I think...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Mary was virgin before Jesus was born, but after He was born her and Joseph had normal affairs between eachother. I found this on the net and it shows how the Catholic position cannot work.

JOHN

SCHROEDER

Contender Ministries

Posted: January 11, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both direct and circumstantial evidence in God’s Word – the Bible – clearly disproves the Roman Catholic Church claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin, not only prior to, but during and after our Lord’s miraculous birth. It was this “perpetual virginity” doctrine and several others that forced the infamous 16th century Council of Trent to declare “Sacred Tradition” equal in every way to the divine Scriptures, and to arrogate to itself alone the right to interpret both Scripture and so-called “Sacred Tradition.” As we review the Scriptural evidence applicable to this false doctrine, it will become crystal clear why the Vatican insists that its members abide by Rome’s determination of what certain controversial Scriptures actually mean.

Our first inkling that the lifetime virginity doctrine is only a myth is found in the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. In verse 18 and following, God’s Word tells us that Mary was espoused (engaged) to Joseph, but that, “before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” In the original Greek, the phrase “came together” is contained in the word, sunerchomai, {soon-er'-khom-ahee} whose meaning to the Jews of that era (Matthew was a Jew) meant conjugal cohabitation. A modern paraphrase of the Bible’s statement would go something like this: “Mary was found to be pregnant….before they consummated their marriage through normal sexual intercourse.”

Jewish marriages in the time of Christ consisted of a period of betrothal that preceded by several months the actual “coming together” in sexual union. Espousal, or betrothal, however, confirmed the marriage as a valid contract, so, for Joseph to have “put away secretly” his espoused bride, he would have had to obtain a legal writ of divorcement. While he pondered the advisability of such an action, he was informed by an angel in a dream that Mary was not guilty of adultery; that the Holy Ghost was the child’s sire, and to have no fear of proceeding with the contracted marriage. (Matt 1:20, 21) There is not even the slightest hint in the angel’s words that a marital union with Mary was to be free of the normal physical privileges. Thus reassured, Joseph, “being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Mat 1:24, 25)

Two phrases in those Scripture verses, when added to the phrase, “before they came together,” create a very rocky road to lifetime virginity for Roman Catholic apologists. The phrase “knew her not till” is translated from the Greek words, 1) ginosko{ghin-oce'-ko}, 2) ouk {ook}, and 3) heos {heh'-oce}. Ginosko, here translated “knew,” is a “Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.” (Strong’s Lexicon #1097) The word ouk, here translated “not,” is clearly a negative denoting the act had not taken place. But heos, here translated “till,” is confirmation that the act did, in fact, take place after the child was delivered. To obviate in advance claims that the word “till” does not confirm that Mary and Joseph engaged in normal marital relations following Christ’s birth, the child Jesus is referred to in God’s Word as, “her firstborn son:” (Matt 1:25)

Roman Catholic apologists proclaim quite falsely that the word “firstborn” applies to an only child as well as to the first of multiple children. But a check of how the Greek word, prototokos {pro-tot-ok'-os} is used in the New Testament shows that claim to be quite without biblical support. The word appears nine times in the New Testament, and with one possible – but far from certain – exception, it always means the first of more than one. Six of the times it appears it is in reference to Jesus as either the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of mankind, or the firstborn of man who would come to believe in God through him. Bible references are: Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15 and 1:18; Hebrews 1:6 and 12:23; and Revelation 1:5.

The one time it could possibly mean an only child is found in Hebrews 11:28. This particular verse is among several recounting the faith Moses exhibited as he led the children of Israel out of Egyptian captivity. “Through faith he (Moses) kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.” Reference here is made to the final plague visited upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians – the death of every firstborn of man and beast not covered by the blood of the Passover sacrifice. Roman Catholic apologists speculate that some Egyptian families had but a single child, and therefore the word firstborn can apply to an only child, in this case, Jesus. But this is both an unprovable presumption, and not very likely, because large families were an economic necessity, a hedge against starvation and aggression.

The other two times prototokos appears in the New Testament are in Matthew 1:25, (previously cited) and Luke 2:7, which reads as follows: “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” Twice, then, the inspired writers referred to our Lord as Mary’s firstborn son. But when Christ’s relationship to the Father is studied, we find Jesus the man described as God’s “…only begotten Son.” For examples, see John 1:14, 1:18, 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1st John 4:9. The author of God’s Word – the Holy Ghost – has made it absolutely clear that the man Christ Jesus was the only human offspring of the Father. With this in mind, one questions why that same Holy Ghost - if Jesus really was an only child - did not inspire Matthew and Luke to describe Mary’s delivery the same way. All speculation would have been obviated had they written: “And she brought forth her only son, etc.”

To make the road even more difficult for Roman Catholic apologists, Scripture contains a parallel situation in which the birth of a genuine only child is reported. Recall if you will that Mary’s cousin, Elisabeth, and her cousin’s husband, Zacharias, not only were childless, but actually were past the time of life when they could expect to be blessed with offspring. The Bible tells it like this: “And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.” (Luke 1:7) Their advanced years notwithstanding, Elisabeth and Zacharias were blessed by the Lord with the miracle of John the Baptist. Gabriel brought the good news to Zacharias as he performed his priestly duty in the Temple. “…the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.” (Luke 1:13) It is the following Scripture, the inspired writer’s description of John’s birth, that is especially worthy of note. “Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.” (Luke 1:57)

John the Baptist was the only son of Elisabeth and Zacharias. And so, the inspired writer correctly relates that Elisabeth brought forth – not a firstborn son to be followed by other sons – she simply brought forth…a…son. Since both the inspired writers say that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son, we can be sure – without going one bit further into the matter – that at least one other son followed. In fact though, if the divine Word of God is to be believed, four other sons followed, and at least two daughters.

The following is from the Gospel of Matthew, an Apostle who knew Jesus and His family background intimately, even without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas. And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Matt 13:55, 56) These comments were made by people who knew Joseph and Mary and their family, for the Scripture tells us in the preceding verse: “And when he (Jesus) was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (Matt 13:54) It bears repeating that these comments were made by people who most certainly knew the difference between blood brothers and sisters and mere cousins or kinfolk. We find a second report of this incident in the Gospel of Mark.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” (Mark 6:3) As additional assurance that those who were making these comments were very well acquainted with our Lord’s earthly family, we read: “But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.” (Mark 6:4, 5)

In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is adelphos {ad-el-fos'}; for sisters, it’s adelphe {ad-el-fay'}. The word for cousin/kinfolk is suggenes {soong-ghen-ace'}. To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject to misusing them, is to question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit who directed their efforts. And that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does in the following entry from the 1994 Catechism.

Against this doctrine (Mary’s lifetime virginity) the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (¶500, Page 126, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994)

What the Roman Catholic Church has “always understood,” and what the Scriptures clearly say are as far apart in this case as Rome is from the South Pole. When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. That is how we know that Simon Peter was Andrew’s brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christ’s named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two named sons is absurd. To imply that the Holy Spirit didn’t “get it right” is blasphemy, and Jesus had some choice words regarding those who blaspheme His Holy Spirit. (Cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10)

The Word of God could not have made it any clearer that Mary had four sons besides Jesus, and that Jesus had both brothers and sisters. Following is a list of New Testament verses that simply cannot be misconstrued no matter how loudly the Roman Catholic apologists protest.

Matthew 12:46-49; Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Mark 6:3

Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; 1Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1:1 (probable).

In the Galatians reference cited above, Paul identifies James as the Lord’s adelphos, (brother) not as His suggenes, (cousin or kinfolk). It is out of the question to think or believe that Paul didn’t know the difference between a brother and a cousin. Moreover, the great historians of the patristic age – Josephus of Judaism, and Eusebius of Christianity – made reference to brothers of the Lord in their respective histories.

In his Antiquities XX, 200, Josephus reported that, “James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ” had been put to death. And Eusebius, in his Book 2, Chapter 1:3, refers to “James the Lord’s brother.” Then, in Book 3, Chapter 20:1, this appears: “Jude…the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” His meaning could not be clearer. The Jude he refers to was a blood brother of Jesus, not a brother by faith.

