Does This Verse Disprove Mary's Virginity? (NO) w/ William Albrecht & Fr. Christiaan Kappas

[@alphalamda545]

I'm Orthodox and we don't do enough apologetics on this and the perpetual virginity. Thank you for this!

[@ghostapostle7225]

It really shouldn't be necessary actually. The perpetual virginity of blessed virgin wasn't contested until protestantism and even more traditional reformers still believes in the perpertual virginity, making it clear is a complete made up man's tradition.

[@Tradley]

Another example of ‘until’ being used only to mean the satisfaction of a prophecy is actually in said in mass. “we proclaim your death, oh Lord and confess your resurrection, until you come again.”

[@CRoadwarrior]

I'm sorry, but when you pay attention to the actual Greek construction of Matthew 1:25 and how that same construction is used elsewhere in the New Testament, you will find that this passage, along with other passages about the brothers and sisters of Jesus, does provide ample evidence for any honest and rational person to come to the conclusion that Mary was NOT a "perpetual virgin." No one on this stacked deck panel, with no opposing views, addressed the specifics of the Greek construction, and the fact that their counter-passages (like 2 Samuel 6:23) are NOT in the exact same construction as Matthew 1:25, making their comparisons faulty. I address this in detail on my channel with a series called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Biblical or Unbiblical False Doctrine?"

[@lucas____________]

This is just not the case, sir. The until in Samuel and in Jesus’ “I will be with you always” are both different, so which means there is a change? We need to consider what the point of the author was. Was Matthew trying to assert any truth about whether or not Mary had any other children, or was he simply focusing on the question of “did the virgin both conceive AND give birth?”

[@CRoadwarrior]

@@lucas____________ You apparently do not know Greek, or the clear differences between the language and contexts of 2 Samuel and Matthew 1:25. It is simply a false comparison to assume both "until" usages are the same. They are not the same linguistically or contextually. Only in a superficial sense to make a flawed Roman Catholic argument, are those passages saying the same thing. Matthew was clearly saying that Joseph did not sexually know Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus, and then Matthew later records the brothers of Jesus with His mother in Matthew 12:46,47. So yes, Matthew knew that Jesus had siblings, and he knew who their mother was.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

​​@@CRoadwarriorhere we go again "until 'after' " is not in Matthew 1: 25, stop adding words to prove a point, Protestants. Why presume you know and not state what you know here?

[@CRoadwarrior]

@@Misael-Hernandez The fact that the word "after" is not in Matthew 1:25 is not an argument against the fact that this is essentially the meaning of the Greek "heos hou" in that context. Those same words are used elsewhere in Matthew, like 13:33 and 17:9, where it is clear enough that there had to be a change after the "until." I've actually studied this in detail in Greek, so I do know what I'm talking about. Instead of blindly following what you were taught, I'd suggest you do your own research into Matthew's use of the Greek phrase "heos hou" and how it is used in his writing, and it is being used in Matthew 1:25.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

@@CRoadwarrior so why is it not on your Bible? Were the vast translators from various nations wrong in their Greek?

[@randycarson9812]

*MATTHEW 1:25: “UNTIL”* _You keep mentioning that word. I don't think it means what you think it means._ Consider the following verses: *Verse #1:* _For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Co __15:25__)._ Does Jesus ever stop reigning? No. *Verse #2:* _Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching *1 Tim __4:13__._ Should Timothy cease these activities once Paul arrives? No. *Verse #3:* _To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? (Heb 1:13)_ Do the angels or Jesus ever stop sitting at God's right hand after His enemies are made a footstool? No. For at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. Does the word “until” REQUIRE that the previous action or state end in these verses? No. *Verse #4:* _When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. (Mt 1:24-25)_ Does the word “until” REQUIRE that Mary’s virginity end at any point after Jesus’ birth? No. The use of "until" may suggest to our ears that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus' birth. However, the examples provided show that "until" ( Gr. _heos_ ) in Scripture often indicates a state that continues indefinitely beyond the specified time. Matthew had no reason to comment on Mary’s sex life; if Mary and Joseph had normal relations, why would Matthew care either way? His purpose was to show the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the virgin birth. In Matthew 1:25, the word “until” should be understood in this broader biblical context and is, therefore, ultimately inconclusive regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. Those who deny this ancient belief must find corroborating evidence elsewhere.

[@sumlad5229]

Thank you for this brother

[@9exodus]

same greek word for "til" in matt 1:25 is also used in matt 28:20. So youre telling me Jesus will abandon us when the end of the age comes?

[@randycarson9812]

@@9exodus The Greek word translated as "until" (ἕως, heōs) does not necessarily imply a change in state after the specified time. Its meaning depends on the context. Let's examine the two examples: _Matthew 1:25 - "And he [Joseph] did not know her until she gave birth to a son."_ The word "until" here emphasizes that Joseph and Mary did not have marital relations before Jesus' birth. It does not imply that they did afterward. The focus of the verse is on affirming the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus, not on what happened later. Similar usage can be found in 2 Samuel 6:23: "And Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death." Clearly, this does not mean she had children after her death. _Matthew 28:20 - "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."_ Here, "until" emphasizes Jesus’ continual presence with His Church during this age. It does not suggest His presence ends afterward. Instead, it highlights that Jesus’ relationship with His disciples is everlasting. After the "end of the age," His presence will be fully realized in eternity. Catholic Understanding: In both cases, the use of "until" does not demand a change of state after the specified time. In Matthew 1:25, it doesn’t imply that Mary and Joseph had relations later, consistent with the Church’s teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Similarly, in Matthew 28:20, it does not suggest that Jesus will abandon us after the end of the age but rather affirms His unending faithfulness. The argument rests on a nuanced understanding of language and context, which Scripture often requires.

[@9exodus]

@@randycarson9812 oh i forgot to put it, i agree with you, im adding to your arguement not attacking it. im orthodox, so i hold to ever virgin mary too.

[@randycarson9812]

@@9exodus Understood. I decided to add a bit of context. Thanks for your comment.

[@luisman007]

The contents of the ark of the covenant were no where as sacred as the fruit of Mary's womb. Why would God allowed another child in Mary's womb but not random stuff in the ark of the covenant? Just common sense to me. The Virgin Mary was the most pure and perfect woman ever created.

