Icon of the Holy Family
I wish that the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry will be true to its name. As an apologetics and research ministry, it is expected to do in-depth research before it publishes its article on the web. It could have saved itself from needless embarrassment when its articles have been proven to be thoroughly deficient, totally unsubstantiated, grossly unscholarly and utterly baseless.
The Bereans’ type of sordid argumentation is best seen in its own moderator and official spokesperson – GERALD, a.k.a. RODIMUS – an amateur apologist who spreads his ignorance on the Internet with impunity.
Here’s how Rodimus of the Bereans argue (his words are in red):
Finally, Atty. Llasos is confident that the perpetual virginity of Mary is irrefutable that he challenged me to answer these questions:
1) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus?”
2) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary is the mother of the brothers of Jesus?”
Note that Rodimus never answered these questions. He could not give me the two verses I asked him to cite.
Yet, he simply contented himself by giving an evasive, non-responsive reply –
As I understand it correctly, in order for Atty. Llasos to be convinced that Mary had other children, he wants Bible verses that say these people are Mary’s children.
Of course, I want Bible verses that say that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are Mary’s children. Until now, Rodimus can’t give me any. Verse please, Mr. Sola Scriptura?
He is still not convinced of the Greek word adelphos and the context of Matthew 13:55. He wants it clear that these people were born from (sic) Mary. I’m sorry to say that the above questions of Atty. Llasos are born from prejudice.
This is just your opinion. It’s just that you cannot give me the verses, period.
I am convinced that the Greek word adelphos and the “context” of Matthew 13:55 do not conclusively prove that those called as the “brothers” of Jesus are Mary’s children. I am not alone in saying this. Evangelical David Gustafson conceded: “I admit that the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 69].
If an evangelical admitted that the Gospel account in Matthew 13:55 is not absolutely decisive in proving that Mary had other children aside from Jesus, he would not be accused of prejudice. If a Catholic like me believed similarly, Rodimus is quick to point his furtive at me and accuse me of prejudice. Double standard at its best!
What about the word adelphos? Here’s how it is defined by The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament –
άδελφός
a brother; near kinsman or relative; one of the same nation or native; one of equal rank and dignity; an associate; a member of the Christian community.
See: William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1993) p. 52.
So, Greek experts and scholars like William D. Mounce acknowledge that άδελφός also mean “near kinsman or relative.” Once again, the sloppy research typical of the Bereans rears its ugly head.
What about the context of Matthew 13:55 which Rodimus did not bother to explain?
Here’s how Bible scholars explain the context of the pericope in Mathew 13:55-56 and its parallel in Mark 6:3 –
“To the people of Nazareth, Jesus is the local boy, and they know of no reason why he should have turned out to be any different from the rest of his family” [R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002) p. 242].
“The simplest understanding is best. Jesus is “the carpenter, the son of Mary,” a local manual laborer whose father had died some years back. We may paraphrase their exclamation to reflect its small-town gossipy nature: “Who is this guy? Is he not the carpenter? You know, Mary’s boy?” The description says little about Mary…” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 38].
So, what is the context are you referring to, Rodimus?
Let me prove that. The Bible mentions of Lazarus, Martha and Mary Magdalene in Luke 10, John 11-12. We all know that these people have a sibling relationship. The Greek words used are adelphos for Lazarus while adelphi for Martha and Mary Magdalene. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms the following:
Lazarus – This personage was the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania
Martha – … by St. John when he tells us that “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus.”
Mary Magdalene – the sister of Martha and Lazarus
By Rodimus very admission, “we all know that these people have a sibling relationship,” there’s no issue as regards the relationship between Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Since it is not contested, why belabor a non-issue?
However, I can’t let this moment pass without commenting on the Bereans’ scholarship (or the lack of it). It citing the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Rodimus curiously omitted the exact volume and page numbers if indeed he checked the Catholic Encyclopedia. I wonder if the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry owns a complete set of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Nevertheless, the Catholic Encyclopedia is available online at www.newadvent.org.