But the doctrine of Mary’s lifetime virginity, the denial that she and Joseph enjoyed a normal marriage as commanded by God in 1st Corinthians 7:4, 5, actually was obviated about 800 years before the births of Mary, Joseph or Jesus. In Psalm 69 is contained the following clearly Messianic prophecy: “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” (Psa 69:8, 9)

How do we know that these verses are a Messianic prophecy? Because we read in the Gospel of John: “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (John 2:15-17)

And in Romans, we read: “For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.” (Romans 15:3)

The Roman Catholic doctrine stating that Mary the mother of Jesus retained her virginity after Christ’s birth and for the rest of her life is just plain heresy. Worse, it is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, author of the Scriptures, because it in effect accuses the Word of God of lying to us.

-- David (dkknight@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004

Answers

Could someone please post a link to somewhere that debunks this? At least I'm hoping for some sort of rebuttal, that seems kind of convincing and I don't know what to think.

I at the position where the Catholic Church can't proclaim something as wrong, or all of Christianity is wrong itself. I know there can be no way the Church is wrong, but reading through this I've come across some arguements I've never heard before.

-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004.


This sort of bogus argument against Mary's perpetual virginity has been around for a long time. It was refuted by ancient church Fathers and rejected by Luther and Calvin, who both upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here follows a section from the greatest Calvinist theologian after Calvin, explaining orthodox pious Christian belief against such nonsense:

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology 11.21-25 (Geiger Trans., vol. 2, p. 345.

All Christians agree that Mary was a virgin before and in the birth of Christ. We now treat the time following the birth--whether she always remained a virgin afterwards. This not expressedly declared in Scripture, but it is piously believed. For it is probably that the womb in which our savior received the beginning of life (from which he entered into this world as from a temple) was so consecrated by so great a guest that she always remained untouched by main, or did Joseph ever have relations with her. Hence Helvidius and the Anticiomariarianites (so called because they were "opponents" of Mary) were properly rebuked by the fathers for denying that Mary was always a virgin. They held that she lived with Joseph after delivery, yes, and even had children by him. As Augustine remarks these men used the shallowest of arguments--e.g. that Christ is called the "firstborn" of Mary . For as Jerome well remarks, he was so called because no one was begotten before him, not because others were born after him. The Jews were accustomed to call the firstborn any only begotten. Israel is so called "the firstborn of God" (Ex 4:22) although the they are the only people chosen of God. Thus "the firstborn" is said to be "holy to God" (Ex 13:2), who first opened the womb, whether others followed or not. Otherwise the firstborn would not have to be redeemed until after another child had been conceived (and the law shows this to be false because it commands "the firstborn" to be redeemed a month after birth, Nb 18:16). Nor can they solidly argue from the fact that in the New Testament others are called "the brothers of Christ." It is common in Scripture not only for one's own blood brothers to be designated by that name but also other blood relatives and cousins (as Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban). Thus James and Joses, Simon and Judas are called the "brothers" of Christ (Mt 13:55) because of a blood relation. For the Mary, who is named these men's mother in Matthew and Luke, is explicitly called by John the sister of the Lord's mother. So then what is said in John 7:5 that "neither did his brethren believe in him" must be understood of even more remote blood relations. Nor can this be argued any better from the passage where Joseph is said "not to have known Mary until she had brought forth her firstborn son" (Mt 1:25). In Greek the prepositions "until" and "even until" are often referred only to the past, not to the future (i.e. they so connote preceding time so as not to have any reference to the future at all--see Gn 28:15, Ps 122:2, Mt 28:20, and many other places). So it is shown that what Joseph did before the birth of Christ (that is, that he abstained from relations with Mary) does not imply that he lived with her any other way after the birth. When therefore she is said to have been found with child "before they came together," preceding relations are denied but nothing is affirmed about subsequent relations. Even though relations did not take place in that marriage it did not cease to be a true and valid (even if unconsummated) marriage for it is not sex that makes marriage but consent of the will. And so it was a formally perfect marriage (that is it was an undivided union of life and undefiled fidelity), even if it lacked the end (that is, the procreation of children, although it was hardly deficient even as to the raising of children).

-- (nospam@noaddress.org), April 20, 2004.


nothing new to me, jacob, i'll post a reply to ALL of the accusations tonight.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 20, 2004.

Yes, Jacob.

