Steve Christie<\/a> was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools up through college. He became a Protestant in 2004 at age 34, and is a frequent lecturer at Protestant churches and events, has led home Bible studies for sixteen years, and is a member of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Toledo, Ohio. He has participated in many oral debates with Catholics, and authored the self-published book, Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller:\u00a0<\/em><\/a>A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon<\/span><\/em><\/a> in 2019. If my memory is correct, I have not interacted with him until now.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I will be responding to Steve\u2019s portions of his two hour long audio debate with Catholic apologist Trent Horn (it originally appeared on Pints with Aquinas<\/em> with Matt Fradd): posted in transcript on the Catholic Answers<\/em> website (5-2-22), under the title, \u201cDebate: Do the Marian Dogmas Contradict Scripture?\u201d<\/a> Steve\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>. My biblical citations are from RSV, unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n In case anyone is wondering, I won\u2019t read Trent\u2019s portions, so that my replies will be completely original. As such, this may be an interesting opportunity to compare the replies to the critical arguments of one Protestant apologist regarding Mariology, of two Catholic apologists. I\u2019m sure my response will be harmonious (though obviously not identical) with Trent\u2019s. I love his work and consider him one of the best Catholic apologists today.<\/p>\n Some of the ways Trent and I would agree that a dogma contradicts scripture is explicitly, implicitly, or partially. So even if that dogma is defined ex cathedra<\/em> by a pope, by an ecumenical council, or by the magisterium, if it contradicts scripture, that dogma must be rejected.<\/span><\/p>\n I aim to show that Catholic Marian dogmas (like all other Catholic dogmas) do not<\/em> contradict Scripture at all. Being harmonious with the Bible and not contradicting it is different from being explicitly taught<\/em> in Holy Scripture. Most Marian dogmas are not<\/em> taught explicitly in the Bible, but it doesn\u2019t make them automatically untrue as a result. It\u2019s not a \u201cdealbreaker.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n I would contend \u2014 in comparison \u2014 that even the two \u201cpillars\u201d of the so-called \u201cProtestant Reformation\u201d: sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em> \u2014 are not explicitly taught in the Bible, either (indeed, I would say they are not taught at all). Many Protestant apologists today freely concede that sola Scriptura<\/em> is not taught explicitly in Scripture (though they hold to it on less epistemologically compelling grounds). And all parties agree that the canon of Scripture is not included in Holy Scripture. <\/span><\/p>\n Nowhere in the Bible, I hasten to add, is it taught that every doctrine that must be believed by Christians has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, or that they could not have been developed primarily or even solely in Sacred Tradition (always in harmony<\/em> with Scripture). This notion of an \u201cexplicit\u201d requirement in Scripture is, ironically, an extrabiblical Protestant tradition of men. All Christians contend that their doctrines are harmonious with Scripture. Catholics are no different.<\/span><\/p>\n The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary contradicts scripture in the following ways. While the Greek word adelphos<\/em>, translated brothers, can have numerous meetings in scripture, the specific Greek word adelphi<\/em>, translated sisters, only has two. One, one\u2019s natural sister, such as a sister of the same parents or a half sister or, two, a believing sister, such as a Christian sister.<\/span><\/p>\n It is used this way consistently in the New Testament, as well as in the Septuagint where it is used over a hundred times, such as the Sister Kingdoms of Israel and Judah who worship the same one true God of the Old Testament. It is never used for a female non-sibling relative in either Testament, nor in its Greek. When the New Testament writers wish to convey female non-sibling relatives, such as Elizabeth and Mary, they chose other Greek words, such as [foreign language 00:01:39] or [foreign language 00:01:39]*\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n *Dave: I am pretty sure the two Greek words not transcribed are anepsios<\/em> and sungenis (<\/em>or, syngene\u00eds<\/em>), usually meaning \u201ccousin\u201d of some sort. I have written about both.