The Bereans, if they are scholarly enough, should learn how to cite or acknowledge their sources properly. But they are so reckless and clumsy that they don’t bother to properly cite their references. Their intent in hiding their sources is clear: they don’t want us to check the facts.
At any rate, here’s the complete entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding Lazarus, Martha and Mary –
LAZARUS –
This personage was the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania; all three were beloved friends of Jesus (John 11:5). At the request of the two sisters Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:41-44). Soon thereafter, the Saturday before Palm Sunday, Lazarus took part in the banquet which Simon the Leper gave to Jesus in Bethania (Matthew 26:6-16; Mark 14:3-11; John 12:1-11). Many of the Jews believed in Jesus because of Lazarus, whom the chief priests now sought to put to death. The Gospels tell us no more of Lazarus. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09096a.htm).
MARTHA -
Mentioned only in Luke 10:38-42; and John 11, 12, sqq. The Aramaic form occurs in a Nabatæan inscription found at Puteoli, and now in the Naples Museum; it is dated A.D. 5 (Corpus Inscr. Semit., 158); also in a Palmyrene inscription, where the Greek translation has the form Marthein, A.D. 179.
Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are represented by St. John as living at Bethania, but St. Luke would seem to imply that they were, at least at one time, living in Galilee; he does not mention the name of the town, but it may have been Magdala, and we should thus, supposing Mary of Bethania and Mary Magdalene to be the same person, understand the appellative “Magdalene”. The words of St. John (11:1) seem to imply a change of residence for the family. It is possible, too, that St. Luke has displaced the incident referred to in Chapter 10. The likeness between the pictures of Martha presented by Luke and John is very remarkable. The familiar intercourse between the Saviour of the world and the humble family which St. Luke depicts is dwelt on by St. John when he tells us that “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus” (11:5). Again the picture of Martha’s anxiety (John 11:20-21, 39) accords with the picture of her who was “busy about much serving” (Luke 10:40); so also in John 12:2: “They made him a supper there: and Martha served.” But St. John has given us a glimpse of the other and deeper side of her character when he depicts her growing faith in Christ’s Divinity (11:20-27), a faith which was the occasion of the words: “I am the resurrection and the life.” The Evangelist has beautifully indicated the change that came over Martha after that interview: “When she had said these things, she went and called her sister Mary secretly, saying: The Master is come, and calleth for thee.”
Difficulties have been raised about the last supper at Bethania. St. John seems to put it six days before the Pasch, and, so some conclude, in the house of Martha; while the Synoptic account puts it two days before the Pasch, and in the house of Simon the Leper. We need not try to avoid this difficulty by asserting that there were two suppers; for St. John does not say that the supper took place six days before, but only that Christ arrived in Bethania six days before the Pasch; nor does he say that it was in the house of Martha. We are surely justified in arguing that, since St. Matthew and St. Mark place the scene in the house of Simon, St. John must be understood to say the same; it remains to be proved that Martha could not “serve” in Simon’s house. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09721b.htm).
ST. MARY MAGDALEN
Mary Magdalen was so called either from Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee, or possibly from a Talmudic expression meaning “curling women’s hair,” which the Talmud explains as of an adulteress.
In the New Testament she is mentioned among the women who accompanied Christ and ministered to Him (Luke 8:2-3), where it is also said that seven devils had been cast out of her (Mark 16:9). She is next named as standing at the foot of the cross (Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56; John 19:25; Luke 23:49). She saw Christ laid in the tomb, and she was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection.
The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three persons:
the “sinner” of Luke 7:36-50;
the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke 10:38-42 and John 11; and Mary Magdalen.
On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons. It is impossible to demonstrate the identity of the three; but those commentators undoubtedly go too far who assert, as does Westcott (on John 11:1), “that the identity of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenour of the gospels.” It is the identification of Mary of Bethany with the “sinner” of Luke 7:37, which is most combatted by Protestants. It almost seems as if this reluctance to identify the “sinner” with the sister of Martha were due to a failure to grasp the full significance of the forgiveness of sin. The harmonizing tendencies of so many modern critics, too, are responsible for much of the existing confusion.