Before they came together, before they could have sex, Jesus was conceived. The 1st Chapter of Matthew does indeed say that Jesus was born of Mary before Joseph 'knew' her. So Matthew 1:18 simply reinforces Catholic doctrine.

The fact that Jesus is referred to as the 1st born does not necessarily mean there were others. To be the 1st born son was very important at the time amongst the Jews and to fulfill prophecy, and that is why He is addressed that way...it really is no mystery. That the author of this note can't find the Greek word repeated a lot of times in the New Testament is irrelevant to how important it was at the time, and how many times the Old Testament refers to 1st born sons.

We have to remember, that Mary, Joseph, Jesus and the Apostles did not speak to each other in Greek. They spoke to each other in Aramaic. It was the custom of the time to refer to relatives as 'brothers'. When the scribes wrote down the New Testament in Greek, they were true to the quotes and used the word 'brother' not cousin, even if the person being referred to was a cousin. For example, if I called you my Brother in Christ, and you happened to be my cousin, I would not want someone translating my words into French to use the French word for cousin instead of what I said, which was 'brother'. But you asked for a link. Here is a good apologeticslink.

I would also suggest you look in the archives of this group, it seems like we cover this at least every other week.



-- bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004.


David,

I see you have done your homework in Greek, but you are not completely there yet. As you know, Jesus and other Jews at the time spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, and not Greek. You have to know how Aramaic and Hebrew languages are phrased in order to avoid misinterpretation.

This passage "knew her not until..." has certainly come up in my discussion with Protestants. They say, "look it says until, which means something had to happen afterwards!" Well, upon glancing over, yes it appears that way. But in order to understand this and other phrases, an intelligent scholar must know and understand the how the original language, this being Aramaic, worked grammatically.

The word "until" is a very Aramaic word used in many phrases, but it does not mean something has to happen after. There is a passage in Scripture that says something on the lines of "The Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the father until he comes again". You see, if we took the Protestants glancing over technique, you could determine (falsely) that the passage says Jesus will only be seated at the Father until the 2nd coming- and then is not. Just you as you say that Joseph knew her not until after the birth-and then he did. You must know and understand how the Aramaic language functions to understand this. It is crucial for proper interpretation. These two sentences, when looking and comparing deeper, mean exactly the opposite. Jesus will be reign at the right hand not only before the 2nd coming, but permanently reign with his Father after. And, in exactly the same Aramaic syntax, the passage is clearly saying that Joseph did not know her both before the conception, and after.

I am always surprised when Protestants think they know more than Catholics simply because they learn a little Greek. Well, did you know Daniel was first written in Chaldean? Or that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic first too? Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek, and to know Aramaic syntax is key to clear up these problems and others(like Cepha, Cephas- Grk. Petros, Petra...simply understand how Jesus is speaking in Aramaic and there is no controversy).

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 20, 2004.



Hi Andrew,

I think, or have heard that Mark may have originally been written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek, but I'm not sure about Matthew. Out of curiosity, how did you find out about that (Mathew)? Are their syntactical clues?

As far as I know, no original Aramaic NT scriptures have made it into our times. (Just going by memory here which is very unreliable)

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), April 20, 2004.


Sorry for such a long post, but some stupidities needed to be pointed out in regards to the asinine arguement in the original post.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence in GodÂ’s Word

There is no such thing as circumstantial evidence in the bible.

disproves the Roman Catholic Church claim

there is also no such church as the roman catholic church. I am not roman catholic, i am simply catholic. ROMAN catholic is a designation by protestants outside the church used to minimalize the CATHOLIC church is the universal church established by Christ.

