Refuting Isahel Alfonso on Perpetual Virginity

After beating the deadlines at work, I am blogging once again. And we start off by refuting a recent article on the perpetual virginity of Mary, written by Mr. Isahel Alfonso of Catholic Faith Defender. He attempts to refute the biblical passages that totally refutes this doctrine. But are his arguments carry any weight? Let's see.

St. Jerome the greatest biblical scholar once said "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" Helvidius clearly exposes his ignorance of Sacred Scripture for claiming that Mary had other children aside from Jesus Christ.

Ah, the same St. Jerome who denied the canonical status of the Deuterocanonicals. Of course Mr. Alfonso will admit that St. Jerome is not infallible. Therefore, he should be willing to accept that St. Jerome can be wrong if proven so.

Little did Helvidius know that in Jewish culture they address blood born brothers, friends, relatives, countrymen and fellow member of a religious group as brother. The reason for this is that in Aramaic the language that Jesus used there is no specific term for cousins and distant relatives. The use of the term "brother and sister" is commonly used extendedly to include distant relatives and countrymen in African and Arab countries, the same thing is true in a Jewish nation (Buby 43). Even in our modern day setting, in Charismatic groups and other religious groups they address each and everyone as "brother and sister", yet they are not related by blood.

The above information is true but it is not relevant in the case of perpetual virginity. How so? Because it failed to consider two things:

1). the New Testament was written in Greek, therefore we should follow the system of Greek terminologies. The Greek words "anepsios" and "suggenis" are used for cousin and relatives respectively.

2). Context. While the term brothers and sisters can be used even for non-biological sibling, the context of the verse will tell us if it is pertaining to a spiritual brother, fellow countryman, or a close friend. We just don't simply put a meaning to it simply because it suits our taste.

The apostle James the less, Joses and Salome are identified as children of another Mary (Mk.15:40, 16:1, Mt.27:55-56). The apostle James the Great is identified as the brother of John and son of (another) Mary and Zebedee. The other James is identified as the son of Mary, wife of Alphaeus (or Cleophas). The apostle Jud (author of the epistle of Jude and brother of James the Less) is identified as Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddeus (Mt.10:2-4) (Alfonso 19).

This is simply a complex reasoning to lure away the readers from the obvious. Many people during those times have the same names. The burden belongs to our opponents that the James and Joses of the other Mary at the cross is the same James and Joses of Matthew 13:55. Similarity of names do not necessarily mean they are the same person.

Evidently Mary has no other children aside from Jesus Christ, not a single verse in the Bible ever say that Mary gave birth to other children aside from Jesus Christ.

We've already shown this argument before as a form of false dilemma. fallacy Yes, it's true that the Bible does not mention the birth of Mary's other children. But is that the only way to prove it? Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are believed to be siblings yet there is no mention that they are from the same parents. Are we to say that they are not biological siblings due to the lack of information concerning their parents?

This is another pitiful argument and an amateur exegesis of Sacred Scripture. Helvidius' contention is that in the New Testament the Greek word "adelphos" for brother was used to addressed the alleged siblings of Jesus Christ and not the Greek word "anepsioi" which means cousin. His arguments runs like this since they are called brother of Christ and not cousins or distant relatives, therefore they are indeed literally blood born brothers of Christ. At first glance his argument is quite convincing to those who are not familiar with the language that Jesus used. The lingua franca of the Jewish nation was Aramaic, brother in Aramaic is "Akha/ אחא" when the writers of the New Testament wrote their gospel the closest literal translation of the Aramaic word "Akha" in Greek is "Adelphos". So when the writers used the Greek word "adelphos" its implication is the inclusiveness of the Aramaic equivalent for brother. Therefore there is no problem in reconciling these biblical passages in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Oh that is a total baloney. Paul, who is a Jew, made use of anepsios in Colossians 4:10. Read Luke 21:16:

You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death.

If Luke were following Isahel's faulty reasoning, he would have stopped at brothers and sisters if the Greek term adelphos were to include relatives and friends. However, inspired by the Holy Spirit, Luke debunks the Roman Catholic speculation by including suggenis in the verse.

and the third interpretation which is correct and acceptable is the interpretation of the great biblical scholar St. Jerome wherein he explained that the brothers of the Lord are his cousins the sons and daughters of another Mary the wife of Cleopas (Alfonso 19).

Here is a thing that you must know: Rome has is no official position on the relationship with of these brothers of the Lord. The most popular argument is that they are said to be "cousins", but no pope has ever given an ex-cathedra statement of it. They can give any relationship they like as long as they are not biological brothers of the Lord (or whatever serves mother church).

The belief that Mary is a perpetual virgin is as ancient as the Catholic Church. This belief was foretold in the Old Testament (Gen.3:15, Is.7:14 and Ex.44:2) and had its fulfillment in the New Testament (Mt.1:23).

The belief that was foretold in the OT is the birth of Christ through a virgin woman, not the doctrine of perpetual virginity. Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ. But, she didn't remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

The heretical doctrine that Mary is not a perpetual virgin was first taught by Helvidius, by relying in his personal interpretation of the Sacred text he arrived to a conclusion the Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Helvidius heretical thesis was rejected even by the reformers but was later on revived by modern day Protestants.

Well, Tertullian who was a church father also didn't believe in the perpetual virginity. But of course, Isahel will scream that Tertullian wasn't infallible. And so is Jerome.

The burned of proof is on the shoulders of those who teach that Mary had other children. They have to demonstrate in Scripture that Mary gave birth to other children and provide the names and whereabouts of Christ siblings.

Like I said, this is a false dilemma fallacy. Little does Isahel know that he also has a burden of proving that Mary is perpetually a virgin.

A close reading of Sacred Scripture will bring out the truth that Mary is a perpetual virgin. Those who say that Mary gave birth to other children is displaying their ignorance of the Sacred text. Like my previous exchanges with this born again group I know that the points that I raised will simply be ignored. But I am writing this not just to refute their errors but also to provide defense for the faith so that my Catholic brethren can also learn the truth and defend it.

Well we now know who is displaying ignorance and it isn't us. We haven't ignored the points he raised. We don't know if Isahel will respond to this article but we'll be ready if he does.