Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[benhur]

People are missing one point. How do we regard Holy Things? Mary’s womb is Holy, the abode of God for 9 months. Does it cease to be holy after 9 months? Can you defile it, **can you touch it? **Are you authorized?

Does her womb cease to carry, nourish, protect the Incarnate One ? Now do her hands and arms and breasts, that continue to do that after birth, become "Holy’’ and untouchable by Joseph ? Holding Mary’s hand would then be "defiling ", even “unauthorized” ? The lips that kiss baby Jesus can not kiss anything or anyone else anymore ?

Her womb was holy because of the set aside purpose of carrying the Christ child. It is a one time purpose/holiness. (Mary is more than a womb and she is holy beyond the birth, in Godly purposes., and her unique purpose was blessed amongst women).

Would the Ark continue to be be "Holy’’ if it was forever emptied of it’s holy contents and forever emptied of the presence of God ?

The Incarnate One was just that , made flesh, Divinity veiled-touchable. That is why the ground He walked on, the chair He sat in, the clothes He wore, even the womb He came from, could be “touched” (by Joseph, by marriage as commanded). You make her womb untouchable, you make Jesus untouchable anywhere there after? You prohibit the children to sit on holy knees ?

 

[YADA]

…Would the Ark continue to be be "Holy’’ if it was forever emptied of it’s holy contents and forever emptied of the presence of God ?…

Yes … God commanded with exactness the construction of the Arc of the Covenant … even if empty - it remains set apart … forever …

If you had possession of the Arc and it was emptied of its contents - the actual Arc of the Covenant - verified

You assert that it would not be sacred any more and could be used for any common purpose? And you would find that acceptable?

benhur - I really doubt that - I cannot believe that you would really use it as a container for non sacred objects … - just another antique piece of furniture …

Really - would you?

 

[PRmerger]

No, that “brother” can mean uterine brother.

Oh. Well that is very Catholic of you, ben.

We just don’t make it an “only”. Brothers doesn’t have to mean ONLY uterine brothers. Hence, the “brothers of the Lord” are NOT uterine brothers.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. I explicitly defined earlier what I meant by “Americanized” definition of “adelphos”(here) and it doesn’t mean from “the USA” benhur.

Let me give you what I explicitly said (again) . . .

. . . . unscripturally truncated or a proverbial “Americanized” view of “brothers” . . .

If you prefer, a “NON-Greekized” way to define “adelphos” or . . . .an UNBINLICAL way to define “adelphos” that’s fine.

Call it what you want, but if you are going to truncate or pare down the Biblical meaning of adelphos, I want to see the evidence. And I have seen NO evidence.

You want to claim Helvidius, Tertullian or Jovinianus as your source go right ahead. As I said, we will be responsible for such decisions. You can add in Ebion and Cerinthus to your cadre of heretics that you want to follow too. They ALSO denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

You said the reason St. Joseph refrained until the Blessed Virgin bore Jesus is because . . .

For sure Joseph was obedient to the angel , his dream , that a “knew not” shall conceive, . So he “knew not” her. Right up to the birth it tells us.

Go back and re-read the Scriptures. The angel never gave St. Joseph an order (“obedient”) explicitly or implicitly to stay away from the Blessed Mother—the Angel told St. Joseph to not fear to take Mary into his home.

MATTHEW 1:18-21 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Again you said:

For sure Joseph was obedient to the angel , his dream , that a “knew not” shall conceive, . So he “knew not” her. Right up to the birth it tells us.

Go back and re-read the Scriptures. The Blessed Virgin had ALREADY conceived Jesus when the angel appeared to St. Joseph in the dream. How could Mary be in a “shall conceive” situation at THIS point?

Now you will undoubtedly say . . . .

“Well the Angel told St. Joseph about this being a fulfillment If Isaiah’s prophecy.”

And St. Joseph didn’t want to transgress “prophecy” or some such thing.

MATTHEW 20b-24a “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife . . .

So you are intimating St. Joseph wouldn’t touch the Blessed Mother because he KNEW God would not want him to from Isaiah’s prophecy.

OK. Fair enough so far.

If you think Joseph took Isaiah’s prophecy that the angel reminded him of, and concluded he shouldn’t touch the Blessed Virgin, WHY NOT? WHY Would GOD order this?

You still haven’t answered the question. WHY NOT?

Are you saying marital relations are “dirty”?

