Did Mary Remain a Virgin!

The Author starts his article with several quick unsupported attacks, each of which would make good topics for future refutations. Considering that each of these are unrelated to the topic in hand and are nothing more than the usual ignorant pop-shots, we shall proceed to the main topic of this article the virginity of Mary.  Our opponent’s comments will appear in red, while ours will remain in normal colored text.

PROT. ATTACK: In today's class we are going to deal with the virginity of Mary. The Catholic religion claims she remained a virgin FOREVER and never had other children. The Bible, on the other hand, says that she was a virgin when the Holy Ghost put Jesus in her womb. After Jesus was born, however, she and her husband Joseph had normal marital relations and other children. Let's take a look at what the BIBLE says:

ANSWER: Were Does the Bible say "After Jesus was born, however, she and her husband Joseph had marital relations and other children"? This is a Lie, it Doesn't, rather let us look at marries declaration to the angle in Luke 1:35 the original Greek says:

" …I AM NOT knowing  a man"

This is clearly not just a statement of her present condition, but a statement of her intention for on-going state of virginity of "prepetual virginity". In this article Let's look at what the BIBLE really says:  

PROT. ATTACK: Joseph had intimate relations with Mary after Jesus was born. He was her husband, what else would you expect?!

Matthew 1:24-25, Then 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 (NOTE: This means he did not have relations with her) TILL (NOTE: The Greek: heos, also translated into English as " till ") SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON: and he called his name JESUS.

ANSWER: Please Note, "TILL She had brought forth her firstborn son". This means simply that up until the birth of Christ Mary Joseph had no relations. This does not state that after the birth of Christ they had relations, the author is attempting to read more into the verse than is present. St. Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, "Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet" [1 Cor. 15:23-25]. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, "for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet"? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fullness when His enemies begin to be under His feet [cf. Luke 1:33, Rev. 11:15].

David also in the fourth Song of Ascent [Ps. 123] speaks thus, "Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God till he has mercy upon us" [Ps. 123:2] Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord till he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? — although elsewhere he says, "Mine eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness" [Ps. 119:123].

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? Or how about the raven that Noah released from the ark? The bird "went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth" (Gen. 8:7). In fact, as the story progresses, we see that the raven never returned at all.

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either. Or how about this: "And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace" (1 Macc. 5:54 ). Does this mean the soldiers were slain after they returned from battle?

Some Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary's "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2, Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her "first-born."

Living a celibate life within marriage was not unknown in Jewish tradition. It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:15) given in preparation the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19; 46.3; Sifre to Numbers 99 sect. 11; Sifre Zutta 81-82, 203-204; Aboth Rabbi Nathan 9, 39; Tanchuman 111, 46; Tanchumah Zaw 13; 3 Petirot Moshe 72; Shabbath 87a; Pesachim 87b, Babylonian Talmud).

Celibacy according to tradition

Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives (Zohar Hadash 2:1; Midrash Mishlei 30, 105, Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the "Divine Presence") in the Torah (Zohar re Gn 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya).

It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: "He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood" (Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) section Evenhar-Ezer 1:1,3,4). According to Yebamoth 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: "Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. "Man").

Nevertheless, "if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned" (Skulkhan Arukh EH 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: "with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth" (Sotah 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul (Yebamoth 63b). He was an outstanding scholar (Kiddushin 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness (Berakoth 57b, B.T.).

Other celibates

Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu'im (lit. "chaste ones") to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in "perfect purity" (Kiddushin 71a; Midash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11; Yer. yoma 39a, 40a).

Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5).

Philo (Apol. pro Judaeis 1X, 14-17), Josephus, (Antiq. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus (Philosophumena IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea.

Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. "Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth" (Philo, Cont. 68; see also Philo, Abr. 100).

For "the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light" (Zohar 11. 229b-230a). Because "if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions… it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation" (Philo, Sob. 1.5). Conversely, "the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing… the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable" (Philo, Q. Gen.IV.245).

