Why do the Roman Catholics say that Mary stayed a virgin when the bible says that she didn't ?

Question

Here is just one verse - there are others. 1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas.

Obviously if the Lord had brothers then Mary did not stay a virgin.

Please only answers from Christians.

Answer 1

How was James, “the brother of the Lord,” (Matt. 13:55, Acts 15:13-21, 1 Cor. 15:7, Gal. 1:19) related to Jesus. All believers agree he was related, but no one knows exactly how.

The possibilities are that James was:

1. A full brother of Jesus, another Son of God born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. No one to my knowledge accepts that God had another child by the Blessed Virgin Mary.

2. A half-brother of Jesus, a younger son of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Some Christians believe this possibility but most Christians including those who are Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believe that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life.

3. A stepbrother of Jesus, a son of Joseph and a previous wife. Many Christians believe that Joseph had a least one previous marriage that resulted in children.

4. A stepbrother of Jesus, an adopted son of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. When parents died, relatives frequently took their children in and raised them as thier own. An adopted orphaned boy would be considered the brother of Jesus.

5. A cousin of Jesus. The Aramaic language has no word for cousin. Aramaic frequently uses the word “aha,” which we translate into Greek as “adelphos” or English as brother, for cousin.

6. A comrade of Jesus. This is a remote possibility. Greek uses adelphos the same as English does in “a band of brothers.”

Possibilities 1 and 2 obviously go against Catholic beliefs.

The Catholic Church prefers possibility 5 but 3, 4 and 6 would not go against doctrine.

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

I'm not sure one can answer you in such short space a proper answer.The first two you got are a example of what we Catholics put up with everyday here on R&S and world governments daily.So my suggestion is to read the writings of the early Church Fathers.As far as between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church to put it very bluntly there separation is really over how words were used between the two. Such as the Orthodox became unhappy because in the Nicene Creed said and used by both faiths daily we say the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son where as the Orthodox use the original wording from the Father only. Another difference is They want the Pope to be only first among Equals not absolute head of the Church.Twenty six branches of the the Orthodox Church have returned to union with Rome since the 1054 split.Both Orthodox and Catholic beliefs are very much the same with minor differences. Another Difference between Catholic and Orthodox Churches is Orthodox Churches are mainly nationalistic Churches. Such as Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox.Just type the words Early Church Fathers in you search engine and read for your self a favorite of mine is ST.Ignatius a disciple of John the Apostle along with Polycarp and Origiaen.Here is a sample from ST.Ignatius written around 107AD to the Symrnaeans........Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Answer 3

All Catholics believe (and know) that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin perpetually. This is not unbiblical. In fact, those who use verses speaking of Jesus' "brothers" ignore the fact that the word used in Hebrew (the Greek text in the N.T. is very likely underlied by a Hebraic precursor) does not refer to what we moderns call "brothers". The word was used to describe any close blood relation, such as first cousins, etc.

We know that Mary remained a virgin perpetually because that is revealed to us in the Church's Sacred Tradition and by the Church's sacred teaching Magisterium. That is the difference between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics have an authentic interpretation of the Biblical text guaranteed by the Church's Magisterium and Tradition. Those who don't have it are free (protestant communities) are free to interpret the Scriptures as they will -- and history proves that indeed this is what they do. That is why there are literally tens of thousands of protestant "churches" and why no two agree 100% with each other. Without the benefit of a Magisterium and Sacred Tradition to be the guardians of the true sense of Scripture, each reader of the Bible is left to himself. Fortunately, in the Catholic Church, we believe that Christ has given us a Guide to interpret the Sacred Written Word, and that Guide is the Church Herself.

Answer 4

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.


Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Answer 5

Those who actually knew Jesus, Mary and the apostles also knew that Jesus had no natural brothers or sisters.

The writings of the early church, along with authentic church tradition has always maintained that the Blessed Virgin remained so before, during, and even after the birth of Jesus Christ.

There is also a number of very signifiant theological reasons this would be so.

The teachings of the church have always been consistent, while the Bible is at best, inconsistent and incomplete on the matter.

The early Protestant reformers also understood this to be a fact.

Only in relatively recent times have things degenerated to the point where people choose to believe what they think the Bible says, instead of what has always been known to be true.

For complete details, go here:

http://www.mariology.com

Answer 6

Whether or not Mary stayed a virgin after the birth of Jesus is not the issue. What is the issue, is that Jesus was born from a virgin. Catholics refer to Mary as the Virgin Mary for this reason. They believe highly in the Immaculate Conception. When Catholic refer to the Virgin Mary, they refer to her as the chosen, pure women that birthed Jesus.

Answer 7

>>Why do the Roman Catholics say that Mary stayed a virgin when the bible says that she didn't ?<<

The Bible doesn't say she didn't. The "brothers and sisters" are never identified as being the children of Mary.

Answer 8

Christians are only human, and inclined to err. The only real truth is in the Bible, but people sometimes hear what they want to, or take thing out of context, and sadly, some of that has become dogma.

Some of it is probably harmless, but some is dangerous, particularly when it detracts from the Gospel, or drives away those who seek Him.

Mary WAS a virgin when she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but after the birth of the Christ, she WAS married, we may assume she DID have sexual relations with Joseph, resulting in offspring. The offspring, at least, is there in print - one example is John 2:12 - "After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days."

For Mary to remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus would have been in violation of what is in 1 Corinthians 7: 4 - 5
"4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 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 so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Of note, when Christ was on the cross, He addresses Mary not as "mother" but as "woman." This was not a disrespect, merely an indicator that He was both God and man. Mary was blessed beyond all women in that she was a key instrument of God's promise, but she was not divine herself. (If she were, she could have been the Messiah)

It is probably best to take Church liturgy with a grain of salt, and just stick with the Bible. (I personally recommend the Quest Study Bible)

God bless you!

Answer 9

I don't know either, but here are more scriptures and an excerpt from an encyclopedia supporting your comment.

Matt. 13:53-56, JB: “When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; and, coming to his home town, he taught the people in their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said, ‘Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? This is the carpenter’s son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers [Greek, a·del·phoi′] James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? His sisters [Greek, a·del·phai′], too, are they not all here with us?’” (On the basis of this text, would you conclude that Jesus was Mary’s only child or that she had other sons as well as daughters?)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) admits regarding the Greek words a·del·phoi′ and a·del·phai′, used at Matthew 13:55, 56, that these “have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century (c. 380) Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by the Church’s traditional faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity, wrote a tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383) in which he developed an explanation . . . that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars.”

Mark 3:31-35, JB: “His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting round him at the time the message was passed to him, ‘Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you’. He replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking round at those sitting in a circle about him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and mother.’” (Here a clear distinction is drawn between Jesus’ natural brothers and his spiritual brothers, his disciples. No one claims that the reference to Jesus’ mother means anything different from what it says. Is it consistent, then, to reason that his natural brothers were not that but were perhaps cousins? When what is meant is not brothers but relatives, a different Greek word [syg·ge·non′] is used, as at Luke 21:16.)

Answer 10

I disagree with your statement, "Roman Catholics".

I am Roman Catholic, and many of my friends are and we never
were taught or believe that Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born!

It is so sad that so many people want to state their ideas as fact when they have not done ALL of their homework!

To, you do not know ever Roman Catholic, so how can you use the all incl use form of society? Asking about, "Some Catholics" would have been the correct way to phrase your question.