<\/span><\/p>\n Adelphos<\/em>\u00a0appears in the NT 346 times (and 649 times in the Septuagint: the Greek translation of the OT [\u201cLXX\u201d]).\u00a0Syngene\u00eds<\/em>\u00a0only appears twelve times (5 in the LXX).\u00a0Anepsios<\/em> appears once (Col 4:10), and once in the LXX.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The NT employs a \u201cHebraic\u201d use of the Greek adelphos<\/i>: as applying to cousins, fellow countrymen, and a wide array of uses beyond the meaning of \u201csibling.\u201d Yet it is unanimously translated as \u201cbrother\u201d in the King James Version (KJV): 246 times. The cognate\u00a0adelphe<\/i>\u00a0is translated 24 times only as \u201csister\u201d. This is because it reflects Hebrew usage, translated into Greek. Briefly put, in Jesus\u2019 Hebrew culture (and Middle Eastern culture even today), cousins were called \u201cbrothers\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Now, it\u2019s true that\u00a0sungenis<\/i>\u00a0(Greek for \u201ccousin\u201d) and its cognate\u00a0sungenia<\/i>\u00a0appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia<\/i>: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14;\u00a0sungenis<\/i>: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated\u00a0kinsmen<\/i>,\u00a0kinsfolk<\/i>, or\u00a0kindred<\/i>\u00a0in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than\u00a0cousin<\/i>: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his\u00a0Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/i>, lists\u00a0sungenis<\/i> not only under \u201cCousin\u201d but also under \u201cKin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used\u00a0adelphos\u00a0<\/i>many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use\u00a0adelphos<\/i>\u00a0even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.<\/span><\/p>\n Strikingly, it looks like\u00a0every<\/i>\u00a0time St. Paul uses\u00a0adelphos<\/i>\u00a0(unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: \u201cJames the Lord\u2019s brother.\u201d 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he\u00a0must<\/i>\u00a0mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word\u00a0adelphos<\/i>? That doesn\u2019t make any sense.<\/span><\/p>\n So also, Luke 14:12 and 21:16, where the evangelist uses different Greek words to distinguish relatives from brothers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This proves nothing. The use of adelphoi<\/em> for cousins is not ruled out<\/em>, and the proof of that usage is found in my next reply.<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore when Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus\u2019 brothers and sisters not honoring him, we know this refers to Jesus\u2019 younger half siblings.<\/span><\/p>\n Some folks think it is a compelling argument that\u00a0sungenis<\/i>\u00a0isn\u2019t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine Mark 6:4 (RSV), where\u00a0sungenis<\/i>\u00a0appears:<\/span><\/p>\n And Jesus said to them, \u201cA prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own\u00a0kin<\/i>, and in his own house.\u201d (cf. Jn 7:5: \u201cFor even his brothers did not believe in him\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n What is the context? Let\u2019s look at the preceding verse, where the people in \u201chis own country\u201d (6:1) exclaimed:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIs not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?\u201d And they took offense at him.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus\u2019 reference to\u00a0kin<\/i>\u00a0(sungenis<\/i>) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His \u201cbrothers\u201d and \u201csisters\u201d: His relatives. Since we know that\u00a0sungenis<\/i>\u00a0means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n We don\u2019t<\/span> \u201cknow\u201d<\/span> at all<\/em> that<\/span> \u201cMark 6:3 refers to . . . Jesus\u2019 younger half siblings.\u201d I would strongly contend that in the case of James and Joseph, they cannot possibly<\/em> be siblings, based on the following scriptural data:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph [aka \u201cJoses\u201d: Mk 15:40] \u2014 mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d \u2014 are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This \u201cother Mary\u201d (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady\u2019s\u00a0adelphe<\/em>\u00a0in John 19:25 (it isn\u2019t likely that there were two women named \u201cMary\u201d in one family \u2014 thus even this usage apparently means \u201ccousin\u201d or more distant relative, or sister-in-law).