Let me start by saying that Mary was a godly, wonderful woman who struggled with God the same way we all do. She loved all her sons and was a faithful servant of God. I will be glad to have a long conversation with her in heaven about baby Jesus as I think that will be fun. I am so curious if Jesus got acne. Now that being said, I don’t hate Mary. I think the worship and dogmas of Rome would make Mary ashamed and angry. I think she loved God and would be horrified by people bowing down to a statue of her. Everything I say of the Marian dogmas comes from respect to God and Mary and shame of the Roman Catholic church and its doctrines.

Why am I talking about Mary at all? There are 4 Roman Catholic dogmas you have to believe, or you are going to hell. These are the 4 Marian dogmas (among others, which we will cover later). That Mary was born without sin (immaculate conception), that she was a forever virgin (temple virgin), that she is the mother of God, and that she was taken directly into heaven (assumption of Mary). 3 of these are clearly false and one is misleading.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is particularly indefensible, as the Bible emphatically states she had at least seven children. If she did have other kids, then Catholicism is false since they were declared infallibly. Now many Roman Catholic doctrines are declared infallibly and easily proven to be false. Which I will do in a long series of posts. We’ll go over the background some but if you just want to jump into the proof Mary wasn’t an ever-virgin click here.

The Immaculate Conception

The immaculate conception of Mary and the perpetual virginity of Mary come from the same source so we will tackle them together at the same time. They both come from an apocryphal writing that several church leaders have denounced since its creation, the infancy gospel of James. This should not be confused with the biblical book of James. It is a book that covers Mary’s Birth and Jesus’s birth. It is supposedly written by one of Jesus’ brothers, James. Even though it only started circulating after his brother was already dead for 100 years, around 145 AD. The infancy gospel of James lacks historical and theological credibility.

This book is a mess (It’s quite entertaining to read as a comedy though). It clearly contradicts the bible in several spots when it comes to Jesus’ birth, Mary’s lineage, Mary and Joseph’s marriage, and history, but the most notable thing it does is tell a story of how Mary was supposedly immaculately conceived (born without a father and without sin) and was committed to be a temple virgin. There is never any direct mention of Mary’s parents in the bible (outside of Matthew 1’s genealogy naming her father Joseph) and there is no mention of her serving in the temple.

Surely, if she was a temple virgin (if those even existed), she would have responded differently when Gabriel told her she would be pregnant. She responds with “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”. She would instead say something along the lines of “How can this be since I am committed to the LORD and cannot have sex?”. You might think those are very similar passages but not to God. Breaking an oath of that sort would be a serious sin worthy of death. She would have responded differently being the god-fearing woman that she was.

This story started to spread throughout the church and by the 400’s it was the common view. In part, thanks to influential writers like Augustine of Hippo. Now it’s important to note that the immaculate conception has NO biblical support. Which isn’t an issue for Catholics, but it should be for Christians. There is no credibility to the infancy gospel of James as well. It routinely gets history, geography, Jewish practices, and general information wrong.

Temple Virgins

Now on the subject of “temple virgins”. These don’t exist from a biblical perspective. They also didn’t exist at Herod’s temple. The only evidence of them is Exodus 38:8 but there is no mention of the forced virginity of the women who minister at the entrance of the tent of meeting. More than likely, these women would be the wives of the priests who served in the temple. Since priests themselves were not forced to be virgins (they actually were expected to be married before serving).

Really no one is forced to be a virgin by God. Marriage is a beautiful thing that God created in order to strengthen us. Child-rearing makes us closer to God (saying this as a dad). Even if temple virgins started to exist at some point in time during the dark period between Malachi and mark, it would not have been God-induced or inspired. Forced virginity is a deeply un-Jewish idea.

The high priest and the Nazirite alike were not required to be a virgin or unwed. They were encouraged to wed most of the time and even forced in some cases (Leviticus 16:6, 21:13, etc.). So, the concept of perpetual virginity is foreign to God. Sex is made for marriage and is a wonderful God-given thing to glorify him if done within marriage. To restrict this act is denounced by God through Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:5 and also called a doctrine of demons when applied to the church (1 Timothy 4:1-5). It would have been wrong to be married to Joseph and deny him sex. Just as it would be wrong for Joseph to deny Mary sex after Jesus was born.

