The Virgin Mary Did Not Remain A Virgin - A Bible

[Truth]

The Virgin Mary Did Not Remain A Virgin - A Bible View

INTRODUCTION

There are some that maintain that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus (Yeshua) and that Biblical references to his brothers and sisters, actually half brothers and half sisters, as his Father was God (YHWH), were to cousins. But is this so? Really not as clearly shown by the context in which they were called brothers and sisters.

CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE CALLED BROTHERS AND SISTERS

Matthew 13:53-56:

Interestingly the context in which they were called brothers and sisters is such as to make the arguments of some that the Koine Greek words meant something else look absurd. True some Koine Greek words could mean more than one thing including the ones in question, but the context of their usage clearly shows the truth or reality in this case. Let's look at the scriptures in question to see the facts.

The Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible at Matthew 13:53-56 says, "And it came to pass: when Jesus had finished these parables, he passed from thence. 54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?" (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). So there is no excuse to think the words mean anything but what they say given the context they were used in. This would be the case in Koine Greek as well as in English, and brings up an interesting point which is usage sometimes governs the meaning of a word and in this case that meaning is made unmistakable by the context, i.e., literal sisters and brothers who are even named.

This fact is also shown in the Jerusalem Bible at Matthew at 13:53-56 where it talks about Jesus astonishing people in the synagogue with his teaching. So the people wanted to know where he got his wisdom from since he is the carpenter's son, his mother is the woman called Mary, and his BROTHERS (GREEK, adelphoi) James and Joseph and Simon and Jude, and his SISTERS (GREEK, adelphai) were all there with them. (Mary had other sons and also had daughters). The New Jerusalem Bible says, "When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; 54 and coming to his home town, he taught the people in their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said, 'Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 This is the carpenter's son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? 56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? So where did the man get it all?'" (The New Jerusalem Bible; TNJB).

Now, if one is to maintain the un-maintainable that by brothers and sisters some other relative was meant, then this would also apply to 'mother' and that is utterly absurd.

Mark 3:31-35:

Let's look at Mark 3:31-35 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible which shows the same fact, that these were literal brothers and sisters, half brothers and half sisters as Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father was God (YHWY), but this fact was NOT known to the populace. Mark 3:31-35, " And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And answering them, he said: Who is my mother and my brethren? 34 And looking round about on them who sat about him, he saith: Behold my mother and my brethren. 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).

And in The New Jerusalem Bible, Mark 3:31-35, "His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him at the time the message was passed to him, 'Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you.' 33 He replied, 'who are my mother and my brothers?' 34 And looking round at those sitting in a circle about him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers. 35 Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and mother." (The New Jerusalem Bible; TNJB).

Jesus replied, "Who are my mother and my BROTHERS"? (Here he made the clear distinction of the difference between SPIRITUAL BROTHERS AND SISTERS and FLESHLY ones, or NATURAL ones. Really, no one claims the ref to Jesus' MOTHER means anything different from what it says. Is it consistent, then, to reason that his NATURAL BROTHERS were not that but were perhaps cousins? When what is meant is not brothers but relatives, a different Greek word (syggenon) is used, as at Luke 21:16.).

Why would anyone think that Joseph and Mary had no other children after Jesus was born? Since God instituted the marriage arrangement with its many joys one would not expect Him to expect Joseph and Mary NOT to indulge in them. What would be the point?

Last, Jesus' (Yeshua's) brother James is mentioned by Flavius Josephus the ancient 1 century Jewish historian as follows, "concerning Albinus, under whose procuratorship James was slain; as also what edifices were built by Agrippa. ... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the orad; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: bus as for who seemed the most equitable of the citizens and such as were the most uneasy at the breacch of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa]," [source - The Life and works of Flavius Josephus translated by William Whiston, A.M., pub. By The John C. Winston Co., in Philadelphia, Chapter IX, page 598]. So this speaks to the fact that James was the literal brother, actually half brother of Jesus (Yeshua) as his Father was God (YHWH).

THE FACTS ON JESUS' (YESHUA'S) BIRTH:

Now when you look at the facts surrounding Jesus' (Yeshua's) birth and the facts about his parents, Mary and Joseph. Strange that at Matthew 1:18-25 in this Bible it says, " Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: 23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).

As the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible at Matthew 1:25, " And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." (Douay -Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). Clearly showing that he, Joseph, did NOT have relations with his wife, Mary, until after Jesus (Yeshua). To try and maintain that he never had relations with his wife, Mary, clearly flies in the face of common sense. Now why would anyone think that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations after Jesus was born? Since God instituted the marriage arrangement with its many joys it would anyone NOT expect Joseph and Mary NOT to indulge in them. What would be the point?