The first fact, mentioned in the Gospel relating to the question under discussion is the anointing of Christ’s feet by a woman, a “sinner” in the city (Luke 7:37-50). This belongs to the Galilean ministry, it precedes the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and the third Passover. Immediately afterwards St. Luke describes a missionary circuit in Galilee and tells us of the women who ministered to Christ, among them being “Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth” (Luke 8:2); but he does not tell us that she is to be identified with the “sinner” of the previous chapter. In 10:38-42, he tells us of Christ’s visit to Martha and Mary “in a certain town”; it is impossible to identify this town, but it is clear from 9:53, that Christ had definitively left Galilee, and it is quite possible that this “town” was Bethany. This seems confirmed by the preceding parable of the good Samaritan, which must almost certainly have been spoken on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. But here again we note that there is no suggestion of an identification of the three persons (the “sinner”, Mary Magdalen, and Mary of Bethany), and if we had only St. Luke to guide us we should certainly have no grounds for so identifying them. St. John, however, clearly identifies Mary of Bethany with the woman who anointed Christ’s feet (12; cf. Matthew 26 and Mark 14). It is remarkable that already in 11:2, St. John has spoken of Mary as “she that anointed the Lord’s feet”, he aleipsasa; It is commonly said that he refers to the subsequent anointing which he himself describes in 12:3-8; but it may be questioned whether he would have used he aleipsasa if another woman, and she a “sinner” in the city, had done the same. It is conceivable that St. John, just because he is writing so long after the event and at a time when Mary was dead, wishes to point out to us that she was really the same as the “sinner.” In the same way St. Luke may have veiled her identity precisely because he did not wish to defame one who was yet living; he certainly does something similar in the case of St. Matthew whose identity with Levi the publican (5:7) he conceals.
If the foregoing argument holds good, Mary of Bethany and the “sinner” are one and the same. But an examination of St. John’s Gospel makes it almost impossible to deny the identity of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalen. From St. John we learn the name of the “woman” who anointed Christ’s feet previous to the last supper. We may remark here that it seems unnecessary to hold that because St. Matthew and St. Mark say “two days before the Passover”, while St. John says “six days” there were, therefore, two distinct anointings following one another. St. John does not necessarily mean that the supper and the anointing took place six days before, but only that Christ came to Bethany six days before the Passover. At that supper, then, Mary received the glorious encomium, “she hath wrought a good work upon Me . . . in pouring this ointment upon My body she hath done it for My burial . . . wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached . . . that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her.” Is it credible, in view of all this, that this Mary should have no place at the foot of the cross, nor at the tomb of Christ? Yet it is Mary Magdalen who, according to all the Evangelists, stood at the foot of the cross and assisted at the entombment and was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection. And while St. John calls her “Mary Magdalen” in 19:25, 20:1, and 20:18, he calls her simply “Mary” in 20:11 and 20:16.
In the view we have advocated the series of events forms a consistent whole; the “sinner” comes early in the ministry to seek for pardon; she is described immediately afterwards as Mary Magdalen “out of whom seven devils were gone forth”; shortly after, we find her “sitting at the Lord’s feet and hearing His words.” To the Catholic mind it all seems fitting and natural. At a later period Mary and Martha turn to “the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, and He restores to them their brother Lazarus; a short time afterwards they make Him a supper and Mary once more repeats the act she had performed when a penitent. At the Passion she stands near by; she sees Him laid in the tomb; and she is the first witness of His Resurrection–excepting always His Mother, to whom He must needs have appeared first, though the New Testament is silent on this point. In our view, then, there were two anointings of Christ’s feet–it should surely be no difficulty that St. Matthew and St. Mark speak of His head–the first (Luke 7) took place at a comparatively early date; the second, two days before the last Passover. But it was one and the same woman who performed this pious act on each occasion. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm).