The infancy gospel of James explains their marriage as her being given to Joseph because she started her period and thus was “unclean” to serve in the temple. How in the world is there such a thing as a temple virgin? Could they only serve in the temple until they hit puberty and then stop and then start again when they finish menopause? It makes no sense from that perspective. Women have their period their entire lives for the most part (especially back then when living that long was uncommon). So how could a woman only serve in the temple while she wasn’t having a period?

She also didn’t live or serve in the temple after Jesus and thus would have broken the covenant her supposed parents had given her. So, we know that Mary was not a temple virgin and if she was, she broke her commandment and sinned by living outside of the temple and shirking her duties.

The Betrothal

The first major clue to refute common teachings about this couple is that they were already married. They were betrothed before she got pregnant. This is a big deal. In Jewish custom of the day, the difference between a betrothal and a marriage is sex and a house. Other than that, there is no other difference. It is very different from the common idea of “engaged” in the west today. They were legally married, and the only way to break out of a betrothal was through divorce. This is the reason in Matthew 1:19 that Joseph was planning to divorce her and why he was called her husband.

They were already married before Yahweh revealed to her through Gabriel that she would bare Jesus. They had finished their marriage contract before his birth. Which is them moving in together. After a betrothal, the man was to build/purchase a home for the new family and then they were to have a final celebration and sex. They finished these without having sex to fulfill the prophecy about the virgin conceiving the Messiah. Which we get from the text. The fact that they had to include the part about completing the marriage without having sex shows that they had sex afterward. The Jewish law only had marriage be valid if sex occurred. We know they had a legal and valid marriage, so they had sex.

The view that Joseph was an old man and just the guardian of Mary, uninterested in sex, is also refuted by this verse. They were betrothed before Gabriel came. He didn’t marry her out of obligation or because she needed a guardian. They were already married. He needed to build a home for her so it was likely not his second wife, or the betrothal period would not have been so long. It would have likely been 30 days if he already had a home and was married before. 30 days is not enough time for them to even find out she was pregnant let alone have the wedding ceremony, live together for some time, and then travel to Bethlehem to have the baby.

How old was Mary

Also, Mary was called a young woman which means she was at least 15-20 years old and was not 12 like some suggest. The idea that Mary and Joseph agreed to not have sex even though they married for love to begin with, is crazy to me. Sex is a gift from God; as are children. They did plenty of each and ended up with at least 7 kids. I don’t understand the concept that forgoing sex is a good thing in marriage. We are commanded to limit the time that we will not have sex in marriage so that we are not tempted. God’s first command to humans was to have sex inside the confines of marriage and procreate.

Also, in the bible the only way you can confirm a marriage is to consummate it via sex. It is the act that enacts the marriage covenant. Without it you are not truly married. Even in our legal system. If you do not have sex with your wife, you can easily file for divorce and annul the marriage. It would be considered sinful by the Jews (the people, not the law) to not engage in sex with your spouse. So, in no way would this have been a legitimate thing for Mary to be. So, Mary was not an “ever-virgin”, but she was a virgin when Jesus was naturally birthed (Gospel of James contradicts the birth story of Jesus).

We even see the commandment given to them indicate that they did in fact have sex after Jesus in Matthew 1:25. “??? ??? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ????”, “but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son”. The key word here is “???” (he?s), which means “until.” This word suggests a period of time up to a certain point, in this case, the birth of Jesus. The verb “?????????” (egin?sken) is the imperfect form of “???????” (gin?sk?), often used in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) as a euphemism for sexual relations.

If she had no other kids Luke 2:7 would not say firstborn, it would say only son. They had words to denote all of these differences in Greek God didn’t use them. The Greek grammar here indicates that the sex took place after his birth and her ceremonial period. There is no amount of Greek Fu you can try and pull to make the text say anything other than they had sex and still be intellectually honest.

