Friday, March 23, 2012

*BEST OF DTB #160* Mary debate show notes

These notes intended for use with this BTR show

Opening Monologue

I wish to thank everyone for the opportunity to have an honest, frank discussion of the Catholic church's doctrines regarding Mary. Many will disagree, and that is just fine, but let's at least be honest about what we disagree on. A frank discussion, free of the needless hyperbole, endless supposition and outright falsehood about what my church actually teaches and believes about Mary and her special role in the salvation story.

Anyone who suggests that Mary is a goddess in the catholic faith, someone who we worship, isn't engaging in a serious conversation, let's get that right out of the way now.

God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Eternal. No Catholic ascribes these qualities to Mary. Mary was born on a particular day in time and She died on a particular day. Mary has no power whatsoever of herself, only that which is from the creator and is a reflection of God's power. Mary is not a mediator between God and Man and Mary is not our redeemer. The Catholic Mary is not modeled after Isis or any other pagan goddess and she is not the Queen of Heaven that the prophet Jeremiah referred to as being the object of sacrifices and worship. We do believe that Mary is the actual Queen of Heaven according to the Davidic model and scripture clearly shows this. Catholics worship God alone- The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, unless you are using the British use of the word worship, which means honor in our American English. For example, a Judge is called your honor in America but your worship in England.

At the same time, we do not believe people should be going to the other extreme either. Reducing Mary's role to that of just an ordinary woman that God used then set aside is just as disturbing as what we are alleged to believe. God does not use people the way that humans unfortunately sometimes do.

So, Let me give a summation of some of the Catholic beliefs concerning Mary.We have no hope of covering all these tonight so let me give you our e-mail address so you can request follow up on any with which you have a question.

  1. We believe Mary fulfills the role of The Woman of both Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:1. This is why Jesus called her Woman and not out of any disrespect. Jesus could not disrespect His own mother and break the Commandment of God.
  2. We believe that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant foreshadowed by the Old Testament.
  3. We believe that Mary fulfills the role of daughter Zion.
  4. We believe Mary was conceived without sin by a special privilege from God to prepare her to carry God's Son.
  5. We believe Mary's Body and Soul were taken into heaven at the moment of her death.
  6. We believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven fulfilling the Davidic role of the Queen Mother.
  7. We believe Mary should be called Mother of God.
  8. We believe Mary is the spiritual mother of all Christians.
  9. We believe Mary is the new Eve.
  10. We believe that Mary has miraculously appeared to thousands of Christians throughout the centuries.
  11. We believe Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

These 11 beliefs were not invented out of whole cloth, nor were they taken from any Babylonian system or any of the other nonsensical alleged sources. All 11 of these precepts find their root in scripture. If they didn't, I, nor any other devout Catholic would believe or adhere to them. The last of these, Mary's perpetual virginity, will receive special emphasis tonight.

The problem with understanding Mary is that a deep understanding of scripture requires work. Too many are not willing to put forth that work, while others rely on dubious sources for assistance. No more brilliant a Scripture Scholar has emerged in the last century than Dr. Scott Hahn and it was the deep rooted doctrines on Mary that took Hahn from rabid anti-catholic fundamentalism to devout Catholic professor.

It is not that Mary surpasses Jesus or even comes close to equaling Him. It is that Mary is so vitally central to a proper understanding of Jesus and His Covenant relationship with us, that to not come to a properly formed Biblical comprehension of Mary is to make impossible a proper Biblical comprehension of Jesus. It really is that critical.

I must emphasize again that this is not an improper elevation of Mary. She is, by no means, equal with Jesus nor ever could be. She is not Divine. Yet, the masterpiece of God's saving plan, worked by Jesus, is so intrinsically bound to Mary in so many ways. So many doctrines of God are seen and understood through the one whose very soul magnified the Lord (Luke 1:46).

Among these theological precepts are Grace, Intercession, Typology, Worship, Free Will, and Suffering. It is frustrating to me that I cannot go on for hours discussing each of these tonight, so I guess we have future articles to write and shows to produce above and beyond the library we have already amassed.

Now, on to tonight's particular topic. Did Jesus have brothers and Sisters? No, He most certainly did not. This belief was refuted centuries ago and I will do so again tonight.

The central issue of whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters hinges on linguistics. Some argue that it is a fact demonstrated on the plain face of Scripture.

Mark 3:32: And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you."

Yet, it precisely the linguistic context that provides an understanding of this passage. Consider this passage recording Mary and Joseph finding Jesus in the Temple.;

Luke 2
48: And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold,
your father and I have been looking for you anxiously."
49: And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"

Obviously, you know that when Mary said your father, She was speaking of Joseph but when Jesus said My Father, He was talking about God the Father. You know this because you know the historical context. However, there is nothing in the English rendering of this passage to indicate this. There is nothing in the Greek either. Both renderings of Father come from the same Greek word Pater. (definition in the show notes). So, this dilemma can not be solved linquisticly, only by context.
In the same way, the question of Jesus alleged Brothers and Sisters cannot be solved linguistically either. Protestants often argue that Adelphos is a word specific for blood brothers and Anepsios is a word specific to cousins and Sygennes indicates a relative. This simply is not born out in Scripture. In the Greek Septuagint, the Old Testament Bible Jesus and the Disciples most often quoted from, Adelphos is used in Genesis 14:14 and 1 Chronicles 23:21–22. In both cases, the person being described was in fact, not a brother but a cousin.

Anepsios is never used in the New Testament to identify a cousin. In fact, in it's lone New Testament usage (Colossians 4:10), it referred to Marcus' sister's son, a nephew, not a cousin.

In two perfect opportunities to use Anepsios as cousin (Luke 1:36 and 1:58), the word Sygennes is used instead.
So, the linguistic case for "brother" is not a solid one, by any stretch of the imagination.
Neither is the case for Joseph knowing Mary after She bore Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Till is translated from the Greek word Heos which states that an action has not taken place up to a certain point with no implication that it occurred after that point. (definition linked in the show notes). Many claim that this verse states that Joseph knew her after Jesus was born but they are inserting into the text what is not there. They do the same with the statement that Joseph took Mary as his wife.

  • 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
  • 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
  • 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")

Now let's get down to the brass tacks. John 19:25 is a verse that blows this all apart.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

Are we to believe that Mary's sister was also called Mary? No, Mary of Cleopas was Mary's sister-in-law and yet the Scripture uses the word Adelphe for sister.

Now cross reference with Matthew 27:56

56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

This proves that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary, the mother of James and Joseph were actually two different people. James and Joseph are called two of Jesus brothers.

Matthew 13
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?
James and Joseph were called Jesus' brothers but they were actually His cousins. Mary the Mother of Jesus was called Mary's Sister but was actually her sister-in-law. Elizabeth is called Mary's relative but was her cousin. Marcus' sister's son is called a cousin but is really a nephew.

Finally, the clincher.

1 Corinthians 15:6 Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep.
If verses like Matthew 13 prove that Jesus had brothers by virtue of the word Adelphos then we have a real problem because Adelphos is the word used in 1 Corinthians 15:6. Are we to believe that Jesus had 500 brothers? No.

There is a reason why we see no brothers or sisters when Jesus was found in the Temple at age 12. There is a reason why we see no brothers or sisters for Jesus to leave His mother in the care of. There is a reason why Mary is never called the Mother of anyone but Jesus, anywhere in Scripture.

The word Adelphos clearly cannot be constrained to full brothers because even other children of Joseph and Mary would not have been full brothers to Jesus because they would not have God as their Father.

Clearly, Adelphos includes half-brothers, step-brothers, cousins and even spiritual brothers. Therefore, it is illogical to automatically conclude that Jesus so-called brothers and sisters had to be children of Mary, especially in the complete absence of any evidence to support such a proposition.