[@thediscreteboys3315]

This was a great clip. I often criticize my catholic brothers for not adequately defending the catholic doctrines but this was an excellent video to shut me up. Thanks!

[@adenjones1802]

I think we found a catholic pretending to be a protestant lol

[@kang7348]

@@adenjones1802I think ur ghey

[@harposhizzle]

The until arguments are not convincing, it depends entirely on the context. "Jimmy worked at the steel mill until he died of a heart attack." We all know he stopped working when he died. "My wife was preganant with her former husband's child, but he died tragically. I married her and did not consummate until after she gave birth." We all know what that means and there is no wiggle room without saying you can make words mean whatever you want. You cannot pose an argument "Joe did not have sex until with wife Mary until January 20th," and expect any person to take seriously that they did not consummate on Januarry 20th.

[@AHeyer13]

You wrote 'until after she gave birth'. Why did you add the word 'after'?. That word does not occur in Matthew 1:25. It is dishonest to include it. Imagine this scenario a man is accused of killing his wife. I was with them the whole morning. I can attest that he did not touch his wife until I left them at noon. Does the word 'until' prove that he killed her. Can you imagine the judge pronouncing him guilty because I swear he never touched her until I left?

[@mikejames303]

​@@AHeyer13that is typical of what many protestants do to make Matthew 1:25 mean what they want it to mean. Even in English it is clear that "until" doesn't mean "until after". The earliest writings we have of Mary outside the gospel attest to Mary's perpetual virginity. St.Ignatius, a disciple of St.John, who was left to care for Mary, describes her as an "ever-virgin" in one of his letters written circa 106 AD. Even the gospels relate the Virgin Mary to the Ark of the Covenant and the new Eve. It's a shame that even Muslims view Our Lady with more honor and respect than most protestants.

[@lucas____________]

You’re putting 21st century English conceptions of language into a 1st century Greek text. No wonder you don’t take this seriously

[@amberkammer9210]

How does it matter, if Mary has kept her virginity her whole life or not? She was a Virgin when giving birth to Jesus, the prophecy has been fulfilled, this is what matters.

[@johncarter6519]

@amberkammer9210, it only matters for those looking to prove or disprove Catholicism. Because the Catholics hold Mary's lifelong virginity as an infallible truth and then also claim that the Catholic way is the truest form of Christianity and hold the authority to approve new forms of dogma, you get heated debates about it, and thus further and further dividing the Church. So, I as a protestant, believe they're wrong about their beliefs on Mary, but I still believe that Catholics are Christians because we both agree that Jesus is king, and since Vatican II Catholics believe I'm a separated brother (which I'm okay with, even though it can be interpreted as Catholics viewing Protestant as lesser Christians, but Protestants think Catholics are wrong, so it goes both ways), and since we both believe Jesus is the one true way to salvation, and we humble ourselves to him then it's right to say we are both Christians. I didn't know the intent of your statement, so I answered as if it were a genuine question.

[@nicquick1595]

What I’d like to know is why did Mary need to remain a virgin forever? I see no need for it. She was a virgin and Jesus was conceived in her through Holy Spirit but after that what’s the need? You left out many other scriptures that show she did not remain a virgin. Such as Mark 6:3, Jesus had fleshly brothers and sisters, or Luke 2:7, Jesus was Mary’s firstborn, implying that he had siblings.

[@ClintZold]

James was the Lord's brother as well... I think this stems from a slight gnostic corruption within the church that views the material world (especially sex) as unclean and somehow less than holy... in spite of the fact that God created it.

[@TreeOfLifeWoodworking]

amen to this! catholics are ignorant and make up fantasies that arent biblical

[@Fassnight]

Bro, this is my exact question too and I've never heard an answer. Like, it makes no sense why it would be important

[@Michael17760]

The inverse would be unimportant aswell as she gave birth to the Living God

[@lucas____________]

Because whenever Christ touches someone, they are radically changed. When God interacts with the world, it radically changes. When God sat on the throne of the Ark, it became so holy that even when God’s Presence was not there, it would still cause the death of whoever touched and profaned it. Likewise, when Mary carried the living Incarnate God in her womb, she became so holy that she was fully set apart for God. To then host other children in her womb that had been the dwelling place of God Himself would have been sacrilegious, not because Mary herself is God, but because she held God, and that radically changes you.

[@lyongreene8241]

I'm starting to think most protestants contest the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity for less than intellectual reasons. Perhaps it just makes them uncomfortable because they don't understand it.

[@sandstorm7768]

That's kind of the running trend for all Protestant claims of Catholic ideas. And I say this as someone raised Lutheran who is helplessly turning Catholic the more I learn lol.

[@userman44]

The concept of perpetual virginity is difficult to understand...? Seems like a pretty simple concept.

[@brianfarley926]

Correct lack of biblical education and also just lack of belief that someone would live this way when it wasn’t uncommon for Judaism to have celibate marriages

[@jfschmidt84]

No, it’s because the perpetual virginity of Mary is a pious fiction.

[@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG]

No. Catholics deny basic grammar.

[@Fassnight]

This is such a weak argument and reeks of eisegesis. If no one had this concept of Mary's perpetual virginity in mind when coming to the text, it would never come to mind.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Then how did every Christian believe it passionately until fairly recently in Christian history ?

[@randycarson9812]

Eisegesis is a term used to describe the process of interpreting a text by reading one's own ideas, biases, or assumptions into it, rather than letting the text speak for itself. In the context of discussing _adelphoi_ and Mary's perpetual virginity, eisegesis can come into play if someone interprets the term in a way that supports their pre-existing beliefs or arguments without considering the full range of possible meanings. For example, if someone argues that _adelphoi_ must mean "biological brothers" to challenge Mary's perpetual virginity, they might be engaging in eisegesis if they're ignoring or downplaying other possible interpretations of the term. Since _adelphoi_ can mean different things, using verses which contain this word to make a definitive claim about Mary's virginity without considering these other meanings is eisegesis. Instead of allowing the text and its context to inform the interpretation, the person might be imposing their own understanding or agenda onto the text. This is why it's important to approach such texts with a balanced and comprehensive view, rather than forcing a particular interpretation. Here's an analogy: Imagine a courtroom where a defendant, Alex, is initially thought to be guilty of a crime because the murder weapon was found in their possession. However, as the trial progresses, it’s revealed that multiple people had access to the weapon and all had motives to commit the crime. In this situation, the jury can't convict Alex because there isn't enough clear evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Alex is the one who committed the crime. Since others could have used the weapon and had reasons to do so, the evidence doesn't definitively point to Alex alone, leading to reasonable doubt about their guilt.

[@unknown-zy6dp]

“I didn’t get my degree untill I went to college” What’s your degree in? “I didn’t get a degree”. What?! Same logic lol Reaching as hard as baptist do w acts 2:38 and eis Catholics use w mathew1/25. We have the conversation between Mary and the angel. Mary would have had to assume she shouldn’t do right by Joseph and Jospeh would have been getting tricked into a sexless marriage. Cmon….. Mathew would have known not to word it like that or to atleast specify…. He’s not an idiot The councils who decided this or whoever originally did were trying too hard to explain how Jesus could be born seperate from our sin issues instead of just having faith or leaving that info up to god to reveal in the writings the apostles left. God could have used a prostitute give birth to Jesus if he wanted. And Mary is supposed to be an example of a good mother and wife. Denying her husband sex forcing him to burn w passion??? Where Jospeh’s veneration for getting tricked

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Joseph is actually highly venerated for this

[@FernandoMartinez-cc6yq]

Thank you so much for this video I really needed to hear this

[@SDJ992-q9t]

Commenting on the significance of “UNTIL” used in Matthew 1:25, the Revised Standard Version, Catholic edition, published by the CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, London says: “This means only that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterwards.” The New American Bible (a Catholic translation) stated at Matthew 1:25 regarding Joseph and Mary: “A footnote in this translation says: ‘The evangelist emphasizes the virginity of the mother of Jesus from the moment of his conception to his birth. He does not concern himself here with the period that followed the birth of Jesus.”

[@Jere616]

Until can be used two ways, it depends on the flow of the prior thought in the sentence. When the prior thing is expected to change, then it means it changes afterward. When there's not an expected change, then until means no change is coming, e.g., I will be with you until the end of the age. When people marry, there's an expectation of a change from virginity to virginity past, so until here means they had a normal marriage.

[@lucas____________]

So your argument is, I expect Mary to have kids therefore she had kids. Kinda ruins the whole idea of surprises happening. I expect Michal to have kids, therefore she had kids, but not until she died. Or imagine this. In court, a witness testifies at the trial of a man accused of beating his wife on Saturday. “Your honor,” he says. “I was with them on Saturday, and he did not beat is wife until I left.” Is the witness testifying that the defendant beat his wife? No, he’s merely including the fact that the defendant could have, but that he didn’t see it. You would call a judge insane if he convicted the man on that statement.

[@Jere616]

​@@lucas____________ I agree that "until" has the alternate meaning you're suggesting. No one would deny that. But, since the word until carries both meanings, it's at best suggestive, not probative, of Mary's perpetual virginity. Matthew does not say "and Joseph knew her not" (full stop), which would be definitely probative of the dogma. Being devout Jews they would have been sensitive to the command in Genesis 1:28 and others such as in Jeremiah to increase the population, not deliberately limit themselves to raising an only child. Not only is "until" being used by Matthew in 1:25, but the angel gives no command to Joseph never to have relations when he told him to take Mary his wife. And, there's no guilt on Mary or Joseph for having normal marital relations, it's expected given they're fully married. Hebrews 13:4 says the marriage bed is undefiled.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

Joseph knew her not (full stop) would keep the author of Matthew 1: 25 from giving the best part of that sentence. And taking out the "Joseph knew her not" would take away the other best part of that sentence, that St.Mary remained a Virgin. Your argument should include the word "after" but it is not in that sentence.

[@theliefilter6412]

I contest Mary’s perpetual virginity because there’s no textual bases for perpetual virginity. And frankly, it doesn’t matter what Mary did after she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. For some reason, there are some that hold that some type of importance that she remains a virgin for all times. Can anyone tell me why it’s important that she remains a virgin? How does that affect Christianity?

[@jamisonniezurawski7092]

It give Catholics a reason to make her a central figure

[@theliefilter6412]

@@jamisonniezurawski7092 Jesus is supposed to be the central figure. Reminds of the time I asked someone if they are Christian and they replied no. I am a Catholic. I laughed so hard but now that I think about it. it wasn’t funny. It was true.

[@mattsell2361]

I just don’t understand the Catholics need to raise her above other humans. Even if it does imply that she was a perpetual virgin, the Bible never says anything related to praying to Mary or making her an idol. She was simply the woman who brought the savior into the world that’s it. The Bible clearly says the way to heaven is through Jesus, Mary doesn’t help us communicate with Jesus at all. That’s the manipulation of scripture. At least that’s my opinion

[@theliefilter6412]

@@mattsell2361 I agree. Something is wrong with the Catholic religion. Almost like they are trying to take the spot light off Jesus. Like a diversion. Those Catholics are very devout and won’t hear any objections. I can’t find one that would debate me.

[@mikejames303]

​​@@mattsell2361Mary is the Ark of the new Covenant and the new Eve. The gospel writers are clear when it comes to her importance. She is the reason Jesus was born, and the reason he began his ministry. His last words were to His mother, making her the mother of the beloved disciple, who John purposefully left nameless, because he was meant to represent all Christians. Most protestants reject how important His last words were. She remained a virgin according to scripture and how it was traditionally understood. St.Ignatius, a disciple of St.John, calls her the ever-virgin on his way to martyrdom, in one of the earliest epistles to a church outside of the New Testament.

[@chriswalls5831]

She was a virgin then had jesus afterwards Joseph and mary had other kids, only person that was immaculate was jesus

[@lisathomasson3705]

If Mary was or was not a virgin her entire life is none of my business. The relations in others people's marriage is not my business & The private relations of joseph & mary is not my business. Just i thank them for their roles in bringing forth the savior of the world.

[@charlesdarmanin8763]

Nope 🙅‍♂️ By actually saying that Our lady Mary is a perpetual virgin goes against God's command to multiply & subdue the earth & marital duties as explained by Paul & the two shall become one flesh ! Amen 🙏 🫶🙌✨️

[@oldgreg6977]

Actually Mary having other children would’ve been going against Gods commands ………..👉In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law. Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus “knew all men” (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his “brother” Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother. Also Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

[@joelauretta4067]

There are at least eight passages in the New Testament that refer to Jesus having brothers and sisters and others referring to people as the brother of the Lord. Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin until she died and so they claim that these "brothers" were actually cousins. Now, it is true that the Greek word adelphos that is rendered "brother" can also mean cousin, but it depends on the context. While it might be a possibility that the text is referring to Jesus' cousins in some passages, in others it is extremely unlikely. Matthew 13:55 says this: "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" In the context of this passage, it would make no sense if these men were merely the cousins of Jesus because clearly the comment is meant to identify Jesus by means of his immediate family. The same is true for the context of most of these passages that refer to the siblings of Jesus, but this one is the most conclusive. There is simply no compelling reason to believe that the people mentioned in the Bible as being the brothers of Jesus were anything other than the children of Mary.

[@randycarson9812]

*COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY* _No verse of scripture can be used to prove that Mary had other children after Jesus._ Numerous biblical verses refer to the “brothers” of Jesus, which some interpret as evidence against the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. However, two key issues challenge this view. First, while these individuals are described as Jesus' “brothers and sisters,” no verse explicitly identifies them as children of Mary. This ambiguity allows for the possibility that they could be Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, making them Jesus’ half-brothers and half-sisters. Second, the Greek word used in these verses is “adelphos,” which has a broad range of meanings. It can refer to half-brothers (cf. Mk 6:17-18), cousins or other kinsmen (cf. Gen 14:14), and even “spiritual” brothers (cf. Acts 9:30). This range of meanings opens the possibility that these individuals might be more distantly related to Jesus rather than being his full siblings. While the "plain reading" of the verses mentioning Jesus' “brothers and sisters” might initially seem to challenge the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, a closer examination reveals ambiguities that render these passages insufficient to disprove the doctrine conclusively. Ultimately, the argument based on Jesus' “brothers and sisters” remains inconclusive.

[@joelauretta4067]

@randycarson9812 Then answer this: with all doctrine has to have purpose. What purpose would there be for Mary to be a perpetual virgin. There's also no text of scripture that would indicate that she was a perpetual virgin.

[@randycarson9812]

​@@joelauretta4067 Sure. And Mary's Perpetual Virginity does serve a purpose - multiple purposes, in fact. It matters because it highlights Mary’s unique role in salvation history, affirms the divine origin of Christ, and provides a model of faith, purity, and dedication to God. For many believers, it deepens their understanding of God’s plan and inspires a greater commitment to holiness. To be consecrated to God means to be set apart, dedicated, or made holy for a divine purpose. It involves a deliberate act of giving oneself or something entirely to God, signifying total devotion, service, and alignment with His will. Consecration often implies a separation from ordinary or secular use, designating the person or object for sacred duties or purposes. For individuals, this can manifest as a commitment to living a life of holiness, prayer, and obedience to God’s commands, often marked by specific vows or rituals. The act of consecration reflects a deep relationship with God, where the consecrated person or thing becomes wholly available to Him, embodying His presence and reflecting His glory in the world. You do know that the OT Law specifically covered vows made by young women before marriage, right? Number 30:3-5 gives a snippet of that. From this, it is clear that the law provided for the handling of women who had made vows to God before marriage. In this regard, Mary was not unique. You might also look at 1 Samuel 1 to see how a child was left in the Temple after consecration to God. Now, it's my turn. 1. Is there a verse which explicitly says that Mary did not remain a virgin? No. So, the Catholic view is not unbiblical. 2. Is there a verse which names anyone besides Jesus as a son of Mary? No. The _adelphoi_ of Jesus could be cousins or close friends; the word is ambiguous. 3. Is there evidence from any Church father that Mary had other children? No. Helvidius proposed this in the fifth century and was crushed in a response by St. Jerome. 4. Did Luther and/or Calvin believe that Mary had other children? No. In fact, Calvin explicitly rejected Helvidius in his writings! Why Accept the PPV? 1: There is no evidence in scripture that Mary had other children; in fact the absence of such is very telling, 2. No Church Father ever taught that Mary had other children, 3. All of the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) as well as John Wesley believed Mary was ever-virgin, and 4. An infallible Catholic Church which speaks truth in the name of Jesus has declared this to be true. What is YOUR basis for rejecting something that was not denied until very recently (and not even by all Protestants)?

[@antillious]

Two questions: was Mary married to Joseph? And would that not include consummating the marriage, or was it essentially annulled? The two would not have become one flesh and thus not married.

[@chezjowy8596]

Yes, no

[@lyongreene8241]

There were chaste marriage laws that were practiced in first century judea. Some couples never consummated their marriage which is why the Bible says Joseph took Mary as his wife (i.e. married her) but did not know her

[@sandstorm7768]

@@lyongreene8241Thank you!

[@brianfarley926]

Nope. Marriages had vows of celibacy back then. You can look up ancient Judaism for confirmation and also refer to Numbers 30

[@lahair5751]

Mary's spouse was actually the Holy Spirit. So yes, through Jesus, the marriage was consummated.

[@mariagormanmmh8213]

i'm Catholic and until I talk to a priest, I'm very confused because my actual Bible that I have doesn't even use the word know or until it uses the word consummate and that's what's got me trouble

[@randycarson9812]

Protestant translation?

[@henrydaley1255]

Wisdom of Solomon 7:2 “And in my mother's womb was fashioned to be flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted in blood, of the seed of man, and the pleasure that came with sleep.” 2 Timothy 2:8 “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:” Virgin means young lady

[@panaderiatecnica5922]

not convincing! It is difficult to defend something that does not come from the scriptures, They went around and around and around and nothing

[@Misael-Hernandez]

It was all Scripture, what were you watching?

[@geoffjs]

Read the early fathers!

[@musicalsawpetewentworth6102]

Was God a perpetual virgin after impregnating Mary? Yes, because the Bible uses the phrase "God's only begoten son" How about Mary, was she perpetually a virgin after conceiving Jesus? If she was, then the Bible would also refer to Jesus as HER "only begotten son" But the Bible doesn't. In Matthew 1:25, Jesus is referred to as "Her FIRSTBORN son". "Firstborn" implies there were more to come. "Only Begotten" indicates that there were none other. Why does the Bible use "Only Begotten" in one instance and "Firstborn" in another? It's obvious that Mary went on to have more children.