<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and \u201csisters\u201d along with James and Joseph, calling all\u00a0adelphoi<\/em>. Since we know for sure that at least James and Joseph are not Jesus\u2019 blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these \u201cbrothers\u201d are\u00a0cousins<\/em>, . . .<\/span><\/p>\n James (along with sometimes Joseph) is called the son of this \u201cother Mary\u201d: wife of Clopas or Alphaeus [alternate names for one person], in Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10, and \u201cthe son of Alphaeus\u201d in Matthew 10:3 \/ Mark 3:18 \/ Luke 6:15 \/ Acts 1:13. This second Mary is called \u201cthe wife of Clopas and the \u201csister\u201d of Mary the mother of Jesus in John 19:25. This is strong evidence that James and Joseph were not sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, and hence not Jesus\u2019 siblings (and indirect evidence that Simon and Jude are of the same similar status as relatives). Rather, it appears that they are Jesus\u2019 first cousins or more distant cousins.<\/span><\/p>\n Nowhere does the New Testament state that any of Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d (adelphoi<\/i>) are the children of Jesus\u2019 mother Mary, even when they are referenced together (cf. Mark 3:31 ff.; 6:3 ff.; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). So for example, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55. Jesus is called \u201cthe son of Mary\u201d and \u201cthe carpenter\u2019s son\u201d and\u00a0only He<\/i>\u00a0is referred to in this way. The others (four \u201cbrothers\u201d named in each passage) are not. It happens again in the book of Acts:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 1:14\u00a0<\/b>\u00a0All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n See how a distinction is made between Mary as the mother of Jesus and \u201chis brothers,\u201d who are\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0called Mary\u2019s sons? Nor is she called their mother. These verses do\u00a0not<\/i> read in a \u201csiblings\u201d way. <\/span>In the New Testament, none of these \u201cbrothers\u201d are\u00a0ever<\/em>\u00a0called Joseph\u2019s children, anywhere, either.<\/span><\/p>\n Much has been written about the use of adelphos<\/em>\u00a0in the NT. Its range of use is\u00a0almost precisely<\/em>\u00a0like how it is used in the works of the first century Jewish historian Josephus (as we would expect, since he was a fellow Israelite and lived in the same period). In\u00a0Antiquities<\/em>,<\/span>\u00a0Book XVIII, ch. 4, sec. 6<\/a>,\u00a0Josephus refers to \u201cPhilip, Herod\u2019s brother\u201d (likely using\u00a0adelphos<\/em>\u00a0there). In\u00a0Wars of the Jews<\/em>,\u00a0<\/span>Book II, ch. 6, sec. 1<\/a>,\u00a0he refers to \u201cArchelaus\u2019s brother Philip.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n But we know that\u00a0they were\u00a0not<\/strong>\u00a0siblings<\/em>\u00a0(sons of the same mother and father). In\u00a0Wars of the Jews<\/em>,<\/span>\u00a0Book II, ch. 7, sec. 4<\/a>,\u00a0Josephus mentions \u201cAlexander, who was the brother of Archelaus, . . . This Alexander was the son of Herod the king . . .\u201d Again, he likely uses\u00a0adelphos<\/em>, but is not referring to literal siblings, since we know that this<\/span>\u00a0Alexander\u2019<\/a>s mother was<\/span>\u00a0Mariamne<\/a>.\u00a0Wikipedia<\/span>\u00a0(\u201c<\/a>Philip the Tetrarch\u201d<\/a>)\u00a0<\/span>informs us that Philip was \u201cson of<\/span>\u00a0Herod the Great<\/a>\u00a0and his fifth wife,<\/span>\u00a0Cleopatra of Jerusalem<\/a>, . . .\u00a0half-brother of<\/span>\u00a0Herod Antipas<\/a>\u00a0and<\/span>\u00a0Herod Archelaus.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0The mother of the latter two men was<\/span>\u00a0Malthace<\/a>.<\/p>\n When Matthew 1:25 writes, \u201cJoseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to a son,\u201d the specific Greek words [foreign language 00:02:06] when translated until, is used consistently in the New Testament to refer to a change in condition. While the New Testament does use different Greek words translated until to refer to the condition continuing after the event, such as [foreign language 00:02:21] on its own, [foreign language 00:02:25] is never used once this way in the entire New Testament. The NAB, a Catholic translation authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference supports this. \u201cThe Greek word translated until does not exclude normal marital conduct after Jesus\u2019 birth. If Matthew wished to convey Mary\u2019s virginity was perpetual, there would be no need to add \u2018until she gave birth to a son.\u2019 She would\u2019ve simply ended with he kept her a virgin or added throughout her marriage. The Isaiah 7:14 prophecy only indicates that Mary was to remain a virgin during her pregnancy and up to the Messiah\u2019s birth.