Joseph as celibate caretaker

As the recipient of the great revelation that what was conceived in the womb of Mary, his betrothed, was of the Holy Spirit and that the Child to be born was destined to save His people from their sins, surely Joseph knew that he was called to take care of Mary and her Child, the Messiah, for the rest of his life, which is why the angel told him to take Mary as his wife.

We may reasonable assume that Mary herself now shared with him all that the archangel Gabriel said to her. No less a Person than "the Son of God" (Lk 1:35) was to be entrusted to his care under the shelter of his humble home, now become the Holy of Holies.

Jewish tradition mentions that, although the people had to abstain from sexual relations with their wives for only three days prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:15), Moses chose to remain continent the rest of his life with the full approval of God. The rabbis explained that this was so because Moses knew that he was appointed to personally commune with God, not only at Mount Sinai but in general throughout the forty years of sojourning in the wilderness. For this reason Moses kept himself "apart from woman," remaining in the sanctity of separation to be at the beck and call of God at all times; they cited God's command to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:28 (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19:3 and 46.3).

Again, we may be sure that Saint Joseph remained celibate all his life because throughout his married years he was in daily attendance and communication with Jesus, the incarnate Word of God.

PROT. ATTACK: Jesus' unbelieving neighbors were stupified by His power because they knew His whole family–His mother, Joseph, His SISTERS, and His BROTHERS. When these unbelievers referred to Jesus' brothers and sisters they were in no wise be referring to His disciples. It is obvious that they were talking about His physical family who they all knew and grew up with.

Mark 6:3 Is not this [referring to Jesus] the carpenter, THE SON of Mary, the BROTHER of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not HIS SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him.

ANSWER: First, St. Mark the carpenter (Christ) as THE SON of Mary, note this is very singular. Second, James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon are only listed as Christ's Brother, the original Greek the term "brother" (adelphos : Strong's Number: 80) can mean a near kinsman (such as a cousin, uncle or grandparents) or can mean their own the same people or village. The term Sisters comes from the Greek word adelphe (Strong's Number: 79) Strong's lists this Word's (adelphe) Origin is from the Greek term adelphos (Brother, Strong's Number: 80). Why this ambiguous usage? Because neither Hebrew, Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) nor Greek had a special word meaning only "cousin." Speakers of those languages used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews naturally enough took to using "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father–plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ's birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the wide meaning that the English "brother" has. The translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins.

BROTHER, BROTHERS,BRETHREN

PROT. ATTACK: John's gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms–in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.

John 2:17, And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psalms 69:8-9 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.

ANSWER:Before examining this argument closer, we can see a glaring problem with our Protestant opponent opening statement. The disciples applied only Psalm 69:9 to Jesus, there is no scriptural evidence to show that they ever intended verses 6-8 to be applied at all. On this ground alone one could dismiss this straw man argument. But for arguments sake, lets examine verses 6-8 of Psalm 69, and lets pretend that the disciples did intend verses seven and eight to be applied to Christ. Lets see if they prove that Christ had biological brothers and sisters. 

The First question we need to answer is, who is the mother in Psalm 69:8? The Hebrew word used here for mother is "em", when we search its meaning, we see it is used throughout the Old Testament in a wide sense (both literally and figuratively).  In the old Testament, nations and cities were often portrayed as the mothers of their people, so in that sense, the word "em"  can to refer to the nation of Israel. In the scriptures the Hebrew word "em" is used described Israel as a "Mother" with children (Isa. 50:1; Hos. 2:2, 5).   

If we are going  to apply these verses (Psalm 69:7,8), to the text surrounding John 15:25, the only possible only possible understanding of the Hebrew word "em" is the nation of Israel, and the children are the Jews . In Psalm 69, David tells us that the that the children are full of reproach, and are alienated, by Christ's zeal for his fathers house. When we read John chapter five, see that Christ's actions brings upon him the reproach of the Jews (i.e. the Children of Israel) standing by, we see that Christ's words alienate him from them.:

"Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:  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. Then answered the JEWS (i.e. the Children of Israel ) and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the JEWS (i.e. the Children of Israel ), Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?  But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." (John 2:13-22)

As we can see in John Chapter two, the scriptures provides no evidence of any of the brethren being offended or angered by Christ's actions. The only ones that the scriptures show being offended and offering reproach were the Jews. Clearly, if Psalm 69:7,8 is to be applied here, the Children mentioned in verse eight, has to be the Jews, for they are the only ones that fit the criteria set forth by King David.  