It is truly puzzling to me that anyone would suggest that God would go so far as to preserve Mary's virginity by Divine action if He intended that action to be undone by a man. A man sharing the Holy womb that carried God. absurd. Remember Uzzah. Joseph wouldn't have even thought about it.

Closing Remarks

To read the show notes for this debate, please go to Also, to email us, send to
I have little doubt that some people approached tonight's debate thinking it would be a slam dunk for my opponent. To the undiscerning eye, the Bible does seem to indicate that Jesus had other brothers and sisters. That is until you come to understand the Scriptures long journey from aramaic to greek to latin to english and the many subtleties of language resulting from such a journey. When you examine the whole of Scripture in the context of language, typology and the early church Fathers, Mary's perpetual virginity is a matter beyond dispute.

It should be mentioned that many catholic doctrines concerning Mary use sources outside the Bible. This is not so strange. Many today use all manner of outside sources to help them understand Scripture. One of the documents we look to is written by James, the Apostle and writer of an Epistle. It is called the Proto-Evangelium (link in the show notes). Why the proto-evangelium did not make the canon of Scripture is an open question. However, it does give us many insights that are confirmed by Sacred Scripture.

Here is one example.

Matthew's Gospel tell us that Jesus is a descendant of the lineage of David by Joseph, the spouse of Mary. However, Paul's letter to the Romans says something different.

Jesus could not be descended from David, according to the flesh, if Mary were not also of the House of David. The Bible, nowhere makes this claim but the proto-evangelium does.

The proto-evangelium also states that Joseph was an elderly man, a widower, when He was betrothed to Mary and already had adult children. This would not only perfectly account for some of Jesus brothers and sisters but makes sense of the fact that Joseph is out of the picture somewhere between Jesus age of 12 and 30.

The proto-evangelium also states that Joseph was betrothed to Mary more as a caretaker in her young age than as a typical, conjugal marriage. This would certainly explain why Mary was astounded at the prospect that She would become pregnant.

These explanations are at direct opposition to much protestant thought but they are the only ones that make sense of the Scriptures. If it is so easy for some to believe that Jesus had half brothers without His real Father, why is it such a stretch to believe that He had step-brothers by His adoptive father? This explanation certainly makes more sense juxtaposed against the notion that Almighty God would share the womb of the Ark of the Covenant with a man, even a man as decent as Joseph.

Nevertheless, the assertion that Mary had other children is an affirmative claim, unproven even if the Proto-Evangelium is rejected.

In the end, my opponent has failed to demonstrate that Mary had other children because it cannot be demonstrated. It cannot be demonstrated because it flat out didn't happen.
Pope Saint Siricius, the first Pope to inherit a canonized Bible, put it so brilliantly;

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Amen. I cannot top that.

That Mary had no other children is clear by the Biblical record. That the early church understood this is clear by the historical record. Yet, this teaching is very hard for our current selfish, contraceptive culture. The idea that restraint is more valuable than indulgence and that there are places too holy for man to tread run counter to the current thought.

Catholic Priests are mocked for being celibate. But who are the people mocking? Are they mocking Jesus, whose example of celibacy they follow? Are they mocking Paul who pointed the same way? If Celibacy is unnatural, do we serve an unnatural Savior? For that is clearly the way He lived, so how can priests be attacked for following His lead? Paul, whose doctrines are allegedly so central to the development of protestant thought was a preeminent example of this expressly catholic mindset.

Is our world so cynical as to sneer at the notion that Mary, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, cradling God Himself in her arms, could resist the temptations of the flesh for God's higher purpose? Is it so outrageous to contemplate that righteous Joseph who was going to divorce Mary quietly rather than seek justice would not have the temperance, through God's grace to stay this holy course? Finally, if God intended Joseph to have sex with Mary, why on earth would He have gone through the trouble of impregnating her, Himself in such a miraculous way?