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The NAB continues, \u201cThe evangelist is simply concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus, which is why Matthew stresses the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. When Isaiah prophecy states that the virgin will bear a son, it is not implying her virginal integrity remained intact after his birth, nor that her virginity would extend throughout her entire life, but only to stress that the Messiah\u2019s birth would be supernatural and that Jesus was divine. As a believing Jew and Christian, Mary would not have disobeyed God who commanded married couples to be fruitful and multiply, nor would she have deprived her husband as the apostle Paul wrote, \u2018the wife must fulfill her duty to her husband and does not have authority over her own body so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self control.\u2019 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 1:24-25<\/strong>\u00a0(NRSV) . . . Joseph . . . took her as his wife, [25] but had no marital relations with her [RSV: \u201cknew her not\u201d] until she had borne a son . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This would involve probably six months, bare minimum. We don\u2019t know at what stage he was aware that she was pregnant.\u00a0Protestants who reject the perpetual virginity of Mary need to be asked\u00a0why Joseph abstained for the entire pregnancy<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0if in fact he had marital relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary after Jesus\u2019 birth.<\/p>\n Rabbinic Judaism did not forbid sexual relations during the whole of pregnancy (especially not the final three months). I think we can safely assume that something of that sort was the custom of the Jews of Jesus\u2019 time. So why did Joseph do this? There is no plausible reason to do so, other than the fact that he intended to never have relations with her (she being the Mother of God). Sometimes the most effective and elegant arguments are the small ones like this (that one could almost not notice at all).<\/p>\n Writing against Helvidius, St. Jerome provocatively asked (making precisely the present argument):<\/p>\n Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth?\u00a0He will surely answer, Because of the Angel\u2019s words, \u201cThat\u00a0which is born in her, &c.\u201d He then who gave so much heed\u00a0to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after\u00a0he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so\u00a0many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the\u00a0seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jason Evert offered a great insight in an article for\u00a0Catholic Answers Magazine<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(then called\u00a0This Rock<\/em>): 1 July 2000:<\/p>\n [E]ven in the Old Testament God asked married couples to refrain from intercourse for various reasons. For example, the priests of the temple had to refrain from intimacy with their wives during the time of their service. Likewise, Moses had the Israelites abstain from intercourse as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 19:15 [the original erroneously had 20:15]). There is a theme here of refraining from marital rights because of the presence of something very holy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2 Samuel 6:23 (\u201cAnd Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death\u201d) supports\u00a0the Catholic interpretation of \u201cuntil\u201d in Matthew 1:25 because it perfectly illustrates that \u201cuntil\u201d can and does (in some instances in the Bible) refer to\u00a0events up to certain point referred to, but not\u00a0after<\/strong><\/em>. In this case, it\u00a0couldn\u2019t<\/em> refer to events after, since Michal died and could no longer possibly have children. Other similar examples where \u201cuntil\u201d couldn\u2019t possibly refer to actions after the point of time referenced include 1 Samuel 15:35; Matthew 12:20; Romans 8:22; 1 Timothy 4:13; 6:14, and Revelation 2:25.<\/p>\n Luke 2:7 describes Jesus as the firstborn of Mary, although the Greek word [foreign language 00:04:11] translated firstborn, can indicate firstborn opening the womb and is used this way in the New Testament. Both the Old and the New Testaments also use firstborn to indicate firstborn among other siblings, such as Esau being Isaac\u2019s firstborn and Ruben as Jacob\u2019s first born, meaning they were not firstborns out of their father\u2019s wombs, considering men don\u2019t have wombs, but firstborn among their other children. See Genesis 35:23, Deuteronomy 21:15, Joshua 6:26, 1 Chronicles 3:1, and Hebrews 11:28, where firstborn is also used this way.