Our first inkling that the lifetime virginity doctrine is only a myth is found in the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. In verse 18 and following, God’s Word tells us that Mary was espoused (engaged) to Joseph, but that, “before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” In the original Greek, the phrase “came together” is contained in the word, sunerchomai, {soon-er'-khom- ahee} whose meaning to the Jews of that era (Matthew was a Jew) meant conjugal cohabitation. A modern paraphrase of the BibleÂ’s statement would go something like this: “Mary was found to be pregnant.before they consummated their marriage through normal sexual intercourse.”

yes, it would be quite appropriate to say that "Mary was found to be pregnant without having had sex." That would pretty much sum up the definition of a virgin. However, saying that she was a virgin during the birth of Christ doesnt prove that she wasnt a virgin later. Now here i must point out why i doubt the exegisis of aramaic, greek, and hebrew by this particular protestant:

But heos, here translated “till,” is confirmation that the act did, in fact, take place after the child was delivered. To obviate in advance claims that the word “till” does not confirm that Mary and Joseph engaged in normal marital relations following Christ’s birth, the child Jesus is referred to in God’s Word as, “her firstborn son:” (Matt 1:25)

NOTE: the english word till means to cultivate land or a change purse. Till is SOMETIMES used as slang or conjugation of the UNTIL. using translational classes, there is never a translation from one word into slang of another language. thus, the word heos does not mean "till" as the arguer so desperately wants us to believe, but rather: UNTIL. and, as others have so aptly noted, the word until is a past participle in the greek and aramaic words, thus it has no bearing to the time after Christs birth.

But a check of how the Greek word, prototokos {pro-tot-ok'-os} is used in the New Testament shows that claim to be quite without biblical support. The word appears nine times in the New Testament, and with one possible – but far from certain – exception, it always means the first of more than one. Six of the times it appears it is in reference to Jesus as either the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of mankind, or the firstborn of man who would come to believe in God through him. Bible references are: Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15 and 1:18; Hebrews 1:6 and 12:23; and Revelation 1:5.

this is circular logic. IF ONE ASSUMES that mary had other children then eight out of nine times the word prototokos refers to the firstborn of many. This would seem to show that mary had other children, which proves that the use of prototokos as first of many is acceptable. Are you catching my drift here? eight of the nine times refer to Jesus. If we refer to Jesus as being only born, then the word prototokos refers to the only son. this is circular logic as well. Therefore the use of the word prototokos in this case is worthless as an arguement.

we find Jesus the man described as God’s “only begotten Son.” For examples, see John 1:14, 1:18, 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1st John 4:9. The author of God’s Word the Holy Ghost has made it absolutely clear that the man Christ Jesus was the only human offspring of the Father.

The fact that Jesus was God's only begotten Son has nothing to do with Mary being a virgin, nor is it disputable in the least. The fact remains, we are ALL children of God (which is apparant through MANY verses-- read the parable of the prodigal son). Thus, to say that Jesus is the ONLY HUMAN offspring of God is incorrect, unbiblical, and as heretical as anything the author says about the catholic church. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God. The rest of humanity are still human offspring of God, but we are CREATED, not BEGOTTEN. Herein lies the key distinction, not in whether or not Mary was a virgin, but that Christ was not created from God, but derived from the same God "stuff" (for lack of a better term)

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

I should note here that the bible says nothing in this verse of a character joses or juda, but rather that these names are JOSEPH and JUDAS. The quote is, with these two ammendments, generally correct.

HOWEVER, this proves nothing. The first disciples Jesus called were, not surprisingly, James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon (who would later become peter). Isnt it a little strange that the first four disciples SHARE the same name as Jesus' so called "brothers"? This is not an expression of arent these his brothers who are of the same father? its an expression of, hey, isnt that guy (Jesus) friends with those fishermen? how did a fisherman and carpenter gain so much knowledge.

Certainly I would think that if Judas WERE the physical brother of Christ, that it would have been noted that Christ was turned in by His own brother. I don't believe this is the case. Thus, the word adelphos applies to disciple/friend/cousin/brother ALL in the same word. THis verse alone PROVES that the word brother cannot be construed to mean anything other than close contact when refering to the Christ. And if adelphos points to Jesus' disciples, then adelphe likewise (logically) points to his female followers. To change the meaning of greek and aramaic words, or to pretend expertise where it is lacking in order to lead others away from truth would be a picture perfect definition of the blasphemy this author attempts to lay on the catholic church. and yet, this author bases so many arguements on the use of this word. we dont know for fact that simon and andrew were brothers, nor several of the other relations listed. we know they were close relatives, or good friends and that is close enough.