Is this really our objection, or is it that we have been so brain washed by our sex saturated, post Humanae Vitae culture as to be scandalized by the thought that Sex is not a need but a desire, against which a person of profound grace can bend against. Is it so hard to comprehend that a person can actually say no, for the greater love of God and holiness?

Isaiah 7 says the Virgin will be with child and bear a son.....not sons. Isaiah 9 says A Child is born to us...not children are born to us.

God's singular and miraculous action through Mary was not shared. Thank You.

Quotes from the fathers (Source:

The Protoevangelium of James
"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).
"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).
Didymus the Blind
"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan
"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).
Pope Siricius I
"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria
"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).
Pope Leo I
"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

George Lujack's opening statement

Opening Statement: A Discussion on Mary March 23, 2012
by George Lujack

Most of the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church are false and simply not biblically supported at all. Through human reasoning and a desire to keep Mary an “untouched vessel” of God, they cannot accept the fact that Mary engaged in sexual intercourse and had numerous children with her husband. Catholics cherish, praise and worship Mary as the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual Virgin, the queen of heaven, the co-redemptrix, and the Holy mother of God, though these titles are not bestowed upon her in Scripture.

Mary simply referred to herself as the maidservant of the Lord in Luke 1:38.

Jesus had no earthly biological father. This point is not in dispute. Jesus had no earthly biological mother. I repeat, Jesus had no earthly biological mother. Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary and Mary served as a surrogate mother for the Lord. Joseph and Mary served the Lord Jesus Christ as adoptive parents in servitude to the kingdom of God.

Jesus was born without the strain of original sin in Him. This is generally accepted as truth by Christians and Catholics alike, and I don’t think my opponent will dispute this. Being born without original sin poses a dilemma however…. How can Jesus have been born as a man through a woman and yet not inherit original sin as all men do?

There are only (2) known possibilities…

1. Jesus was born to a sinless Virgin Mary. Mary was sinless, having been immaculately conceived herself. Being without sin made it possible for Mary to be Christ’s biological mother.


2. Jesus was born to a highly favored, blessed and righteous Virgin who was a humble
maidservant to the Lord, who served as a surrogate birth mother and raised Jesus as her own child.

Catholicism follows possibility #1 by creating the perpetual virgin goddess Mary, a sinless woman who ascended to heaven and is now queen of heaven. There are so many flaws with Catholicism’s Mary, that she can never conform with Scripture and Catholics no longer even attempt to make their Mary do so. They will site tradition and other unbiblical Marion visions in order to justify their version of Mary.

Here are some basic problems with Catholicism’s Mary…

Jesus is the Immaculate Conception (a title that He does not go by, but I mean that in the descriptive sense). Jesus was immaculately conceived by the Holy Ghost into the Virgin Mary. If Mary was immaculately conceived and sinless, so that she could give birth to Christ as His biological mother - free from original sin, then Mary’s mother would also have had to have been immaculately conceived to bring forth a sinless Mary, And Mary’s grandmother would have had to have been immaculately conceived to bring forth Mary’s mother, and so forth. Mary would have had to have descended from a line of sinless descendants or immaculately conceived descendants. Catholicism does not address this paradox problem.

Scripture proves the Immaculate Conception sinless Mary is a not-so Immaculate-deception. The Marion apparitions proclaiming Mary to be the Immaculate Conception are satanic angels telling lies not found in Scripture. Scripture warns us to not follow spirits that preach another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9) and that Satan appears as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The idea that Mary is born without sin is also unbiblical.

Romans 3:23 declares that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

2 Corinthians 5:21 & Hebrews 4:15 declare Jesus knew no sin.

Mary would not need a savior if she were without sin, yet
LUKE 1:47-48: proclaims…
And my spirit has rejoiced in God ‘my’ Savior.
For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant

Now the 2nd possibility of how Jesus was born into sinful humanity as a sinless being is that He was born to a highly favored, chosen blessed and righteous Virgin who, as a humble maidservant to the Lord, served as a surrogate birth mother and raised Jesus as her own child.