[@Misael-Hernandez]

It's obvious to you because of your faulty reasoning. St. Mary is not God, she was human. Humans either have a firstborn or they don't. God, not St. Mary, gave orders to the Israelites to consecrate their "firstborn" sons to Him, therefore it follows logically that the writer included "firstborn" in his writing.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Uhhh… you didn’t cook here. Firstborn is used in Catholic mass… there isn’t a problem

[@randycarson9812]

God did not have physical sex with Mary. There is no loss of virginity in that. Jewish Meaning of “Firstborn” In Exodus 13:2, the Lord says: "Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." Moses, in Exodus 13:12, adds: "You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb." Under the law, the title "firstborn" was given to a child because they were the first to "open" their mother's womb, not necessarily because there was a "secondborn." This designation applied regardless of whether the mother had other children. In ancient Israel, a woman’s only child would still be called her "firstborn." The significance of "firstborn" was the special status and privileges conferred, such as a double portion of inheritance, not necessarily having younger siblings. In ancient Israelite culture, the firstborn son held a privileged position as the prime heir and family leader after the father, whether he ended up being an only child or not. Jesus is referred to as Mary's "firstborn" son (cg. Luke 2:7) even though the Bible does not explicitly state if she had more children after him. Consequently, referring to Jesus as Mary’s “firstborn” son does not prove that Mary had other children nor does it disprove the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

[@magdiel007]

(John 2:12) "¶ After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days." not virgin jesus had brothers. next , so you can put this perpetual virginity down people. This proves his mother and brothers where at a wedding. then they left together.

[@gwin8463]

But regardless of what your views are, in ancient times, first century in judea. Was a marriage valid without consummation?

[@musicalsawpetewentworth6102]

Did Mary remain a virgin after birthing Jesus? If she did, then she went against: 1 Corinthians 7 Which reads: "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again..." If Mary remained a virgin then by denying Joseph, she was spitting on what Paul came to write in Corinthians.

[@mikejames303]

How so? Could it be that Joseph took her as his wife knowing of her vow of virginity, as many early Christian writings attest to? Mary didn't "deny" Joseph as you claim. He was fully aware of the situation. I suggest you read the Protoevangelium of James and look at what the disciples of St.John had to say about Mary. The culture of 1st century Palestinine is totally alien to the culture of the modern west.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Uhhh… I don’t think Mary knew of that epistle throughout her life there…

[@randycarson9812]

Variations of the “sexless marriage” objection are common in Protestant circles, but they all fail. Invalid Marriage: According to Jewish law, the validity of a marriage is based on the contract and mutual consent, not necessarily on consummation. If Joseph and Mary had a valid betrothal and marriage contract, their marriage would be considered valid, regardless of whether it was consummated. Sin against Joseph or God: The argument that Mary sinned against Joseph or God by remaining a virgin is based on an interpretation of the command to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). However, many scholars argue that this command was given to humanity in general, not as a specific requirement for every individual. Moreover, in the context of Christian theology, Mary's unique role as the mother of Jesus is seen as a special divine calling that transcends ordinary expectations. Joseph's Role: In Christian tradition, Joseph is often seen as a protector and guardian of Mary and Jesus. His acceptance of Mary's virginity and his role in Jesus' life emphasize his obedience and faithfulness to God's plan.

[@Clackumcrew]

The Catholic Church is seeming to go to such great lengths to disprove the many scriptures that suppose Mary was not a perpetual virgin and that she did not have other children. I don’t understand it.

[@lucas____________]

It’s really not that great of a length, given that the unfaltering witness of the earliest church fathers is to her perpetual virginity. We have ignatius in 106AD calling Mary ever virgin. Jerome, who translated the entire Bible into Latin from Hebrew, stated that the perpetual Biginity was so astoundingly obvious only an idiot would deny it, and refused to debate on the topic because, as he said, to debate it would lend too much credibility and seriousness to such a absurd idea. Much like how you and I would refuse to debate a flat earther

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

No, Protestants just don’t believe what all Christian’s have believed for centuries and think it’s sound Christian doctrine

[@randycarson9812]

It's the other way around. No on held that Mary was NOT ever-virgin until Helvidius proposed the idea in the fifth century, and everyone laughed at him. Even Luther and Calvin agreed that Mary remained a virgin. Modern Protestants are simply ignorant of these facts.

[@TreeOfLifeWoodworking]

2 samuel 6:23 is such an ignorant reference. of course there cannot be a change after Michal's death regarding her having kids or not

[@shawnglass108]

It clearly says in Matthew That Joseph knew her not UNTIL Jesus was born..on top of everything else, why believe in these unBiblical dogmas? It has lead to idolatry of Mary and other people. Why? Flee from this idolatry.

[@korirwalter2859]

Argument meant to justify the dogma of perpetual virginity but the scripture is twisted from the primary meaning. Does it mean English language is so limited that it cannot find a word to tell that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. Stop misleading people.

[@roccocarlino067]

Forget these fictitious copper aged virgin births events. Go straight to the source of origins of virgin births, the golden & silver ages of Bharat. The viceless pure gods & goddesses, the deities of heaven all conceived through the power of yoga. All were viceless and pure, it was the viceless kingdom of heaven. Later in the copper age, impure kings & queens would worship pure kings & queens. All religions remember heaven on earth. Luke took the virgin birth story from the Mahabharata - Indian scripture 2300BC "The sage Durvasa had blessed Kunti, daughter of King Kunti Bhog, with a boon. He initiated her into a unique mantra, through which she could invoke any divine being to provide her with a son. Kunti conceived her first son, Karna, from Surya, the Sun God, as a virgin, and had to abandon him". ....also the story of Moses floating down the river in a basket was also taken from this same story.

[@CPATuttle]

Great segment

[@privatepyle2200]

Ive not grasped how Mary would birth a child and preserve virginity. Its a physical impossibility. And if He's a man, and He certainly was, he has to get here like a man does, through a birth canal.

[@lellachu1682]

Virginity is the state of never having had sexual intercourse. Giving birth wouldn't change that state.

[@mikejames303]

Was he conceived naturally also? Have you took into account that the birth of Jesus was a unique case? Jesus does not take, he only gives.