Unless the Catholic Encyclopedia itself was originally written in Aramaic, it’s safe to say that they verify the sibling relationship with the use of the English words brother and sister and not cousins or relatives.
This is a red herring. The Catholic Encyclopedia need not be originally written in Aramaic for our Catholic scholars to verify the sibling relationship of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Internal scriptural evidence supports the conclusion that they are siblings unlike in the case of Jesus and his “brothers and sisters.”
How does this concern Atty. Llasos? The Bible does not mention that the three are children of the same parents. Neither were their parents are mentioned in the Bible. Since the parents are unidentified, would Atty. Llasos say that they are cousins just like what he theorize to the brothers of Christ?
It doesn’t matter if the parents of Lazarus, Martha and Mary are not mentioned in the Bible in order to conclude that they are siblings. As I said, internal scriptural evidence supports that conclusion.
Cursory reading of the scriptural accounts about them gives the impression that they are siblings. The three lived in the same house as siblings normally do. In John 12:1-3, we are told that Jesus “came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.”
Would he even follow the theory of Mr. Evert that it (is) not the Catholic position that the three are cousins?
Like a broken record, Rodimus keeps repeating this long answered issue.
If he ever accepts that the three have a sibling relationship, then why is he being rough on the brothers of Christ by implying that it is not enough that they are called brothers and that we should show they are Mary’s children? Prejudice at its best.
Rodimus just doesn’t get the point. Internal scriptural support warrants the conclusion that Lazarus, Martha and Mary are siblings. By just reading the Gospel accounts about them, one gets the impression that the three are indeed siblings. I already mentioned John 12:1-3, supra.
Also, Luke 10:3842 leaves no doubt as to the sibling relationship between Martha and Mary –
“Now as they went on their way, he entered a village; and a woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”
Martha was concerned with the division of the household chores!
What about the Gospel accounts on the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus? Since Rodimus already accused me of “prejudice at its best” [while his is prejudice at its worst], I shall be contented in citing an evangelical source instead. I wonder if Rodimus would also accuse his brother evangelical of prejudice. Evangelical David Gustafson said that “the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” (against Mary’s perpetual virginity, see supra).
Now Atty. Llasos may say he knows that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are siblings because of historical evidence.
Rodimus here employs pre-emptive strike. He tries to steal my thunder. Nevertheless, as I’ve already pointed out, my argument rests not only on historical evidence but on internal scriptural evidence as well.
But that would put Mr. Evert’s position in jeopardy because the Roman Catholic scholars have exerted effort to identify the relationship of the three but failed to do so in the brothers of Christ.
This is a non-issue for us Catholics. The exact relationship between Jesus and his “brothers” is not church-dividing for us Catholics. In fact, our Orthodox brothers and sisters also share our belief. The Orthodox churches, despite their separation for more than 900 years from the Catholic Church, share the same view regarding the so-called “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus. Orthodox Peter E. Gillquist comments: “For one thing, the Scriptures never call them the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph.” He continues –
“Scripture is therefore silent concerning the nature of the relationships between Christ and these brothers and sisters. Early Fathers differed slightly in their understanding of what the terms meant. Some, such as Saint Ambrose believed that the “brothers” were children of a former marriage between Joseph and a wife who died prior to the events of Matthew, chapter 1. Others taught the “brothers” were cousins. But on one point, almost everyone is in agreement: Mary and Joseph had no sexual union whatsoever before or after the birth of Christ” [Peter E. Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox – A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith (Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1990) p. 111]. (underscoring supplied)
Wouldn’t that be ironic? A supposedly 2,000 year old infallible Roman Catholic Church cannot identify the actual relationship of the brothers of Christ in Matthew 13:55 but was able to verify that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are siblings despite the lack of biblical information concerning their parents.
I wonder if Rodimus actually knows what is meant by “infallibility” as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. I have no time or desire to give him a tutorial on this. All I know is that from his short statement, he reveals his absolute ignorance about the concept of “infallibility.”