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The great Protestant commentator J. B. Lightfoot wrote that \u201cThe law, in speaking of the firstborn, regarded not whether any were born after<\/em> or no, but only that none were born before.\u201d [Commentary on the Whole Bible<\/em>, 928; my italics] Among the Jews, the firstborn was ordinarily the child who was first to open the womb (e.g., Exodus 13:2: \u201cConsecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine\u201d; cf. Num 8:16: \u201call that open the womb, the first-born . . .\u201d).<\/p>\n If Luke was communicating Jesus was Mary\u2019s only child, he would\u2019ve used the Greek word [foreign language 00:04:55] translated only begotten, rather than [foreign language 00:04:57] like he did elsewhere in his gospel, such as in Luke 7:12, 8:42 and 9:38. And in John 3:16, where Jesus is the only begotten son of God, meaning the only one.<\/span><\/p>\n There\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0a place for speculation about \u201cwhat\u00a0should<\/em>\u00a0have been written if specific view x<\/em> is to be regarded as true\u201d. I\u2019ve done it myself (even in this reply). But of course, it\u2019s always an argument from silence\u00a0<\/em><\/a>(argumentum ex silentio<\/i>), which doesn\u2019t carry all that much weight in argumentation and logic. Hence, Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, in\u00a0The Routledge Companion to Epistemology<\/i><\/a> (2010) state that \u201carguments from silence are, as a rule, quite weak; there are many examples where reasoning from silence would lead us astray\u201d (pp. 64\u201365). In the final analysis, we can only deal with\u00a0what the biblical text actually asserts<\/em>\u00a0and the possible meaning and its interpretation of any given passage.<\/p>\n Lastly, Psalm 69:8 is a messianic verse, \u201cI have become estranged from my brothers and an alien to my mother\u2019s sons.\u201d Because verse nine begins with for, which is a conjunction, meaning because, since, or therefore, indicating that the same Messiah who would experience zeal for your house in verse nine is also the same Messiah whose mother would have other children in verse eight, which prophesied Jesus\u2019 younger half brothers not believing in him in John 7:3-5 and dishonoring him in Mark 6:3-4, which occurred earlier in Mark 3:20-21 when they accused Jesus of being out of his senses, just as the future King David rebuked his oldest brother. <\/span><\/p>\n Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer observed, in an article on this very question<\/a>: \u201cPlenty of things in Psalm 69 foreshadow Christ, but that doesn\u2019t mean every element is true of Him. For example, Psalm 69:5 says, \u2018You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you.\u2019 And Christ is sinless, of course.\u201d RSV has at 69:5: \u201cthe wrongs I have done.\u201d<\/p>\n Mark 6:3-4 was dealt with above. There are two strong exegetical reasons to believe that Jesus\u2019 cousins are being referred to, not supposed siblings.<\/p>\n When Jesus\u2019 mother and brothers approach him later in verse 31, Jesus contrasts his biological brothers who dishonored him with his disciples, who were his spiritual brothers, who did the will of God.<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 3:31 is but one use of adelphe<\/em> among many. What has to be determined is the meaning of each in context, and it is not necessarily \u201csiblings\u201d at all, and there are several biblical arguments that with regard to Jesus, they are not siblings. I provided some of the best traditional arguments above, and they are very strong. In light of Mark 6:3-4, these \u201cbrothers\u201d were very likely not siblings.<\/p>\n This passage also contradicts the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary since Jesus\u2019 mother was with Jesus\u2019 brothers in verses 20 to 21, when they accused him of being out of his senses. This is also the view of St. John Chrysostom as late as the fifth century, venerated as a doctor of the church of Roman Catholicism, who also believed Mary thought Jesus had gone mad.<\/span><\/p>\n Chrysostom was simply wrong in that instance. We don\u2019t believe that Church fathers are infallible. And they are not part of the magisterium. I have dealt with the question of whether Mary thought her Son had gone crazy. It\u2019s too involved of an argument to even summarize. See:<\/p>\n Did the Blessed Virgin Mary Think Jesus Was Nuts?<\/a>\u00a0[7-2-20]<\/p>\n Did Mary Sin By Thinking Jesus was Crazy? (vs. Lucas Banzoli)<\/a>\u00a0[9-8-22]<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/07\/Jesus27.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n