The Siblings

We also know Mary had other children. This is a hotly debated topic so let’s look closely at all the evidence we have for it slowly. By Mary having other children, I am making the claim that Jesus’ brothers and sisters as described most clearly by Mark 6:3 (James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon along with his sisters) are the children of Joseph and Mary. Not Jesus’ cousins or stepbrothers. The Greek word for brothers (???????, adelphon and its variants) is indeed used in a wide number of ways but it also means biological brothers most of the time. So, let’s look at the use cases of it when describing blood brothers and every time it is used for Jesus’ brothers or Mary’s sons. 

Mark 1:16, 3:17, 15:40, 16:1; Matthew 12:46, 13:55, 4:18, 27:56, 28:1; Luke 8:19-21, 24:10; John 19:27, 7:5; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1; Acts 12:2

That is a lot. The easiest claim to debunk is that it only meant cousin. This is strictly debunked by Mark 6:3.

“??? ????? ????? ? ??????, ? ???? ??? ??????, ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ???????; ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ????;”. “Is 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?”.

The verse mentions Jesus in relation to his mother, Mary, and then immediately lists his brothers and sisters. This structure mirrors the typical way of describing a nuclear family in ancient texts. In this context, “brothers” (???????, adelphos) and “sisters” (???????, adelphai) are placed right after mentioning Mary, which naturally suggests that they are her children as well. This method of naming family members is consistent with all other Hellenistic era writings. The same pattern is also used for naming James and John the sons of Zebedee. Every instance we have of adelphos in the bible with names indicates direct blood connections. When referring to cousins or extended kin in other Greek literature, the terms used are different and often accompanied by clarifying phrases. The straightforward listing of names as “brothers” and “sisters” without such qualifiers in Mark 6:3 suggests immediate family.

Cousins?

Also, Paul uses a word for cousin in the New Testament (Colossians 4:10), ??????? (anepsios) which literally means cousin. The authors have access to the correct term if they meant for it to be cousin for his siblings. The passages where Jesus’ brothers and sisters are mentioned often place them directly alongside Mary, his mother, without further clarification, which supports the interpretation that these are his immediate family members. For instance, in Matthew 12:46-50 and Mark 3:31-35, Jesus’ mother and brothers are mentioned together, indicating a close familial relationship.

So right away we are already down to 2 options. Half-brothers or stepbrothers. Stepbrother would imply that they are older than Jesus and that Joseph was a widower. We don’t really see this in the gospels, and it mainly comes from apocryphal writings that contradict what is in the bible. What we do see is that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is also called Mary the mother of James and Joseph.

John 7 claims they are his brothers as well in no uncertain terms. It also shows that his brothers didn’t believe in him which is consistent with what we know of James and Jude and of what we know of his family in the other gospels. If the intention was to denote cousins or stepsiblings, it would be more likely for the text to provide additional context or clarification, as seen in other parts of the New Testament where relationships are more explicitly defined.

Mary is identified as the mother of James and Joses/Joseph in Acts 1:14, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, Mark 15:40, Matthew 28:1. We know that James the lesser refers to the younger James of his followers and that he is the brother of Jesus. Making Mary both Jesus and James the lesser’s brother. We also know that Mary was at the cross and also spent all that time with the disciples (from the cross till Pentecost, she didn’t follow him for most of his ministry). It would be weird for the women who were with the disciples to go to the tomb and not have Mary, the mother of Jesus, go as well. So, from context and common sense, we can say that Mary the mother of James (the other Mary) is also Mary the mother of Jesus. That concept is consistent throughout the gospels. 

In the letter of Jude, he claims to be James’ brother. James does not claim to be anyone’s brother, but others claim that he is Jesus’s brother such as Paul in Galatians 1:19 and 1st Corinthians 9:5. So, we have many sources claiming that James, Jude, and Joseph are brothers to Jesus and that Mary is their mom. Amen! I’m glad Mary had a full life and many children to fill her quiver (Psalm 127:4-5). I am also glad that at least 2 of them were also saved after doubting their brother to begin with!