[@jayrishernandez]

Yes she was that’s the totality of the prophecy being fulfilled . “A Virgin will bear the child”. See your confining the actions and understanding and the power of God to Human standards to human measures . See that’s why the angel responded to Mary saying “ the Holy Spirit will overshadow you” , meaning and completely surpassing her human limits , in this context her virginity . And there she was pregnant . See ofcourse Jesus being born in basic human understanding we’d say it’s impossible in a physical aspect but God makes the impossible possible and time and time again he has proven that in scripture. The creation of the earth, the parting of the Red Sea , sarah ( wife of Abraham ) bearing a son in her 90s ! He’s the God of The Impossible . Outside your ranks of understanding and intelligence. Mary gave Jesus his humanity. He’s 100%divine and 100% human and that is also outside of you and mines understanding .

[@danielcristancho3524]

Ok, first off, where is this friar reading 'the virgin'? My bible reads 'a virgin'. Now come all the impossible mental gymnastics, a triple back salto with a quadruple twist, to be more precise, that forces a simple text to say something it never meant to say. It's very simple if you just read it like it is, he ''knew her not until she had brought forth her first born son''. If you just read it simply, it is stating that Joseph waited to have relations with his legal wife until after Christ was born, that's it, nothing more. Somebody tell those brilliant Catholic scholars sometimes, 'until' simply means 'up to a point in time or event'. Good grief.

[@adenjones1802]

Someone should tell this guy that the greek word for untill in matthew 1:25 is a different greek word than what is used in the verses he quoted. Meaning his defence is broken. The greek word heos is quite determinant and final it seems. Sorry catholics but Mary and Joseph boned after jesus was born. Like loving couples do.

[@randycarson9812]

Nope. And may God have mercy on your for being so crude. Does the word “until” REQUIRE that Mary’s virginity end at any point after Jesus’ birth? No. The use of "until" may suggest to our ears that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus' birth. However, the examples provided show that "until" (_heos_) in Scripture often indicates a state that continues indefinitely beyond the specified time. Matthew had no reason to comment on Mary’s sex life; if Mary and Joseph had normal relations, why would Matthew care either way? His purpose was to show the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the virgin birth. In Matthew 1:25, the word “until” should be understood in this broader biblical context and is, therefore, ultimately inconclusive regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. Those who deny this ancient belief must find corroborating evidence elsewhere.

[@TesterBoy]

The totality of scripture clearly declare that Mary was a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus. And Matthew 1:25 clearly implies in all translations that she had children AFTER Jesus. The plain reading of the text makes it abundantly clear and stands on its own. And elsewhere in scripture Jesus is seen with actual brothers and sisters. It's actually sad that our Roman Catholic brethren have to do logistics flips and depend on carnal reasoning (instead of biblical reasoning) to make Mary something that she clearly was not. The early Church fathers NEVER held to the belief that Mary remained a virgin. This false reasoning was only introduced by the late stage Catholic Church and has led to making sex look as a necessary evil (an erroneous belief of Augustine despite his otherwise sound doctrine). This also led to the harmful requirement that Roman Catholic clergy remain celibate even though Paul clearly states that celibacy is a gift. Worst of all is that this false teaching detracts from the primacy and supremacy of JESUS CHRIST.

[@luisman007]

The Bible does not say Mary had other children.

[@mikejames303]

God forbid we read a 2000 year old book translated from a language no one speaks anymore from a culture that doesn't exist anymore with a little discernment instead of reading it like it was written in modern English. Protestants have tremendous misunderstandings about scripture which lead them to believing many heresies and blasphemes. May God lead them to the truth and show them the error of their false beliefs.

[@Michael-pw2td]

You're the one doing logistic flips, bud. No, the bible does not "clearly" say she had other children. There was no word for "cousin" and it was used interchangeably with "brother". Nice logistic flip also when you accuse Catholics of reading the bible in a "carnal" way - when every little kid knows that modern day Protestants introduced the new, unbiblical, man-made tradition of sola scriptura. You modern day Protestants have strayed...far beyond even the reformers. Even Martin Luther knew Mary remained a virgin. Sorry. We've been Christians for 2,000 years. You're coming to us now with something new. Not old. And we're not buying it. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not you.

[@Davidandrawes7]

“Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” Matthew 13:55-56

[@Michael-pw2td]

@Davidandrawes7 And, once again, there was no word for "cousin" or "close family". They just used "brother" all the time. You proved nothing

[@TreeOfLifeWoodworking]

The catholic view of this verse is so deceptive and manipulative of scripture. It clearly alludes to joseph and mary getting it on after Jesus' birth. Catholics can't accept reality

[@mattsell2361]

I just don’t understand the Catholics need to raise her above other humans. Even if it does imply that she was a perpetual virgin, the Bible never says anything related to praying to Mary or making her an idol. She was simply the woman who brought the savior into the world that’s it. The Bible clearly says the way to heaven is through Jesus, Mary doesn’t help us communicate with Jesus at all. That’s the manipulation of scripture

[@garystewart9211]

@@mattsell2361 Why would they pray to Mary in the Bible, she was right there physically? They could just her to pray for them! That’s why you don’t see prayers to any living person in the New Testament.

[@adenjones1802]

​@@garystewart9211There is no one in the bible asking mary to pray for them either.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

@@adenjones1802uhhh???! The Bible tells us to ask believers to pray for us. Asking Mary for prayer is biblical, wether you like it or not.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

@@mattsell2361she is alive in heaven and is praying right now.

[@joe-say-did-it6201]

stop with the BS she was not a virgin she has other sons

[@BornAgainRN]

The use of SPECIFIC Greek words translated "until" in Matthew 1:25 (heos ho) is also USED IN the NT to refer to a change in activity. It is used this way 100% IN the NT. Matt's example from the LXX is "heos," not "heos ho." Kappas' example from Matthew 24 when he talks about Noah & the Flood uses "heos," not "heos ho." Saying that all Matthew 1:25 is about fulfilling the Isaiah 7:14 overlooks the fact that all the prophecy is saying is that the virgin was to be a virgin AT CONCEPTION and DURING THE PREGNANCY. It doesn't even insinuate that the virgin was to remain a virgin HER ENTIRE LIFE. That is why Matthew states that Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL (heos ho) she gave birth to a Son. Kappas' attempts of trying to correlate these verses is being eisegetical, and ignores the fact that 100% of the time "heos ho" is USED in the NT - in different books, by multiple authors - it ALWAYS refers to a change in activity. In this case, the change of activity (or inactivity) is keeping Mary a virgin. Matthew saying "until she gave birth" is redundant & unnecessary IF her virginity continued after this, but it IS necessary if she didn't.