The surrogate mother Mary is both plausible and fits with Scripture. At the dawn of Catholic Christianity, some 2000 or so years ago, they were not able to understand that it was possible for a woman to serve as a surrogate mother. Modern science has proven that an already fertilized egg can be placed inside of a woman and that woman can serve as a surrogate mother, giving birth to a child that is not related to her. It is in this manner that God the Father, through His Holy Spirit overshadowed the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:35) and placed Christ inside of her to be born to her. The Holy Spirit did not fertilize Mary’s egg. Christ was born to Mary and had no blood relation to her.

Some will no doubt object, saying, how could Jesus not be a blood relative of Mary if He died for the sins of mankind? The answer is that Jesus was born as Adam was created, without sin. Jesus had to be born and had to live a perfect sinless life as a man, to qualify to be a sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind.

Scripture identifies Christ as Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, king of righteousness and king of peace in…

HEBREWS 7:1-3:
As 3without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

Now onto the birth of Christ…

Before we can determine whether or not Mary had other children, we should first clarify that Mary engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband Joseph

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

MATTHEW 1:18 indicates Mary was found with child, before she and Joseph came together, implying that they eventually did come together through sexual intercourse.

MATTHEW 1:24-25:
24Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25AND DID NOT KNOW HER TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN SON. And he called His name Jesus.

Now what does Scripture mean when it says Joseph did not know Mary until she brought forth her firstborn Son?

Two points are evident here in Matthew 1:25.

Point 1:
Joseph obviously knew who Mary was… He was married to her. He was her betrothed husband. Scripture un-mistakenly points out that Joseph did not carnally know his wife, until after Jesus was born, and then he knew Mary intimately. After Jesus was born is when Joseph did know Mary through sexual intercourse.

The language that Scripture uses, that Joseph did not know Mary till after Jesus was born, refers to not knowing her through sexual intercourse. A biblical example of a man knowing his wife in reference to sexual intercourse:

GENESIS 4:1: XR with: GENESIS 4:17: GENESIS 4:25:
Now Adam knew his wife and she conceived and bore Cain…

If Mary remained a perpetual virgin after the birth of Christ, Scripture would have been clear in declaring this. Instead of Matthew 1:25 saying that Joseph did not know Mary until she had brought forth her firstborn Son, Matthew 1:25 would have said that Joseph did not know Mary “all the days of his life.”

There are numerous biblical examples of Scripture using the term “all the days of his life,” such as…

1 SAMUEL 7:15:
And Samuel judged Israel ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE.

Point 2.
Matthew 1:25 indicates Mary brought forth her FIRSTBORN Son. If Jesus were Mary’s ONLY Son, Scripture would have said so. This is obvious as Scripture declares that Jesus is God the Father’s ONLY begotten Son (John 1:18, 3:16, 3:18; Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9).

Jesus is NEVER described as the Father’s Firstborn Son. Jesus, being Mary’s firstborn Son indicates that she had other sons after Him.

Now as for Mary’s Children:

I’m sure I will hear the typical Catholic defense using language confusion, claiming that when Scripture refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, it is a mistranslation of the Greek language, then when that does not work out (as there is a Greek word for cousin and brother and sister), they go back even further to Aramaic. Language confusion is a tactic used to preserve the perpetual virgin status of Mary and they will never allow even the truth of Scripture to expose the fallacy of this core tenant of their faith.

MATTHEW 12:46-47; XR with MARK 31:32-33; LUKE 18:19-20:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

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

ACTS 1:14:
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Scripture is somewhat vague about the details of Jesus’ brothers and sisters lives, because the story of the gospel is not focused of the children of Joseph and Mary, but on the incredible life of Yeshua the Messiah / Jesus the Christ.

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

No comments:

Post a Comment