lord. In St. Mark the Nazarenes ask: “Is not this the son of Mary?” They do not say: “Is he not a son of Mary?”, but “THE son of Mary,” as though they knew no others. This text is all the more significant since in Greek the definite article is placed before a substantive attribute only to indicate that it presents something unique in its kind.

Shall we continue?

 

[Tomster]

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation of the Bible, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, “Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?” Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms from “brothers” and “sisters” in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret brothers and sisters as “cousins” or “relatives” with the mentioning of Jesus’ mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, “While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him.” See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

Nowadays almost all non-Catholics, even those Protestants who accept the virgin conception and birth, hold the view that Mary did not preserve her virginity after the birth Christ, but that her marriage with Joseph was then consummated. This OPINION was championed in the West in the 4th century by Helvidius, and in the East especially by those whom St. Epiphanius dubs ‘antidicomarianites’.

This continual reappearance of the same error is not surprising, for Mary’s virginity is closely bound up with the character of her Divine Motherhood, and so is involved in the christological conflict.

 

[Tomster]

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation of the Bible, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, “Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?” Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms from “brothers” and “sisters” in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret brothers and sisters as “cousins” or “relatives” with the mentioning of Jesus’ mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, “While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him.” See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

If you wish to continue to spread your error, at least, consider this.

1.) Firstly with regard to the eternal Father. Jesus is the true Son of God even in his manhood, If he had had as man a human father in addition, there would have been a danger, and by no means an imaginary one, of our transferring the incomparable dignity of the eternal father to Jesus’ human parent.

2.) Secondly with regard to Jesus’s Person. He is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, distinguished from the other two Persons by this one character: that as the Word, he is spoken by the divine Speaker. But the word, as term of the act of thought independent of all materiality, comes to maturity even in us without in any way affecting (even supposing such a thing were possible in him), the purity of thr Word. It is therefore perfectly in harmony with the personal character of the second Person of the Blessed Trinity to leave his Mother’s virginity inviolate at his conception and birth. As long ago as the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, long before your sect was formed, one of the Fathers drew attention to this point.

3.) Thirdly, with regard to Jesus’s sinlessness. If Jesus had a human father, he would have been a descendant of Adam through both parents, and he would therefore have been obliged to contract original sin.

continued

 

[Tomster]

4.) Fourthly, with regard to the aim of the Incarnation. Jesus became man that we might be reborn of the Church, which St. Paul presents as an inviolate virgin. (II Corinthians 11:2) No more beautiful expression of this could be given than his coming into the world through a virgin.

5.) Fifthly, with regard to Mary also it is evidently suitable. For the sake of her Son, whose Mother and fellow worker she was called to be, the primeval curse was not allowed to touch her, but she was to share an eternal blessing. God did not include her when he cursed women. (Genesis 3:16) Mary’s inviolate virginity while not debarring her from the joys of motherhood, protected her from this divine curse.

The Church has, understandably, continually opposed your error, both in the exercise of her usual magisterium, and in solemn decisions. The significance of the Church’s ecclesiastical pronouncements and documents with reference to Mary’s virginity is itself very important. Not less than eight Ecumenical Councils threw their weight into the balance, i.e., the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 12th, 14th and 17th, again, long before your sect was ever heard of.

Bring it on!

 

[METROLINK13]

Metro,

Did Michal have a baby the day she died. I ask this because, according to this logic (which by the way is trying to apply modern grammatical rules to ancient Israel - a specious arguement at best) Michal had a baby the day she died or afterward.

2nd Samuel 6 - And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless to the day of her death.

this is easy man you dont have to be a scholar to know this she did not have any children period translated in my own words “she died without child bearing”

 

[NotWorthy]

this is easy man you dont have to be a scholar to know this she did not have any children period translated in my own words “she died without child bearing”

So you understand that “til” and “until” talk about something up to the point in question, but are silent on what happens afterwards?

That’s what is inferred in what happens after Joseph took Mary into his home - nothing.

The whole point of the verse is to show that Joseph had absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Christ. Period.

 

[METROLINK13]

matt 1:24-25 Joseph marries Mary after the angelic announcement.

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

a. Did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: The words did not know her** till **imply that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth. This denies the Roman Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary.​

i. This is an unbiblical, doctrine, which did not appear earlier than the fifth century after Jesus. It should be placed with the dogmas of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, assumption into heaven, and present role as a mediator for believers. Each one of these is man’s invention, meant to exalt Mary in an unbiblical manner.

b. And he called His name Jesus: The simple obedience of Mary and Joseph in naming the baby Jesus is worthy of notice. Such simple obedience should never be lost in the Christian life.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

We know the family trees of kings and earthly monarchs.

Are you going to tell me that if Jesus had borthers and sisters that no one in the christian community would have cared about their descendents?

Are you going to tell me that no one would care that men and women would be speaking of Uncle Jesus or Uncle God?

And even if no one in the the chritian communinity on Earth cared about such relatives are you going to tell me that the roman and Jewish authorities wouldn’t care about such descendents and that no one in the world would ever write about them?

all of that happening is simpkly beyond belief.

It was never God’s will to have any man or any woman speak of Uncle God!

 

[METROLINK13]

We know the family trees of kings and earthly monarchs.

Are you going to tell me that if Jesus had borthers and sisters that no one in the christian community would have cared about their descendents?

Are you going to tell me that no one would care that men and women would be speaking of Uncle Jesus or Uncle God?

And even if no one in the the chritian communinity on Earth cared about such relatives are you going to tell me that the roman and Jewish authorities wouldn’t care about such descendents and that no one in the world would ever write about them?

all of that happening is simpkly beyond belief.

It was never God’s will to have any man or any woman speak of Uncle God!

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for cousin, and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, before he married Mary. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

METROLINK13: So do you think that Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Wesley were all Satanic deluded because they believed that Mary was always a virgin?

I can understand how you might not believe the Catholic Church about the issue–do you also not to bleieve all these great Protestants about the issue?

Who do you think was the first great Protestant theologian to get it right about Mary’s virginity–exactly what year did that happen and why did God allow not only the Catholic Church but Protestant Churches as well to believe that she was always a virgin for centuries?

 

[NotWorthy]

Metro,

a) James and Joses were the sons of Mary, wife of Cleopas.

b) At the wedding of Cana, John calls Mary “the Mother of Jesus”. Not, “the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, etc., etc.”

c) The word “until” in ancient Greek implied NOTHING after the event. It was meant to tell of what happened (or didn’t happen) prior to the “until”, but it is completely silent about what happened afterward.

 

[Good_Fella]

I don’t know how we protestants could be wrong about this but I can assure you that this is sheer nonsense.

Parker

I can assure you that you Protestant Fundamentalists are wrong about this. How? The answer is quite obvious. Concerning the truths taught by Scripture - whether Trinitarian, Christological, or Marian - we have on the side of affirmation the historic Christian faith and on the side of denial we have Protestant Fundamentalism. Protestant Fundamentalism represents a break from the historic Christian faith of the Apostles and the Church Fathers. The teachings of the historic Christian faith were accepted by the churches of the East and West in Christendom until the time of the so-called Reformation in the 16th century, a very long time after Jesus founded his Church on Peter and the Apostles. Although the Protestant Reformers accepted most of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the historic Christian faith, with their unbiblical doctrines of ‘sola scriptura’, ‘sola fide’, and 'sola Christo, they introduced the concept of private interpretation of Scripture and the notion that salvation comes not from man’s free choice for or against God but from God’s predestination of a tiny elect to salvation and the vast majority of men to eternal damnation.