[@chezjowy8596]

Really, he's instructing them to change activity in 1 Timothy 4:13?

[@BornAgainRN]

@@chezjowy8596 as I said, Matthew 1:25 uses "heos ho" SPECIFICALLY. 1 Timothy 4:13 only uses "heos" alone, which may or may not be used to refer to a change of activity in the NT.

[@chezjowy8596]

@@BornAgainRN let's see, it's not 100% as you claim, also it can be used with no change of action, and if was the sole proof text against then all the Greek Catholics are illiterate but it's not. A unique angle but if it's that hinge was that crucial and apparent the early church would've never even taught otherwise. Alas they did.

[@kevinmc62]

She was a perpetual virgin because Luther said so. Listen to other anti Catholics for perspective.

[@BornAgainRN]

@@kevinmc62 to be “anti Catholic” means to deny the Trinity too. The Reformers believed in the Trinity. Therefore, they were not “anti Catholic.” Some Reformers like Luther embraced the PVM, others like Calvin did not. The Reformers were pro Scripture not anti Catholic. Neither Scripture nor the first couple of centuries support the PVM.

[@patallenhurst3043]

He lost me at the end with Noah's ark reference. Can someone elaborate?

[@BornAgainRN]

Kappas was trying to argue from Matthew 24:38-39 that prior to Noah's Flood, the wicked were "marrying and given to marriage" & "and they did not understand UNTIL the flood came and took them all away." He is arguing that they didn't understand "after" the Flood, indicating a change of activity, because they were dead. But he is ignoring the fact that in Matthew 24:39, he is using the Greek word "heos" ALONE, while in Matthew 1:25 he is using "heos ho." And whenever "heos ho" is used in the NT, it always means a change in activity. That's why his example fails, and why Matthew 1:25 DOES support Mary's virginity only lasted "until" (heos ho) the birth of Jesus.

[@brianfarley926]

The gospels state quite clearly that Jesus did not have blood brothers. Anyone who points to Jesus having brothers can’t name them because the ones they name all come from another father and mother. Historically this is also the understanding of the Church from The beginning.

[@patallenhurst3043]

@@brianfarley926 good point! I still don't understand Noah's flood explanation with Mary's perpetual virginity.

[@brianfarley926]

@@patallenhurst3043 God was present in Noah’s Ark it became the Ark of covenant typologically. It typologically prefigured the Ark Moses had constructed by directions from God which then also prefigured Mary because her womb became the place for God during the months she was pregnant. Not that God was ever contained to the Ark but it’s where he resided for people as you see in the book of Exodus he was more present there for people to have access him in reality

[@patallenhurst3043]

@@brianfarley926 thank you for your explanation

[@lettersandwordsandstuffs]

She wasnt a perpetual virgin according to the bible...well thats the wrong bible...what bible is the right Bible? ahhhhhggghhhh😂

[@stephencallahan7877]

In Greek, didn’t Virgin mean Goddess or Maiden or something like that? Like it was like calling Mary a Maiden. At the time I don’t think it had anything to do with sex.

[@petromax4849]

I don't know about greek, but maiden is a synonym for virgin.

[@chezjowy8596]

How about in Hebrew?

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

A Maiden is an unwed woman, so it is generally synonymous with Virgin

[@stephencallahan7877]

Thank you for the replies to my comment. I'm trying learn. The Gospel's were originally written in Greek, so that is why I was asking. I've been curious as to why it matters whether Mary had other children after Jesus. In contemporary times, a person is a 'virgin' when he/she have never had sex. If the Greek word for Virgin meant something different back then, like queen, maiden, unwed women, or something else, then the Virgin Mary meant something different 2000 years ago. Again, I am no scholar. Ave Maria.

[@matthewbateman6487]

@@stephencallahan7877 Well it's important that she was a literal virgin, or Jesus being the Messiah/being divine vs having an earthly father becomes very problematic.. It's also important she was a literal virgin, because if 2,000 of Church teaching/consensus/understanding could be *universally wrong* about Mary being a virgin, then it could also be wrong about Jesus being the Messiah, having risen from the dead, the reality that there is a God at all, etc. Same goes about her remaining a virgin after Jesus. It was (and is) universal. Even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Thomas Cranmer, and John Wesley (essentially all the pivotal Protestant reformers) believed Mary maintained her virginity after Jesus. Yes, it's true that the Hebrew word (Hebrew, because Matthew's prophecy in Greek was referring to the Hebrew book of Isaiah) for 'virgin' could be used synonymously with 'maiden,' like we might use them today. But it's still important she is was a virgin, not just a maiden, or the prophecy makes no sense... Maidens have children all the time. They are pure young ladies who get married and then have children... That's the normal course of things? So which baby are we talking about? Hard to tell who the child of prophecy is... But a *virgin* having a baby is something that doesn't happen ever, and is thus the stuff of prophecy. Like in Luke, when Gabriel says "You will conceive and bear a son..." Mary asks, "How can this be since I do not know a man?" If we are to take her as being only a *maiden*, then Gabriel would just answer her question by giving her the birds and the bees talk; "Well Mary, ya see, the way your gonna conceive is..... ...." That conversation really only makes sense if they both understood Gabriel meant a *virgin* was going to conceive and bear a son... not just a maiden.

[@daviddenomy4229]

Jesus as son of God does not need a co-redeemer. His work on the cross was perfect and complete. The old testament shows God to be a jealous God. Saying prayers to Mary is dangerous. She is to be respected only. The roman church has a lot of doctrine that is correct. The mary doctrine is paganism.

[@chezjowy8596]

Cool, luckily nobody prays to Mary

[@NevetsWC1134]

God didn’t need to send his son to die on the cross either. He is God. But that’s what he chose to do. And he chose people to make it happen.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

Since becoming Catholic Mariology was tough for me, and I still struggle with it. To say we worship is accurate by comparison only. For the amount of reverence Protestants give to God many times is equal to what Catholics give to the saints, but Catholics revere and worship God much MUCH more than most Protestant churches do.