WHY do you think God ordained that St. Joseph SHOULDN”T have relations with the Blessed Virgin benhur?

To fulfill prophecy? Well WHY was prophecy ordained THIS WAY?

ST. JEROME In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, (Matthew 1:20) “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, (Matthew 1:20) “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife.” . . . . Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man (St. Joseph) dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man (St. Joseph) who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards . . . that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?

What do you think the reasoning is here benhur that St. Joseph should NOT know his wife at this point? (Don’t you see. This is one of my whole points on this thread. Your Mariology affects your Christology)

You saying St. Joseph is just extracting prophecy from Isaiah merely moves the question back one level to WHY would God inspire Isaiah to give this?

I am still waiting . . . .

And this bit about stoning the Prophets is irrelevant. God always kept a remnant in truth. So if you want to claim the “stoning the prophets” paradigm, you have to take the rest of these guys with you.

You will object and say, “Well Cathoholic. You likewise admitted the Fathers were not perfect.” But I likewise ALSO said the Fathers affirms an order of authority too so that isn’t going to work.

So you are left with thinking Tertullian and Helvidius are “the prophets” who are the remnant with your motif.

It doesn’t work benhur.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You also said:

I assert ever virgin preaching was one of those mistakes.

And I have asked on what evidence?

So your assertion benhur, is 2000 years of unbroken succession got it wrong and you and Helvidius and Tertullian and others got it right?

And you have no verses to back it up?

And THIS is going to be your assertion?

I’ve already given you verses and Church Father quotes from St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and others (there are literally dozens—if you want I can go over here and start putting them up. But Randy Carson and others have already got a healthy start).

Better yet, why don’t you go over there (click here to get to “ECFs on Perpetual Virginity”) and put up quotes from all the people who REJECT the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Put up the actual quotes.

Let’s just take a look at the actual evidence and compare.

The heretics are sure to cite Scripture verses because these heretics are “Scriptural” right benhur?

Why not go over there and show everyone all the “Patristic” evidence you have.

---

I said:

You have ignored Scripture, Tradition, the Eastern Fathers, the Western Fathers, history, the Councils, . . . even ignored your Protestant founders all to follow after . . . (traditions of men that make void the Commandments of God).

You replied (parenthetical addition, bold and ul mine):

I did not ignore them, just said they all must be wrong on this (issue of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

I stand corrected here.

benhur, Tertullian, and Helvidius, etc. huh?

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You said (here and here) with bold and ul mine . . .

Would the Ark continue to be be "Holy’’ if it was forever emptied of it’s holy contents and forever emptied of the presence of God ?

In short. Mary 's womb was no longer holy (set aside for special purpose) in that the job was finished, and Jesus was no longer in her.(She was still "holy" even blessed,but not her womb).

This tells me a lot about your Christology benhur. These comments of yours reflect to me quite a bit about what you think of Jesus.

I’ll just let the readers of this thread look at your comments and draw their own conclusions.

---

I am sure if you could convince Belshazzar about the Sacredness of the Temple and the Sacred accessories, he would have said the same thing as you in principle.

If you told Belshazzar the Chalices of the Israelite Temple were Holy, Sacred, Dedicated for a sublime purpose, Consecrated; Belshazzar (who also had a warped sense of the sacred) may very well have said:

In short. These Temple vessels were no longer holy (set aside for special purpose) in that the job was finished, and Yahweh Himself allowed their capture by the Babylonians.

And we both know what happened . . . .

A. Nothing happened because the Temple Vessels were no longer set aside and “the job was finished” as they were no longer being used in Temple services.

B. That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain in part because you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them

For the real and Scriptural answer (is it “A” or is it “B”?) see this post (here).

---

As I said earlier.

I think part of the reason people have such a difficulty with the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is due to a loss of the sense of the sacred in the world for a long time now.

benhur stated (about the Blessed Virgin Mary) . . .

Would the Ark continue to be be "Holy’’ if it was forever emptied of it’s holy contents and forever emptied of the presence of God ?

Yet benhur stated (about himself) . . .

but we are His monstrance, even before the "sacrament’

What makes you think the Blessed Virgin Mary was “forever emptied of the presence of God” (at least in EVERY sense)?

Yet you think this of YOURSELF (which incidentally is a partial truth. I am not denying every aspect of what you say here. But I find it astounding that you can apply this to YOURSELF, yet talk of the Blessed Virgin Mary even theoretically as: “forever emptied of the presence of God”) . . .

benhur stated . . .