I note that Rodimus, by sheer bullheadedness, continues to repeat questions that have long been answered.
We have already pointed out that it’s not an issue for us Catholics (as well as for our Orthodox brothers and sisters) to identify the exact relationship of the brothers of Christ in Matthew 13:55. It’s sufficient that they are not Mary’s children. There is no necessity for the Church to define just because Rodimus would have it so. The Church leaves the matter for exegetes and Bible scholars, of which Rodimus is not, to study and determine the exact relationship between Jesus and his “brothers.”
As evangelical Prof. Tim Perry explains that “[t]he continued virginity of Mary is not a concern of New Testament authors. Had the question not arisen as a result of later theological debates, it would not arise here. But it did arise later and has caused exegetes to try to determine just what the relationship was between Jesus and his siblings. We can conclude that the actual grammar of the texts leaves room for debate. Grammatically, Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” may or may not have been other children of Mary” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 40].
I already answered Rodimus’ concern on why we understand Lazarus, Martha, and Mary as siblings despite the lack of biblical information concerning their parents. We base this on internal scriptural evidence that leaves no doubt as to their exact relationships. In the case of Jesus Christ, it’s an altogether different matter. Prof. Tim Perry notes that “[o]n strictly biblical terms, the most that can be said is that the semantic range of the Greek word adelphos can include blood siblings, stepsiblings or half siblings and close relatives. As a result, the East has understood the relevant New Testament passages to refer to Mary’s stepchildren while the West has taken them to denote Jesus’ cousins. Without arbitrating between the two traditions, are there reasons to follow them in “stretching” the elasticity of adelphos? Three may be give. First, we have the actions of Jesus on the cross according to John 19:26-27. If this account is both a theological account of the way in which Jesus’ death creates new family bonds and an apostolic memory of Mary’s presence at Calvary, then we are free to wonder with Athanasius and others just why Jesus – the firstborn – did not entrust his mother to his siblings, but to his beloved disciple. Many answers, all of them speculative, can be offered. The simplest is that there were no other family members …”
Unlike in the case of Lazarus, Martha and Mary where the Bible unequivocably makes clear that they are siblings, Jesus’ relationship with his “brothers” suggests that they are not siblings but mere close relations, most strongly, cousins. This is so because at least two of His so-called brothers in Matthew 13:55 and ark 6:3 are said to be children of another Mary identified in Mark 15:40 as Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses. If the first two named “brothers” of Jesus (James and Joses) are children of a different mother, then the remaining two (Jude and Simon) no longer be conclusively held to be the children of Mary the mother of Jesus because it would then be absurd to first mention those who are not actual siblings of Jesus before his real siblings.
Rodimus demurred from the foregoing analysis by lamely claiming that the James the less (or the younger) and Joses mentioned as children of Mary in Mark 15:40 are different from the James and Joses who are the said to be the brothers of the Lord in Matthew 15:55 and Mark 6:3. Prof. Tim Perry disagrees. He says –
“Our final stop in Mark is the cross and tomb. The male disciples have fled (Mk. 14:50); only female disciples bear witness to Jesus’ final hours. Three are named because of their status as witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome (Mk. 15:40). After Jesus’ death, the two Marys remain with Joseph of Arimathea to inter the body (Mk. 15:43, 47). Finally, on Easter morning all three return to the tomb to embalm the body (Mk. 16:1) ….
Finally, the description of James as “the younger” or “the less” seems to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee among the Twelve. If so, then this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus (cf. Mk. 3:18)” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 38, 39].
James Strong, STD, LLD, identifies Alphaeus and Cleophas (Cleopas) to be the same person. In page 48 of The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the entry on Alphaeus states See Cleopas. In page 203, the entry for Cleopas states See Alphaeus, Cleopas; while the entry for Cleophas states See Cleopas, husband of Mary [James Strong, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1990) p. 554].