Once the authoritative nature of the inerrant interpretation of Scripture by the historic Christian faith was denied, Fundamentalists denied various teachings that were considered central to the Christian faith even by the early Reformers. These teachings that were denied included the Marian doctrines of historic Christianity. Because Fundamentalists do not believe it is possible to have any authoritative interpretation of Scripture, they discarded the inerrant scriptural teachings on Mary, as well as a host of other scriptural teachings of the Church. And since Fundamentalist theology portrays man as a robot without free will, its adherents fail to see the majesty and significance of Mary’s free acts of obedience in God’s plan of salvation; the salvation or damnation of each individual is foreordained by God according to Calvinist Fundamentalists. Many Fundamentalists have also denied the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and many hold views of Christ that were condemned as heresies by the Councils of the Apostolic Church. Although Protestant Fundamentalists claim to follow Scripture alone, in practice, their theologies are governed by unscriptural human traditions such as Dispensationalism and Calvinism which have no root in the historic Christian faith.

Today there are countless denominations and splinter groups in Protestantism. The pyramid effect was inevitable once the concept of private interpretation of Scripture was embraced. Every difference of private interpretation which was supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit led to the creation of new denominations and sects, most of which have conflicting interpretations of salvation and essential Christian doctrines. Since no interpetation is authoritative or definitive among these numerous differing groups, there is no possibilty of certainty or finality of any aspect of Christian revelation. I don’t know how any of these Protestant communities can be right, seeing they cannot manage to agree among themselves, unless their teachings are in accord with the Catholic Church. One of the marks of the Catholic Church is unity in the Apostolic faith. The Spirit of truth, promised by Christ, is present and active where there is essential unity. And so I don’t see how the Catholic Church can be wrong. The Spirit guides her in all truth and preserves her from error; the unity of faith is a sign of His help.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[METROLINK13]

Metro,

a) James and Joses were the sons of Mary, wife of Cleopas.

b) At the wedding of Cana, John calls Mary “the Mother of Jesus”. Not, “the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, etc., etc.”

c) The word “until” in ancient Greek implied NOTHING after the event. It was meant to tell of what happened (or didn’t happen) prior to the “until”, but it is completely silent about what happened afterward.

---

    The New Testament tells us that Jesus had four brothers, but it does not tell us how many sisters He had.

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Matthew 13:55-56

James. Jesus’ first brother was James. He was one of the apostles according to the apostle Paul.

**But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Galatians 1:19 **

He was the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13). We also believe this brother wrote the New Testament book of James.
Joseph. This brother was named after Jesus’ father. We would have expected Jesus to be named after his father, but Joseph was directed by the angel to name Him Jesus.

. . . an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins.” (NASB) Matthew 1:20-21

This brother had two names. His other name, Joses, can be found in Mark 6:3).
Simon. not to much info on this one.
Judas. This brother is also known as Jude. he was not Judas Iscariot. We believe this brother wrote the book of Jude since he describes himself as the brother of James.

Conclusion: Scripture reveals that His brothers did not believe in Him at the beginning.

. . . not even His brothers were believing in Him. (NASB) John 7:5

scripture does reveal that at least two of Jesus’ brothers were Christians: James, an apostle, and Jude. Scripture does not give us any additonal insight about His other brothers or sisters.

 

[METROLINK13]

And all answered very well in various threads on the subject if the OP will do a bit of searching.

---

Youre still not answering anything ,regardless.why keep searching when ive already found the TRUTH?

 

[METROLINK13]

So, in your well-done research, you are claiming, with full confidence, that James, and Joseph, Simon, and Judas are Jesus’ brothers?

Is this your claim?

---

I absolutely AM, i give all others a fair chance now I Beleive Jesus had brothers whether they were all four of these or just two i am certain mary had other children Scripture is clear …its always about sound biblical teaching and the Holy spirit hasn’t shown me other wise.