Would the Ark continue to be be "Holy’’ if it was forever emptied of it’s holy contents and forever emptied of the presence of God ?

Yet the Holy Spirit informs us . . . .

LUKE 1:48-49 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

NOT LUKE 1:48-49 but a benhur PHANTOM VERSE 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, no future generations will call me blessed because the job was finished, and Jesus was no longer in me; 49 for he who is mighty has done temporary things for me, and holy is his name.

Jesus took His Sacred Flesh from the Blessed Virgin Mary benhur. “The job” lives on benhur.

---

Benhur. You said . . .

Nope, I believe it is the same gate

Your interpretation of Ezekiel 46 contradicts your “perspective” of Ezekiel 44:1-2.

So Eastern facing gates on the outer court and inner court are “the same” gate huh? OK. Someone should have informed St. Ambrose and St. Augustine of this back in the 300’s and 400’s A.D.

 

[thetazlord]

I feel the same way.

And after 2,000 years, 1.2 billion Catholics, 300 million Orthodox and countless Protestants agree that Mary remained ever-virgin.

However, you and a relatively small number of Protestants believe that you and you alone have seen something in scripture that everyone else in the course of human history has missed.

How likely is that?

So for you, majority = truth?

 

[thetazlord]

No one is dragging any red herrings across your path. Because the subject of the OP truly is a question of authority: “Why is your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine?"

No, the subject of the OP is “Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?” not the subject of authority. And since it is the Mary of Scripture, not the “Mary” of Proto-James is who we’re talking about, Scripture doesn’t support that the Mary of Scripture remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. So, that’s not “MY interpretation,” but rather the fact that Scripture is not only absent on the matter, but also conflicts with Mary remaining one, since Scripture supports that Mary had other children, which has been demonstrated with Scripture alone - not an “interpretation” of it. In order for it to be an interpretation of it, rather than what Scripture literally supports on it’s own, I would have to conclude this without being able to provide Scriptural evidence. However, since I have, the rejection that she didn’t remain a virgin is based on attempting to maintain a preconceived personal view, than trusting in what Scripture actually states.

 

[YADA]

No, the subject of the OP is “Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?” not the subject of authority. And since it is the Mary of Scripture, not the “Mary” of Proto-James is who we’re talking about, Scripture doesn’t support that the Mary of Scripture remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. So, that’s not “MY interpretation,” but rather the fact that Scripture is not only absent on the matter, but also conflicts with Mary remaining one, since Scripture supports that Mary had other children, which has been demonstrated with Scripture alone - not an “interpretation” of it. In order for it to be an interpretation of it, rather than what Scripture literally supports on it’s own, I would have to conclude this without being able to provide Scriptural evidence. However, since I have, the rejection that she didn’t remain a virgin is based on attempting to maintain a preconceived personal view, than trusting in what Scripture actually states.

That is your interpretation - I read the same scriptures - not the Proto James … not Church teaching or Dogma … but based on the Scriptures [from before I was Catholic] and the Scriptures DO NOT support your belief that Mary had other children - the Scriptures so not clearly state that Mary did not remain a virgin …

You have taken Brethren to be children of Mary’s womb and only Mary’s womb … with not one other option …In the same passage where people are not directly linked to Mary and in fact the passage indicates Jesus is the biological son of Joseph explicitly … which you rightly discount … you insist that they are the uttering children of Mary … this is not clearly - explicitly - stated in the passage … no matter how many time you assert it …

Brethren can mean more then just natural children from the same mother and father …

Your Greek interpretation has also been challenged/corrected/and disputed … it cannot be clear as even native speaking Greek peoples [you are not one I understand] are some who have corrected you …

 

[thetazlord]

Do you honestly believe that it is the concern of the Holy Spirit in Scripture to show people that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph? Where does the axe you’re grinding on this issue come from? Do you have an issue with Christians holding to a pious opinion of her ever-virginity (which, by the way, is held to by not more than a few non-Catholics)?

No, because the Bible is the Word of God, which does not support that belief. You are welcome to believe whatever you want. But for me, I don’t feel comfortable believing in something that conflicts with the Word of God.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord. You stated (here):

Scripture supports that Mary had other children

Show me the verse?