Bone Box of James

The James Ossuary may also be another piece of evidence for James being the brother of Jesus. Most Catholics will call this a hoax, but the recent investigations done in 2023 have shown more light on this artifact. The bone box contained this inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. Most bone boxes don’t include sibling names unless that person was a celebrity or widely known. I would say Jesus fits that description. Also, bone boxes were only used for a tiny sliver of Jewish history which just so happens to include the time period in which James died in. The inscription appears to be authentic from the recent reports on it and would be a nail in the coffin of this false doctrine.

Hegesippus and Eusebius also wrote about James being the brother of Jesus in Ecclesiastical History. Josephus also mentions James as being the brother of Jesus in book 20 of Antiquities of the Jews.

Jesus doesn’t praise Mary

²⁷ As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

²⁸ He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” – Luke 11

If Jesus wanted a great place to show that Mary was to be blessed and honored and deified above all other humans in history, this would surely be a great place to do it! Surely if Mary was the “queen mother” or a sinless human, through which we are saved, he wouldn’t have rebuked the woman in the crowd but said “Amen! My mother is blessed and is fundamental in your relationship with God and salvation!”. He didn’t.

Jesus doesn’t affirm what the woman said but appears to be rebutting it. This one verse I don’t see any possible way for the Catholic to truly reconcile it with their view of Mary and her relationship with Jesus. Mary didn’t wait on him hand and foot like many Catholics believe. She was just a normal person. Mary was a godly wonderful woman, but she was not the doting, always believing woman who served Jesus his entire life like what is portrayed in Roman Catholicism and even taught by some popes and apologists.

She and Joseph also forgot him in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). If he was her only purpose in life how could this have happened? If she had 5-7 kids by now (and likely a newborn) it’s totally understandable that they would leave Jesus behind. I only have 2 kids and I can only imagine the craziness of traveling back then. Mary also doubted his teachings and she didn’t follow him for almost the entirety of his 3-year ministry (she was at the beginning, end and 3 times in the middle). 

Does the bible ever praise Mary? Sure, in passing but does it focus on her? No. She is only mentioned in 9 passages in the entire bible! If she was the co-mediatrix or the co-redemptrix surely God would have mentioned her more, right? James is mentioned more than her by a lot! James actually had a role in the church and Mary doesn’t appear to have one. She is never mentioned again in Acts after Pentecost. This is a striking absence if the Catholic view is correct.

So why was Mary entrusted to John when Jesus died? Well because Joseph (her husband, not her son) was dead and her other sons were unbelieving until they met him after the resurrection. This is consistent with John 7, Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 11:27-28

Truly Sinless?

Now onto the immaculate conception. Since the infancy gospel of James is not a reliable source and has no authority, where can we get the doctrine of Mary being the first sinless human being? No where. If she was the first sinless human Jesus is not needed as Mary could be the sacrifice? Why wasn’t Mary chosen to save humanity? Why did she need a savior (Luke 1:47)? Did Jesus die for Mary’s sin? Yes (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). Did Mary sin? Yes (Romans 3:23). Was she immaculately conceived? No. Is she the only one Luke calls “full of grace”? No (Acts 6:8).

There is nothing special about her conception or her state of sin. She is human and as such is under the curse. Her mom was not impregnated by God. There is also a long list of early church fathers who denied Mary’s sinless nature and her immaculate conception (Origen, Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil, John Chrysostom among many others). Mary was unbelieving in Jesus’s ministry and his claims to be God (Matthew 12:47). This is evident in the gospel of Luke (Luke 2:35, the sword of doubt) and many church fathers’ comment on it without controversy from the church.

If the early church fathers didn’t find it controversial to say Mary had sinned, and just mention as a matter of fact, this clearly shows that this view was an accretion.

Mary had at least 7 children (Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon, Jude, 2+ sisters). She was a godly woman who was blessed to be chosen to give birth to God. She was a sinner and needed the cross like the rest of us. Catholicism is a false religion which has hurt the faith of billions. Come back to Christ. If you want more content like this, check out Mike Winger’s series on Catholicism.