It is a commonly held belief within Catholicism that Mary was not only a virgin when Jesus was born, but that she remained a virgin even after Christ's birth. If the Bible is to be believed (and it can!), we can see this is a grave error. This error is one of the causes for the unwarranted elevation and adoration of Mary.
First, Mat 1:24-25 says, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: (25) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. This word "till" signifies that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus. If it was a perpetual thing it would have simply read "And knew her not."
Secondly, there are at least nine references to Jesus having brothers and sisters in the Bible. This does not include that the book of Jude and James were written by His brothers. These references can be found in Mat 12:46-50; Mat 13:55-56; Mar 3:31-32; Luk 8:19-20; Joh 2:12; Joh 7:2-3,5,10; Acts 1:14. The Greek word for brother used in these passages is "adelphos" (G80). That word is translated in the KJV as "brethren," 226 times; "brother," 113 times; and "brother's," 7 times. Some may say, "But that word is used for relative or kin. If the writer wanted to express the brothers of Jesus as "kin" he could have used the Greek word "suggenēs" (G4773) which is translated as "kinsmen," 5 times; "kinsman," 2 times; "cousin," 1 time; "cousins," 1 time; "kin," 1 time; "kinsfolk," 1 time; and "kinsfolks," 1 time. Therefore, it is clear that the word "brother" as used in the above-referenced verses literally means "brother." Furthermore, although this word can mean "brother in the spirit" it is not used in that manner here. If it were, there would have not been made a distinction between His brethren and His disciples (Mat 12:50). Surely His disciples were brothers of Jesus in a spiritual sense since they were doing the will of the Father, but Jesus typically called them his disciples. Furthermore, His brothers didn't even believe Him to be who He claimed to be (Joh 7:5) so why would they have been called His brothers. Therefore, if His brothers (who weren't really His brothers according to Catholics) were called "brothers" but didn't actually fit Jesus' definition of "brother," because they didn't even believe Him, why were they called brothers and not cousins, kinfolk, etc. It is because His brothers WERE His brothers in the flesh. Catholicism is SO confusing!
Third, I have heard by Catholics that Joseph had children from a previous marriage. This is were they claim his brothers and sisters came from that are noted in the Bible. They are only STEP-siblings according to these mislead Catholics. But if that were the case, why are they not mentioned in Mat 2:13-14 when the angel warned Joseph in a dream to "flee into Egypt." Let's read Mat 2:13-14. "...behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. (14) When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:" If Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, why weren't they with Mary, Joseph, and Jesus? Maybe it was because Joseph was divorced and his previous wife had the children at that time? NOT. Joseph was a "just man" (Mat 1:19). So Joseph couldn't have been divorced. The only option would be for the previous wife to have died. If that were the case they should have had all those children with them. This same situation can be seen in Luke 2:16 as well when the shepherds "found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger."
What we need to do is simply interpret the Bible literally unless the passage makes no sense interpretting it that way. We need to stop reading the Bible with our doctrine-tainted glasses on and believe what God's word says. May God Bless You as you search for His truth.