Don’t tell me about it. Quote it. I want to see it. I am still waiting for it.

Show me ONE VERSE that says Mary had ANY children (other than Jesus).

Please don’t show me again about, “the brothers of Jesus” in the context of “the son” (not “one of the sons” plural) of Mary as that is NOT going to be persuasive.

I already affirm “the brothers of Jesus” in the sense that Mary had one SON.

I want ONE VERSE that says what you assert–the Blessed Mother had other children. ONE VERSE.

 

[thetazlord]

That is your interpretation - I read the same scriptures - not the Proto James … not Church teaching or Dogma … but based on the Scriptures [from before I was Catholic] and the Scriptures DO NOT support your belief that Mary had other children - the Scriptures so not clearly state that Mary did not remain a virgin …

When you say “that is YOUR interpretation,” do you even know what that means? In order for it to be my “interpretation,” I would have to ADD my interpretation of the text that’s not there. However, saying that I don’t believe in the PVM because it’s not in Scripture isn’t “interpretation.” It’s simply acknowledging that something doesn’t exist. Beileving that Mary remained one - even if it’s true - is “YOUR interpretation,” because it’s not found in Scripture.

Brethren can mean more then just natural children from the same mother and father …

LOL! I understand that. But what you & everyone else doesn’t seem to get, is that it’s not like I’m saying, “Okay, since ‘brother’ can mean uterine brother, all I’m doing is ‘choosing’ a single meaning of that word & conclude that ‘brother’ can ONLY mean uterine sibling.” If you & everyone else here have been paying attention, my conclusion is based on SCRIPTURE ELIMINATING every other definition of the word, plus pointing out the family dynamics of the women at the cross which helps identify ‘which’ sons they are related to, which helps to narrow the four named “brothers” & 2 unnamed “sisters” of Jesus to Jesus’ immediate nuclear family. Every other possibility is eliminated by SCRIPTURE - not “MY interpretation” of it.

Your Greek interpretation has also been challenged/corrected/and disputed … it cannot be clear as even native speaking Greek peoples [you are not one I understand] are some who have corrected you …

Actually, I have studied the Greek. The problem is that most people who have “challenged” me have done so “attempting” to use the Greek, but then when it’s pointed out that THEY are the one’s who choose to isolate a single definition of the word for “brother” to justify THEIR interpretation, they then go to the ECF’s since they realize that that SINGLE “interpretation” cannot be supported by Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

Show me the verse?

Don’t tell me about it. Quote it. I want to see it. I am still waiting for it.

Show me ONE VERSE that says Mary had ANY children (other than Jesus).

If you mean show you “ONE VERSE” that Mary had other children WORD-FOR-WORD, then show me “ONE VERSE” that uses the actual WORD “Trinity” - not just verses that support it. Because that is what you are doing, which is a strawman. BTW, I HAVE shown you the verses, but because of your preconceived “belief,” you are blocking yourself from accepting that Scripture not stating WORD-FOR-WORD that Mary had other children is irrelevant whether she did or not. Rather, Scripture DOES support it, but you have to examine MULTIPLE Scriptures, which “have” been shown to you, that you simply ignore.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord.

You said:

the Bible is the Word of God

And then you get worked up when other people talk about authority here accusing them of injecting “Red Herrings”.

Are YOU injecting Red Herrings too?

(Remember. The OP (excalibur) never asked for the answer specifically and only “from Scripture”.)

Or is it now OK to talk about sources of authority?

Or . . .

Or . . . is it OK only when YOU talk about authority (not a “Red Herring”), but not Catholics (that’s a “Red Herring”) talking about authority?

Is the Bible the “ONLY” source for “the word of God” thetazlord? If you think so, where does the Bible state that with the “only”?

You also said:

I don’t feel comfortable believing in something that conflicts with the Word of God.

Neither do Catholics.

That is WHY I must firmly reject a DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I think it would be more accurate to say that you . . .

don’t feel comfortable believing in something that conflicts with the Word of thetazlord’s interpretation of the Bible.

It always seems to be “Biblical” thetazlord (in your paradigm), when people agree with YOU.

But it always seems to be asserted (by you) that a point is “un-Biblical”, when people disagree with YOU.

 

[Cathoholic]

Rather, Scripture DOESN’T support it, but you have to examine MULTIPLE Scriptures, which “have” been shown to you, that you simply ignore.