 

[Good_Fella]

---

I absolutely AM, i give all others a fair chance now I Beleive Jesus had brothers whether they were all four of these or just two i am certain mary had other children Scripture is clear …its always about sound biblical teaching and the Holy spirit hasn’t shown me other wise.

Don’t be so sure. You have reached a false conclusion by isolating these scriptural passages and divorcing them from the rest of Scripture: Mt 13,55 and Mk 6,2-3. To receive “sound biblical teaching” we must interpret Scripture taken as a harmonious whole. This is exegesis proper. I’m afraid your interpretation of the above verses conflict with other passages in the New Testament, and even the Old. But let’s concern ourselves with all four Gospels for now.

First of all, who are James and Joseph, if not our Lord’s biological brothers? Well, the Gospels mention two men named James among the disciples. One of them is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee (We can exclude him, of course.); the other James is the one who is called “the less”. “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less (not Mary the mother of James the less and Jesus), and of Joseph (James the less is the brother of Joseph, not of Jesus, and so Joseph cannot be the brother of Jesus either.), and Salome (their sister and a female disciple of Christ)” (Mk 15,40). So James and his brother Joseph are the sons of another Mary, not the mother of our Lord. Then in Matthew we find in the recitation of the names of the twelve: “James the son of Alphaeus, and Labbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus” (10,3). Alphaeus is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of our Lord. And this is James the less, whose father is both Alphaeus and Cleophas by name (Jn 19,25), the husband of the other Mary, not the mother of our Lord. Alphaeus and Cleophas, in other words, are two forms of the same name, a typical arrangement in Scripture: Thomas, who is called Didymus (Jn 11,16); Simeon, who was called Niger (Acts 13,1). Hence, James and Joseph are the sons of Cleophas (Alphaeus) and another woman named Mary. They are not the sons of Joseph and Mary, and not the brothers of Jesus. :nope:

Now we are left with Judas and Simon. In Acts 1,13 we read:"…James the son of Alphaeus (Cleophas), and Simon the Zealot, and Jude the brother of James" (cf. Lk 6,16). The same Jude identifies himself as the brother of James the less in his epistle: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James” (Jude 1,1). Most Catholic scholars identify Jude with the “Judas Jakobi” (“Jude the brother of James”) of Lk 6,16 and Acts 1,13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Mt 10,13; Mk 3,18), called thus because his brother James was better known in the primitive church - as the same Bishop of Jerusalem. Joseph is not the only brother of James (there is also Jude), and we know nothing more of this brother who is mentioned in Matthew 13 and Mark 6.

Finally, there is Simon. He is no more a sibling of Jesus than the other three are. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as are Jesus, Mary, and Joseph: “…Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Cananaean” (Mk 3,18; cf. Lk 6,15; Mt 2,23). The Gospels identify Simon as a Cananaean and Jesus as a Nazorean, so the two could not have been recognized as siblings by the authors. :nope:

Concerning the more obscure Jude, according to the visionary Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (The Life of Mary: Tan Books), the Blessed Virgin Mary told her that Jude was the son of Alphaeus and Mary Cleophas (Jn 19,15). His stepbrother was the apostle Matthew, son of Alphaeus and his first wife. His brothers were James the less and Simon the Zealot. Mary Cleophas was the niece of the Virgin Mary, being the daughter of Cleophas and Maria Heli, the older sister of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19,25). :yup:

I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over a firstborn.
{Zechariah 12, 10}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[METROLINK13]

Don’t be so sure. You have reached a false conclusion by isolating these scriptural passages and divorcing them from the rest of Scripture: Mt 13,55 and Mk 6,2-3. To receive “sound biblical teaching” we must interpret Scripture taken as a harmonious whole. This is exegesis proper. I’m afraid your interpretation of the above verses conflict with other passages in the New Testament, and even the Old. But let’s concern ourselves with all four Gospels for now.

First of all, who are James and Joseph, if not our Lord’s biological brothers? Well, the Gospels mention two men named James among the disciples. One of them is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee (We can exclude him, of course.); the other James is the one who is called “the less”. “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less (not Mary the mother of James the less and Jesus), and of Joseph (James the less is the brother of Joseph, not of Jesus, and so Joseph cannot be the brother of Jesus either.), and Salome (their sister and a female disciple of Christ)” (Mk 15,40). So James and his brother Joseph are the sons of another Mary, not the mother of our Lord. Then in Matthew we find in the recitation of the names of the twelve: cool:

you’re right about having to interpret scripture as a whole and ive taken consideration and those passages don’t contradict with one another they just dont agree with your preconceived idea of the perpetual viriginity thats been fed to you by your RELIGION.
you know the Bible doesnt contradict itself so 1 of is wrong concerning the matter…Jesus called others brother" even though they werent literal same mother brothers thats true but that doesnt prohibit him or mean that he couldnt of called his literal brothers brother.

---

Now lets see there are actually 5 men in the NT named James

1. James, the son of Zebedee, one of Jesus twelve apostles. James father was a fisherman; his mother, Salome, often cared for Jesus daily needs (Matt.:27:56;Mark:15:40). In lists of the twelve apostles, James and his brother John always form a group of four with two other brothers, Peter and Andrew. The four were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee. Their call to follow Jesus is the first recorded event after the beginning of Jesus public ministry (Matt.:4:18;Mark:1:16).
   James is never mentioned apart from his brother John in the New Testament, even at his death (Acts:12:2). When the brothers are mentioned, James is always mentioned first, probably because he was the older. After the Resurrection, however, John became the more prominent, probably because of his association with Peter.
2. James, the son of Alphaeus. This James was also one of the twelve apostles. In each list of the apostles he is mentioned in ninth position (Matt.:10:3;Mark:3:18;Luke:6:15;Acts:1:13).
3. James the Less. This James is called the son of Mary (not the mother of Jesus), and the brother of Joses (Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). Mark 15:40 refers to him as James the Less. The Greek word mikros can mean either small or less. It could, therefore, mean James the smaller (in size), or younger (NIV), or James the less (well-known).
4. James, the father of Judas. Two passages in the New Testament refer to a James, the father of Judas (Luke:6:16;Acts:1:13). Judas was one of the twelve apostles; he was the last to be listed before his more infamous namesake, Judas Iscariot.
5. James, the brother of Jesus. James is first mentioned as the oldest of Jesus four younger brothers (Matt.:13:55;Mark:6:3).
   In the third and fourth centuries a.d., when the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary gained ground, a number of church fathers argued that James was either a stepbrother to Jesus (by a former marriage of Joseph) or a cousin. But both options are forced. The New Testament seems to indicate that Mary and Joseph bore children after Jesus (Matt.:1:25; 12:47; Luke 2:7; John 2:12; Acts 1:14), and that the second oldest was James (Matt.:13:55;Mark:6:3). The Gospels reveal that Jesus family adopted a skeptical attitude toward His ministry (Matt. 12:4650; Mark 3:3135; Luke 8:1921; John 7:5). James apparently held the same attitude, because his name appears in no lists of the apostles, nor is he mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels.
   After Jesus crucifixion, however, James became a believer. Paul indicated that James was a witness to the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor.:15:7). He called James an apostle (Gal. 1:19), though like himself, not one of the original Twelve (1 Cor.:15:5, 7).
   In the Book of Acts, James emerges as the leader of the church in Jerusalem. His brothers also became believers and undertook missionary travels (1 Cor.:9:5).

 

[Church_Militant]

Not according to the Word of God…

If Jesus had had blood siblings, Under Jewish custom of the day, they would have been responsible for the care of His mother, yet, in spite of the case you would make, He went out of His way to see to her care by giving her to St. John as one of his last acts from the cross.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)

Even all three of the “pillars of the reformation” wrote in support of it.
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.
**
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:**

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “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, Vol. 1, page 424.)