So, it appears that my analysis in my comment to Dr. Pezzotta that Mary the wife of Cleophas is the mother of James and Joses is clearly attested to in scholarly Protestant sources. Thus, I restate here what I wrote Dr. Pezzotta –
“In Mark 15:40, the “Mary” mentioned as the mother of James and Joses is not Mary the mother of Jesus. In the Gospels, Mary the mother of Jesus is never identified as the mother of someone else but always “the mother of Jesus.” Clearly, the “Mary” mentioned in Mark 15:40 as the mother of James and Joses is not Mary the mother of Our Lord because the synoptic Gospels have no reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary as being present in Calvary. We owe it to the Johannine Gospel which mentions the Blessed Virgin Mary’s presence at the foot of the Cross (Jn. 19:25).
Who is that “Mary” the mother of James and Joses? She is the “other Mary” significantly mentioned in Matthew 28:1 (KJV): “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” That “other Mary” cannot be Mary the mother of Our Lord because she is not mentioned as among those women who went to the tomb on Easter Sunday.
In John 19:25, we read about the women who stood at the foot of the cross: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
John identifies three women at the foot of the Cross:
1. Mary, the mother of Jesus
2. Mary, the wife of Cleophas (His mother’s sister)
3. Mary Magdalene
Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is the mother of James and Joses. Significantly, in Matthew 10:3, James is said to be the son of Alphaeus. Alphaeus is another name for Cleophas.[1] Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is therefore the mother of James (and Joses). Hence, James and Joses are called “brothers” of Jesus because they are His “cousins.” Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Cleophas (and the mother of James and Joses) are “sisters.”[2]
Rodimus would rather be caught dead than to admit that the James the son of Mary (Mark 15:40) is different from the James known as the ‘brother’ of the Lord in Matthew 13:55. Apparently, he did not consult any scholarly references. His own authority in maintaining so is his lonesome self – an amateur apologist whose credentials are minuscule compared to that of Dr. James Strong of the famous “Strong’s Concordance.”
Dr. James Strong, in The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, clearly identifies James the son of Mary in Mark 15:40 as James the brother of the Lord –
JAMES
3. Brother of Jesus
and his brethren, J, and Joses, and Mt. 13:55 2385
and Mary the mother of J and Joses Mt. 27:56 2385
the son of Mary, the brother of J Mk. 6:3 2385
and Mary the mother of J the less Mk. 15:40 2385
and Mary the mother of J, and Mk. 16:1 2385
and Judas the brother of James Acts 1:13 2385
said, Go shew these things unto J Acts 12:17 2385
J answered, saying, Men and Acts15:13 2385
Paul went in with us unto J Acts 21:18 2385
Save J the Lord’s brother Gal. 1:19 2385
And when J, Cephas and John, who Gal. 2:9 2385
Before that certain came from J Gal. 2:12 2385
J, as servant of God and of the Ja. 1:1 2385
Of Jesus Christ, the brother of J Jude 1 2385
[See: James Strong, The New Strong’s Concordance (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1990) p. 554]
What say you, Rodimus? You eloquently demonstrated for all to see the sloppy research, poor argumentation and deficient analysis of the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry.
CONCLUSION: The Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (Bereans), like their good friend Rev. Anthony Pezzotta whom they dropped like hot potato, has proven ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Better luck next time.
POSTSCRIPT: RODIMUS has already quit the field of battle on this issue, and now trains his guns on the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of the BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.
[1] Easton’s Bible Dictionary:
“Alphaeus – (1) the father of James the Less, the apostle and writer of the epistle (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13), and the husband of Mary (John 19:25). The Hebrew form of this name is Cleopas, or Clopas.”
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon:
“2832 – Klopas – (1) the father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”
Available at Libronix Digital Library System (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corporation, 2002-2006).
[2] Mary the mother of the Lord, and Mary the wife of Cleophas were not uterine sisters but were rather cousins or relatives because it was unlikely for a family to have two daughters with the same name (Mary).