And the “Trinity” argument, I actually partially agree with. I wouldn’t state it the way you did, but I will give you that point.

I really don’t understand how you think verses that talk of SON in a singular sense can mean “sons”. Especially given the wide Aramaic usage of “brothers”.

But you have NOT shown the Scriptures denial of the Perpetual Virginity thetazlord. It has been quite the opposite.

You have not laid out a convincing argument thetazlord.

YOU have been shown otherwise yet it is YOU that refuse to accept it.

And I think this is partially because you don’t have a proper sense of the Sacred, and you do not seem to extoll virginity, and you ignore Scripture, when it doesn’t suit your traditions. You also reject a proper sense of authority (but as you have said, we don’t need to dwell too much on that in this thread).

 

[Cathoholic]

With your tradition thetazlord, you can see in some sense, things like the Ark of the Covenant as Sacred and Holy and Consecrated or Dedicated for a special purpose (at least I hope you can), but you cannot apply that concept to your own spiritual Mother in a FULFILLED sense.

I am sure you CAN see the holy Consecrated aspect of the Temple vessels too (I hope), yet you cannot seem to see what the FULFILLED VESSEL, that Jesus took His own sacred Flesh from as being MUCH MORE Holy, Consecrated, Dedicated, etc.

And that comes not just from your views on Mary, but from what I can see here implicitly, it comes from your views of Jesus too.

 

[thetazlord]

Neither do Catholics.

That is WHY I must firmly reject a DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

You’re still not getting what I’m saying. Since the PVM of Mary is making an assertion that Mary DEFINITELY 100% “remained” a virgin, & since there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that she did, how can you say that you agree that “you don’t feel comfortable believing in something that conflicts with the Word of God”? Not believing it isn’t so much a “denial” based on “interpretation,” but rather not believing in it because SCRIPTURE DOESN’T SUPPORT IT!

I

think it would be more accurate to say that you . . .

don’t feel comfortable believing in something that conflicts with the Word of thetazlord’s interpretation of the Bible.

No, that’s not “more accurate,” because it’s not “thetazlord’s interpretation,” but rather Scripture doesn’t support it. You’re having a really hard time grasping this aren’t you?

It always seems to be “Biblical” thetazlord (in your paradigm), when people agree with YOU.

No, it’s “Biblical” if it’s “in” the BIBLE, not “in my paradigm.” If it is SHOW me where it’s “in” the Bible.

 

[thetazlord]

I really don’t understand how you think verses that talk of SON in a singular sense can mean “sons”. Especially given the wide Aramaic usage of “brothers”.

Is James “THE son” of Alphaeus his ONLY son? Or is Joses his son too? After all, Scripture refers to James as “THE (singular sense) son” of Alphaeus.

But you have NOT shown the Scriptures denial of the Perpetual Virginity thetazlord. It has been quite the opposite.

You have not laid out a convincing argument thetazlord.

YOU have been shown otherwise yet it is YOU that refuse to accept it.

Actually, I have. You just reject those Scriptures AS A WHOLE, but rather believe them INDIVIDUALLY, not realizing how addressing them individually takes them out of context as a whole

And I think this is partially because you don’t have a proper sense of the Sacred, and you do not seem to extoll virginity, and you ignore Scripture, when it doesn’t suit your traditions. You also reject a proper sense of authority (but as you have said, we don’t need to dwell too much on that in this thread).

Nice theories, but - no - that’s not why.

 

[thetazlord]

Question is are they maternal or paternal half brothers, if indeed they are? If Mary is their biological mum, who is the father? Did Mary commit adultery or did she remarry? Which one is your position if you are claiming that she is the biological mum

.

Obviously, maternal half-brothers, since Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. I notice a lot of Catholics confuse half-brothers & step-brothers on this forum. Mary & Joseph were the parents of Jesus’ half-brothers.

You claim "there are FOUR women at the cross at this time: Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, & Mary Magdalene. ‘Jesus’ mothers’ sister’ is Salome (Mark 15:40), not Mary, the wife of Clopas, because that would mean that MARY, the mother of Jesus had a sister named ‘MARY’!] ". Unfortunately one can also read that there are 3 women although you claim there is a difficulty of two sisters named Mary. It is not a difficulty if the sister is her sister-in-law. The word choice is still appropriate.