PROT. ATTACK: Why was He an alien to His mother's children? Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him.

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

ANSWER: St. John's does not say Christ was "an alien to his mother's children" this part is nothing more than the assumption of our Protestant author.  It is not written in St. John's gospel, as we have seen above in the original Greek the terms brother or brotheren can mean a near kinsman (such as a cousin, uncle or grandparents) or can mean their own the same people or village,  and does not necessarily mean a child of Mary and Joseph. The GREAT bible scholar Saint Jerome(383 A.D) in his work "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary" describes different forms of Brethren found in the Bible.

THE BRETHREN BY NATURE

Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John.

THE BRETHREN BY RACE

As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, "If your brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, and serve you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you" [Deut. 15:12]. And in the same book, "You shall in anywise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, which is not your brother" [Deut.17:15]. And again, "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again unto your brother. And if your brother be not nigh unto you, or if you know him not, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him again" [Deut. 22:1]. And the Apostle Paul says, "I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites" [Rom. 9:3-4].

BRETHREN BY KINDRED

Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is patria, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis we read, "And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren" [Gen. 13:8]. And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother" [Gen. 13:11]. Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram,and Aram begot Lot. Again we read, "And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife. and Lot his brother's son" [Gen. 12:2].

But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen" [Gen. 14:14]. And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion.

But for fear you may make some caviling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew nigh and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. "And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebecca's son" [Gen. 29:11]. Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother.

And again, "Laban said unto Jacob. Because you art my brother, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me what shall your wages be" [Gen. 29:15]. And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two" [Gen. 31:36-37]. Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob's brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca.

BRETHREN BY AFFECTION

Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship.

I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity" [Ps. 133:1]. And in another Psalm the Savior says, "I will declare your name unto my brethren" [Ps. 22:22] And elsewhere, "Go unto my brethren and say to them" [John 22:17].

I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. "Tell these who hate you," says the prophet, "you are our brethren" [Is. 66:5]. And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: "If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat" [1 Cor. 5:11].

PROT. ATTACK: The apostle Paul saw the Lord Jesus' half-brother James.

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

ANSWER: Contrary to what our dishonest Prot. author says St. Paul did not call James Christ's "half-brother".   St. Paul uses the term "brother" which can mean a near relative or cousin so far the author has been completely unable to prove his position. There were only two apostles in Scripture called by the name James: James the son of Zebedee and the brother of John (Matthew 4:21), and James the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3) and brother of Judas (Acts 1:13). If you read Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that James the son of Zebedeer had already been slain by Herod (Acts 12:2).The only conclusion is that the the James who is described as "The Lords Brother" is the James who was the son of Alphaeus (or Clopas) whos mother was Mary of Clopas, Mary (Christ Mother's) sister. This means the James of Galatians 1:19 was Jesus's cousin (adelphos: near kinsman). 

PROT. ATTACK: The Catholic religion says the word translated "brother" should be "cousin". Wrong again. The word "cousin" is clearly found in the scripture and it means–you've got it–cousin!

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Luke 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

ANSWER: Unfortunately for our ignorant Protestant author he got this one wrong as well as expected. In the Greek this word is just as vague as adelphos: near kinsman. The Greek term used here is the Greek:

Greek: Suggenes: From GSN4862 and GSN1085; any relative (by blood); by extension or fellow countryman: (Strong's Ref. # 4773)

strong's goes on a point out that the King James version translates this SAME GREEK word as cousin (Luke 1:36) and kinsfolk (Mark 6:4), kinsman (Luke 2:44). So in the end we see that the author has fails to prove his protestant attack upon the Blessed Virgin Mary.