[@chuckHart70]

@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 All nations shall call me blessed Blessed are you among women Who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to see me. Hail Full of Grace... the Lord is with you. All things said about Mwry in the bible. We as Catholics not only know it we believe it too.

[@matthewbateman6487]

Hey David Denomy! I was raised very anti-Catholic (pope is the antichrist, Rome is Whore of Babylon etc....) before eventually becoming Catholic after a long careful examination... I have a whole video on my channel answering the question about why Catholics/orthodox 'pray to saints.' Please give it a watch...

[@jfschmidt84]

Eric Svendsen explodes any notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity in his work Who Is My Mother based on an exegetical analysis of the Greek grammar in Matthew so it’s was fun to watch this gentleman do mental gymnastics to get around it.

[@randycarson9812]

Eric Svendsen's argument was destroyed by John Pacheco in an article entitled, *Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic* back in 2003. It's still available online if you Google that title.

[@TimothyAdams-ln2jr]

Neither Christ, nor the Apostles, taught any of the so-named Marian doctrines. All these myths and the elevation of Mary to the 4th member of the godhead are disgusting apostasy.

[@userman44]

These guys: "Until death" means forever, so "until she gave birth" probably also means forever. Uhhhh...weak.

[@CPATuttle]

4:58 three examples in the Bible “until” is used in continuous meanings

[@timsmith3377]

This video is an example of the contortions that Catholics have to go through in order to keep praying to Mary 🤣!!! Why are they so Mary-crazy? A plain reading of the Bible doesn't show Mary as being a virgin for the rest of her life (What's wrong with sex between a man and his wife anyway? Didn't God invent sex? Catholics act like it's nasty or something!) or going to heaven without dying. As for Jesus' other brothers and sisters, Catholics will say, "they were really just His cousins."🤣

[@CPATuttle]

@@timsmith3377 They were his cousins. After an extensive research. The three apostles always listed together are the same men as the brothers of the lord. James son of Alpheus tells you his father is not Joseph

[@landrypierce9942]

@@timsmith3377Feel free to refute ANY of the claims made in this video.

[@davethesid8960]

Straw man. Uhhhh... weak.

[@fredtrevino9201]

Thank you for this conversation. You did not mention the 15 scripture references that state that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The until clause must be understood in light of these. I agree that the belief in perpetual virginity is irrelevant to the salvation our Lord has given. I think the better understanding is that Jesus occupied a normal family like us to be e with us. Thanks again. Fred

[@chezjowy8596]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3qppnhjgtqMn6s

[@markushill8639]

Is living in a family as an only child with two parents not normal?

[@jcf150_9]

Go watch the clip about brothers(like 2 down from this in Matt’s uploads) or pick up a copy of “Behold Your Mother” by Tim Staples. The brothers argument is very weak when you actually have to stand and defend it rather than just listing Bible verses. The absolute best case result for the brothers argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is “well they could be” and that means absolutely nothing. You end up having to ask yourself why you believe a “maybe” from your modern reading of scripture in a very Protestant biased American evangelical culture over the belief of all of Christianity for the first 1550 or so years. This is exactly the reason we have Sacred Tradition and the magisterium.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

There's 15? I've ever heard the one when he is in his hometown and someone says to the effect "Isn't this the carpenter's son"

[@matthewbateman6487]

Lot and Abraham are called "brothers" even though the Bible clearly indicates they are uncle and nephew. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, and Wesley all believed in Mary's perpetual virginity; they also believed that when Scripture mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, it meant 'brethren' or 'kinsmen' in the broader sense.

[@AlixPrappas]

So, I don’t know anything about the subject. I’d love for you to respectfully share what arguments you have for the topic. That being said, Jesus had siblings. What evidence would suggest they weren’t Mary’s biological children?

[@chezjowy8596]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3qppnhjgtqMn6s

[@hoshuajofstetter784]

Either watch the full podcast where they talk about it (it’s 3 hours long btw) or if you go to the previous clip on Pints with William and Fr Kappes they answer the question

[@terryfernando2030]

..... And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (Zachariah 12:10)

[@Vaughndaleoulaw]

Simple, Jewish law required children to provide some money for the needs of their parents. See Matthew 15 (Jesus is criticizing Pharisee’s for creating a tradition that allows adult children to ignore the duty to care for parents). Saint Paul went so far as to say adult children who did not provide for their parents have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers (1 Timothy 5). John 19 makes clear that the Blessed Mother of our Lord was put into the care of Saint John at Christ’s death. If those in fact were her biological children, they complete abdicated their responsibility to care for their mother. So either, all of the Blessed Mother’s children were reprobate, sans Christ, or they weren’t her children.

[@sandstorm7768]

The Greek word used to describe the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus is more in line with the word cousin; relatives not of the same womb. Moreover, it is all over Judeo-Christianity and even secular culture to refer to our loved ones as brothers and sisters, even if we share no blood.

[@amsiriano1]

Quite a stretch. I certainly feel sorry for Joseph if he had to live as a married man without ever "knowing" his beautiful wife.

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

We often let our sensual desires rule us, so it is difficult for us not to project onto Mary and Joseph our desires. Joseph wasn’t odd or weird or repressed. He was righteous, as scripture tells us. He was holy. He saw Mary’s singular and unique beauty clearly…and did not “touch” the True Ark. He loved God and Mary too much to do so. Mary was given God to raise, then to follow. Joseph did not distract from this mission by imposing his offspring on the New Eve. Their marriage was not consummated. Joseph isn’t sad about it. He’s rejoicing in heaven.

[@Jerome616]

It’s better to think that he lived out Pauls call to celibacy.

[@amsiriano1]

Okay, well, let's totally deny the natural, which the Lord Himself created. Joseph followed divine obedience during the time ascribed, but there is NO reason to think he didn't consummate that marriage after Jesus was born, unless you think that sex (the only means of procreation) is somehow evil.

[@Jerome616]

@@amsiriano1 what if you look at it from the perspective that she became one flesh with the Holy Spirit ? Then it would be B a violation for Joseph to then also try to be one flesh with her?

[@amsiriano1]

@@Jerome616No, I can't look at it that way. I'm sorry, but these people were HUMAN BEINGS. The idea that a marriage can be a REAL marriage without consummation is absurd.