If there were only three women, instead of four, then John doesn’t account for his OWN mother, even though Matthew & Mark did. This is extremely unlikely. Also, there are Hebrew & Greek words for “in-law” USED in both the OT & NT. If the “other” Mary was a sister-in-law, John would have used it. Plus, 100% of the time “sister” is used in the Gospels, it refers to uterine siblings, except when Jesus is comparing His biological family to His spiritual “brother & sister & mother.” Also, there is no reason given the text to “assume” that “sister” means sister-in-law, except to read a preconceived religious view INTO the text.

You repeatedly claim blood -related but nowhere did you substantiate that.

That’s because it requires more than a single verse to substantiate it, which is why it took THREE separate posts to do so. Go back & reread them.

You have not proven Clopas is Alphaeus. In fact you may be contradicting yourself. You claimed that James/Joseph/Simon/Jude are not disciples/apostles. But if you claim Clopas is Alphaeus, then there is an apostle called James of Alphaeus which mean that your earlier statement about these foursome is wrong.

This is where you’re getting confused. The “James & Joseph” who are in the grouping of the four brothers (James/Joseph/Simon/Jude) are NOT the same “James & Joseph” who are the sons of Alphaeus. But this is only apparent if you understand there are FOUR women at the cross, not THREE, which Scripture supports.

Hence, I do not support the contention that James of Alphaeus (apostle) is of the foursome.

He’s not. See above.

Alphaeus and Clopas are different persons. James of Alphaeus was never addressed as brother of the Lord in the Gospels, as an apostle yes. He is also not James the Just. James the Just was never addressed as Apostle as of the 12.

Whether Alphaeus & Clopas are the same person or not, doesn’t affect that the “other” Mary (referred to as Mary of Clopas) is the same person & mother of James the Less (son of Alphaeus) & Joseph. James of Alphaeus is a different “James” than the James named in the foursome. He is also not the “James” who is brothers with John. I think you got confused what I wrote. Go back & reread it.

If Mary of Jesus is there, Mary of Clopas is there and the foursome are the children of Clopas, how did you get Mary the mother of Jesus to be their biological mama so that you can called them half blood brothers?? Isn’t that confusing?

That’s because you are confusing yourself. The foursome are NOT the children of Clopas. There are TWO “James & Josephs” not ONE. James the Less & Joseph are sons of Mary of Clopas (the “other” Mary) & Alphaeus. The “other” James & Joseph are brothers of Simon & Judas. Therefore:

James the Great is James the brother of John, son of Salome & Zebedee.
James the Less is the brother of Joses, son of Alphaeus & Mary of Clopas (the “other” Mary).
James the Just is the brother of the “other” Joses, Simon, Judas (Jude) & at least two unnamed sisters, the sons of Mary & Joseph. So, when they are referred to as the “brothers” of Jesus, James the Just et al are the HALF-brothers of Jesus.

We need the name of the “other” husband of Mary (of Jesus) to make your allegation of blood siblings worth considering.

Mary of Jesus only had one husband - Joseph.

You claim that Jesus half-brothers had dishonored Him (Mark 6:4), & were not believing in Him (John 7:3-5). Same point I made earlier. You linked the brothers of John 7:3-5 to Mark 6:4 and as disbelievers. In Matthew and Mark, there was no mention that these brothers are disbelievers. We just do not know that the brothers in John are the same as in Matthew/Mark. If you insist, you must prove it with evidence, not supposition. The brothers in John are nameless, could be just a generic group of kinsmen who didn’t believe in him.

This is why you have to examine ALL of the Scripture verses in context - not just a select few. It also helps if you don’t get confused to which “James & Joseph” belongs to which family like you did above.

This is all conjecture. Equally plausible is that there were no blood brothers. Cousin John? Interesting. Imaginative mind. Chapter/Verse please.

See previous post.

 

[Porknpie]

No, because the Bible is the Word of God, which does not support that belief. You are welcome to believe whatever you want. But for me, I don’t feel comfortable believing in something that conflicts with the Word of God.

Thetazlord,

Take a quick look at St. Jerome’s refutation of Helvidius here: **Jerome vs Helvidius **

To what degree does he use or quote other ECF’s; or does he cite any other early Church writings?

To what degree does St Jerome use scripture to support his argument?

I’ll answer the last question: a very quick read of the text is that he cites scripture, giving chapter and verse 55 times.

He would take issue with you saying that Mary’s perpetual virginity is not seen in scripture.