Let's look at what the New American Bible [Catholic] says at Matthew 1:25, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus" (New American Bible; NAB). Now note this Bible clearly states that, " He had no relations with her until she bore a son." Which by reason clearly indicates Joseph had sexual relations with his wife, Mary, after Jesus' (Yeshua's) birth. Sounds like that the creed, that translated these Bibles does NOT know how to handle the obvious, that the scriptures do NOT back their creedal creed that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[Truth]

Hi Everyone

There has been a lot of discussion on many forums about James the Brother of Jesus (Yeshua), and this is due to speculation by various groups through the ages. Many of them with 'an axe' to grind in support of various doctrines most notably that Mary, the mother of Jesus (Yeshua) remained a virgin, but here is a work by Eusebius Pamphilius that covers all this intrigue and speculation by many in detail and the three principle theories that have been advanced.

The relationship of James and Jesus has always been a disputed matter. Three theories have been advanced, and are all widely represented.
The first is the full-brother hypothesis, according to which the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of both Joseph and Mary. This was advocated strongly by the heretic Helvidius in Rome in 380, and is widely accepted in the Protestant Church. The only serious objection to it is the committal of Mary to the care of John by Christ upon the cross. But John was at any rate an own cousin of Jesus, and the objection loses its weight when we realize the spiritual sympathy which existed between Jesus and John, and the lack of belief exhibited by his own brothers. The second is the half-brother hypothesis which regards the brethren and sisters of Jesus as children of Joseph by a former wife. This has the oldest tradition in its favor (though the tradition for none of the theories is old or universal enough to be of great weight), the apocryphal Gospel of James, chap. ix., recording that Joseph was a widower and had children before marrying Mary. It is still the established theory in the Greek Church. The greatest objection to it is that if it be true, Christ as a younger son of Joseph, could not have been regarded as the heir to the throne of David. That the objection is absolutely fatal cannot be asserted for it is nowhere clearly stated that he was the heir-apparent to the throne; it is said only that he was of the line of David. Both of these theories agree in distinguishing James, the highlightbrother of the Lord, from James, the son of Alphæus, the apostle, and thus assume at least three Jameses in the New Testament. Over against both of them is to be mentioned a third, which assumes only two Jameses, regarding the brethren of the Lord as his cousins, and identifying them with the sons of Alphæus. This theory originated with Jerome in 383 a.d. with the confessedly dogmatic object of preserving the virginity both of Mary and of Joseph in opposition to Helvidius. Since his time it has been the established theory in the Latin Church, and is advocated also by many Protestant scholars. The original and common form of the theory makes Jesus and James maternal cousins: finding only three women in John xix. 25, and regarding Mary, the wife of Clopas, as the sister of the Virgin Mary. But this is in itself improbable and rests upon poor exegesis. It is far better to assume that four women are mentioned in this passage. A second form of the cousin theory, which regards Jesus and James as paternal cousins—making Alphæus (Clopas) the brother of Joseph—originated with Lange. It is very ingenious, and urges in its support the authority of Hegesippus, who, according to Eusebius (H. E. III. 11), says that Clopas was the brother of Joseph and the father of Simeon, which would make the latter the brother of James, and thus just as truly the brother of the Lord as he. But Hegesippus plainly thinks of James and of Simeon as standing in different relations to Christ,—the former his brother, the latter his cousin,—and therefore his testimony is against, rather than for Lange’s hypothesis. The statement of Hegesippus, indeed, expresses the cousinship of Christ with James the Little, the son of Clopas (if Alphæus and Clopas be identified), but does not identify this cousin with James the brother of the Lord. Eusebius also is claimed by Lange as a witness to his theory, but his exegesis of the passage to which he appeals is poor (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 22 note 4). Against both forms of the cousin theory may be urged the natural meaning of the word ἀδελφός, and also the statement of John vii. 5, “Neither did his brethren believe in him,” which makes it impossible to suppose that his brothers were apostles. From this fatal objection both of the brother hypotheses are free, and either of them is possible, but the former rests upon a more natural interpretation of the various passages involved, and would perhaps have been universally accepted had it not been for the dogmatic interest felt by the early Church in preserving the virginity of Mary. Renan’s complicated theory (see his Les Evangiles, p. 537 sqq.) does not help matters at all, and need not be discussed here. There is much to be said, however, in favor of the separation of Alphæus and Clopas, upon which he insists and which involves the existence of four Jameses instead of only three.
For a fuller discussion of this whole subject, see Andrews (Life of our Lord, pp. 104–116), Schaff (Church Hist. I. 272–275), and Weiss (Einleitung in das N. T. p. 388 sqq.), all of whom defend the natural brother hypothesis; Lightfoot (Excursus upon “The Brethren of the Lord” in his Commentary on Galatians, 2d ed. p. 247–282), who is the strongest advocate of the half-brother theory; Mill (The Accounts of our Lord’s Brethren in the N. T. vindicated, Cambridge, 1843), who maintains the maternal cousin theory; and Lange (in Herzog), who presents the paternal cousin hypothesis. Compare finally Holtzmann’s article in the Zeitschrift für Wiss. Theologie, 1880, p. 198 sqq.[source - The Disciples of our Saviour. NPNF (V2-01), by Eusebius Pamphilius]

I hope this satisfies everyone as I have really grown tired of rehashing such a simple subject and go with what is said at Galatians 1:19, "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), which says it all.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89