In the Galatians reference cited above, Paul identifies James as the Lord’s adelphos, (brother)

it only makes sense that james is referenced as brother here. Christ APPOINTED james to be His brother. "Woman, behold your Son." why, if james was the brother of Jesus, would Jesus have to appoint someone to look after mary after He left, and when He was dead? Notice, paul sees peter while in rome, peter who was known as simon, who in Mark 6:3 was called the adelphos of Jesus. AND YET, paul makes no note of peter (formerly simon) being the brother of Jesus. That is because paul is ONLY noting the person whom Jesus appointed as the son of mary as being a brother to Christ. In this case, the word brother is literal: james is the true brother of Christ, though not by mary giving birth to him.

In Psalm 69 is contained the following clearly Messianic prophecy: “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” (Psa 69:8, 9)

first off, the psalms are written about david, not Christ. there are several references to Christ, which make up messianic prophecies. at the same time it is important to remember that most of psalms refers to the lives of OTHER MEN. There are lamentations about sin. Did Christ sin? NO!!! not all of psalms is to be applied to Christ.

HOWEVER, lets pretend for a second that the entire verse applies to Jesus specifically. He became a stranger to his mother's children by fending off the Hawkers and shop keepers at the temple? Does the author of this garbage really expect us to believe that all those money lenders, and animal sellers, and what not, were ALL Jesus' brothers and sisters? i think not...

The Roman Catholic doctrine stating that Mary the mother of Jesus retained her virginity after Christ’s birth and for the rest of her life is just plain heresy. Worse, it is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, author of the Scriptures, because it in effect accuses the Word of God of lying to us.

the author of this piece had better have a long look in the mirror at his twisted exegisis, false expertise, circular logic, non biblical traditions, and failure to adhere to sacred to tradition (which paul says we should hold fast to) before he accuses ANYBODY of heresy, much less the Catholic Church.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 20, 2004.


To Jim Furst,

You are right, there are no original Aramaic texts, but there are also no original texts of ANY NT or OT work. The originals have all been lost, but luckily we have the Catholic Church that preserved the scripts through copies. Just so you knew

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 20, 2004.


To Paul H,

Thank you for supporting my first argument with the scriptural proofs; I merely defended the Catholic position by showing the false reading of the Aramaic phrases used. Your part helped greatly

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.


paul h said: ROMAN catholic is a designation by protestants outside the church used to minimalize the CATHOLIC church is the universal church established by Christ.

To be fair, Paul, this may not be true in all cases. I was not aware of this. And in fact, I have seen many churches that call themselves "Roman Catholic" on their signs. I now understand that this refers to Roman rite, but this is by no means clear to the general public. I only know this from looking into Catholicism. That said, I agree, there are some who use "Roman Catholic" in a derogatory way. But I don't believe it's the majority.

Mt 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

paul h said: I should note here that the bible says nothing in this verse of a character joses or juda, but rather that these names are JOSEPH and JUDAS. The quote is, with these two ammendments, generally correct.

HOWEVER, this proves nothing. The first disciples Jesus called were, not surprisingly, James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon (who would later become peter).

paul, I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion. According to Matthew 4:18-21, the first disciples of Jesus were Peter (Simon), Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother. There is no mention here of Judas Iscariot.

paul h said: In the Galatians reference cited above, Paul identifies James as the Lord’s adelphos, (brother)

it only makes sense that james is referenced as brother here. Christ APPOINTED james to be His brother. "Woman, behold your Son."

I am confused. It was John who Jesus said that to. Is "James" another way to say "John"? If so, then why are James and John listed as separate people, being brothers?

I do agree that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but I'm wondering where you got these arguments, that on the surface seem inaccurate to me. Am I missing something?

Thanks and God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.



sorry emily, my arguement for the first disciples should have read: some of the first disciples, not just "the first disciples..."

it is reasonable to assume that some of his disciples were not with him at the time. it is unreasonable to assume that every single one of his brothers randomly happened to share the names of his disciples at the time. thats the point i was trying to make.

as to the disciple Jesus charges as his brother, the disciple is never named in the gospels. The REFERENCE to this occurance is in the gospel of John, though john is not indicated as the disciple. My assumption that thereafter the application of the term james as the brother of Jesus while also being a disciple/apostle clearly indicates that this is the disciple whom Jesus was speaking to. If i am not mistaken, traditional interpretation tells us this is so.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 21, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