Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"


I found an article in which it says that

The Early Church did not question Mary’s perpetual virginity.

My question to you is can you provide evidence that it was not taught?

The article also provides a few quotes.

The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity


You have written some very interesting things. Some of which I am unsure about. Joseph was from the David line. I see that as impacting some of what you have said.


Ok. It depends on context. Not sure of Martyr’s context. For instance I think it proper to call Mary the “virgin Mary” if the context is about her before and up to the birth of Jesus. Anything thereafter I would generally not.
So the virgin Mary visited Elizabeth, or traveled on a donkey to Bethlehem, or was visited by an angel, or was graced enough to be chosen to bear Emmanuel etc… But it was Mary who was at the foot of the cross, or at Cana, or in upper chamber with apostles etc…


Shall we be like the Pharisees and add?

Gospels were written to “set the record straight”, and much, much more than “liturgy”.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”…2 tim3:16

Sooo, I will grant the office of apostle and teacher, but would you now grant their “text book” as normative, as they have said it is?


But one closer to the apostles wrote,

“Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”


And they have not been lost to us.


Martyr sometimes calls Mary, only Mary at the time before the Angel so I think your reasoning would fail. But it fails in another way too. They never say anything about her having other children. The context of their writing assume her to be always a virgin. You made a statement that we had no teaching until Jerome. I wonder if you think Jerome one day just sat down and said Mary was a virgin her whole life? As I have pointed out we have written record of James which shows that it was being taught. What we don’t have is evidence that it wasn’t being taught. You said that it was at the time of Jerome that there became debate. It would seem that it was at this time that the traditional teaching was being challenged.


Agree, but always conditional, as cited by Paul…they had to stick to the script…they had to stick to apostolic teaching, which we know best by their writings.

I do not see the apostles teaching linear ordination was a guarantee of perfection, of infallible teaching on faith and morals, of “once right always right”.

Many of the reformers were from that Catholic linear line. They were rejected. Now following old testament model, was it righteous rejection as with Korah, or was it rejection of righteous prophets?


Not sure but I believe Jesus fulfilled every prophecy that was in His scripture.

I am sure some of the Talmud had correct interpretation, and much did not, which unfortunately was adopted by the powers to be…so the Jews indeed had to be told, what they were suppose to have known ( of mercy, grace, a Lamb, of need to be born again), and not that an ever virgin was signified by a closed gate, or the meaning of sleeping with a king’s wife.


Well, I would think you could call Mary Mary anytime. A name does nor require an adjective. The question was was the adjective used to describe anything about Mary after His birth. Of course one could use the adjective, though not necesary, before the birth.

Again context. Did Martyr ever contextually call the virgin Mary apart from referencing the conception/ birth?


True. They also don’t say anything about her having step children, or close cousins, or of a vow.


That is what I am asking to see in Martyr


O.K. this won’t get us anywhere. You want to look at a passage and decide that when they called her Virgin Mary it must always refer to before she had other children. It really doesn’t wash. In the quote that was provided it is clear that it is a title not clarifying that she was a virgin when Jesus was born. We disagree You obviously cannot provide any of their writing to support that she did not remain a virgin. You cannot give any reasonable reason for Mary to have been given into John’s care. I do think you gave a plausible reason for her saying she knew not man but it falls apart because she was married and she does not mention Joseph but a general no man. You do not provide evidence that she was not always a virgin in the early Church. You dismiss James but you can’t because he does verify that it was indeed the early Church teaching.


The Talmud was written after Jesus. It would have no bearing on the Jews of Jesus time. The Jews that followed Jesus indeed knew what He spoke about. Certainly they did after He instructed them. Remember after the resurrection their was forty days of instruction. Even today their is misunderstanding . Sometime because the people of today try to put our definitions to things in the Bible that were understood differently but that every Jew who read it would understand such as what Keys represented. Another one that really floors me is the forced interpretation of until and of first born. Even today the meaning of until does not mean a change. It only means up to a certain time. Look it up in the dictionary. Until
They would have understood what a betrothal was. They would have understood what it meant to be First Born. Firstborn males had a special status with respect to inheritance rights and obligations. certain We see part of this when Jesus is presented in the temple. But you will still see people argue that this shows that Mary did not remain a Virgin. What is worst they refuse to be educated. I do not agree with all that @ Mintaka writes but I do agree that they would have understood much of which we debate about. They would have understood the Keys, betrothal, brothers, and the lamb.


it is not reliable and rejected by jerome and origen, and i think in a list of condemned books by later pope. I can’t trust a book who claims spuriously to be James.


'But the Virgin Mary conceived …"…(read your martyr quote sorry, i forgot you had posted it} …seems to quite clearly have context of conception and birth …don’t think Martyr capitalized the V (not sure greek had “uncapitals” at this time yet…everything was capital

  • “In the case of every other woman, it is not the birth of an infant but intercourse with a man that opens the womb. But the womb of the Lord’s mother was opened at the time when her offspring was brought forth …” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, Homily 14 , paragraphs 7-8). (says nothing of the “womb” closing up again)

"Add, if you like … the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. … We do not blush, we are not put to silence.” (Jerome, Against Helvidius, paragraphs 19-20)(sounds like normal birth)

“Indeed she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin” (Tertullian, [On the Flesh of Christ]

"and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin. A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son.” (Jerome (393 A.D.) to Pammachius (letter 48, paragraph 21)(jerome seems to write this ten years after above quote, saying she was a virgin after)

(, 23)


quite right…was addressing this:“Also, a lot did not need to be said, because a lot of Talmudic teaching about the prophesied Messiah included lots of stuff teaching about his prophesied mom. If you were a Jew who became Christian, you already knew this stuff and didn’t have to be told. If you were a Gentile, somebody would tell you. Putting it into Luke would have been a waste of space.”…from Mintaka


I understand ‘opening up the womb’ rather differently than you. It was indeed opened by Jesus, in that nothing had passed through her before him. I don’t understand why you think he would’ve needed to say ‘close up’ again. In addition, I’ve learned to be wary of quotes without context. But if Tertullian indeed held both beliefs, then maybe he was mistaken and indeed received correction later.


have no problem with understanding as you the terms “first born” and “until”…they are neutral…so does not say “and thereafter” or ''only son" either…still not sure why you feel “betrothed” is misunderstood


it seems tertullain equates "womb’’ as physical virginity (hymen /“sheath”)…i had to reread his quote also, but it can make sense that what “breaks” with intercourse normally broke with Mary but only by giving birth. it is asserted by CC that the "womb’’ or “sheath”/hymen were restored, closed up, or somehow not broken with the birth.

not sure tertullian had two views but I posted that jerome did, or that he changed his mind later, that she indeed was a physical virgin,(wrote earlier that she travailed , bled, as in normal birth (losing virginity), to ward off gnosticism or as james alludes, that the Lord just “appeared” , or was born mysticaly)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit