Does Galatians 2:16 Support Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -Luke Lancaster wrote an article in which he defends the Roman Catholic view of justification, arguing that Galatians 2:16 does not exclude works of merit from justification before God, but affirms it to not be on the basis of the Mosaic Law. Right from the beginning of the post, a straw man argument has been erected by the author:

          "On this view, God is not concerned with whether the person obeyed God by living a holy life or whether he was baptized."

           The doctrine of Sola Fide does not mean that God disregards our obedience to Him, but deemphasizes personal merit in obtaining a righteous standing before Him. Another aspect of Lancaster's argument being critiqued is cited here as follows:

         "Paul emphatically rebuked Peter. Man reaches heaven by the universal action of faith, which is always “working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith, as one family of God, which automatically dismantles any separation between them.

          Next, Paul draws out the —the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled by the New Law (Matt. 5:17). Jews and Gentiles have been united by Christ—He has torn down the wall separating them, and Paul cannot “build up again those things which I tore down” (Gal. 2:18). His identity is no longer found in the Mosaic Covenant, he has a new one: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20)."

          The Apostle Paul says that our justification is not by works. The reason given is that we receive a righteous standing before God by faith. In Galatians 2:16, he differentiates between faith and works of the Law. Paul denies that the latter is a way to receive justification before God. This truth is repeated three times in a single passage so as to stress its importance. Those who place their trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ will also serve Him, but that service does not constitute the basis for our justification before God.

          Jesus brought out the true meaning of the Law in contrast with the false teachings of the scribes and Pharisees. This is evident in Matthew 5 when Jesus contrasts His own teaching (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) with "you have heard that it was said" (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). We need to follow the spirit of the Law, not the letter (Matthew 5:20). It already taught obedience from the heart. For instance, the Old Testament forbids hatred as well as murder, lust as well as outward adultery. Job said that he made a covenant to not look lustfully at a woman in defending his innocence (Job 31:1). Proverbs 6:25-26 emphatically says to stay away from promiscuous women.

          "The point of Galatians 2:16, then, is that Gentile Christians do not have to live like Jews. This is because going under the yoke of the Mosaic Law does not lead to salvation. Christians must follow Christ and His way of life (Gal. 6:2). They do what Christ commands, not what Moses commands (John 1:17). Christians need to live by faith, lovingly obeying Christ by loving others, which fulfills the whole Mosaic Law (Rom. 13:8). The Spirit empowers us to love others – and his presence particularly distinguishes the old yoke from the new (Rom. 8:1-4), which has the “circumcision of Christ,” baptism (Col. 2:11-12), and the new Passover, the Eucharist (1 Cor. 5:7, John 6:53).

          Galatians 2:16 has nothing to do with the Catholic belief that good works and receiving the sacraments are necessary, but not sufficient, for salvation. Deciding who spends eternity in heaven remains entirely the prerogative of our loving Creator, who has given ample guidance to the faithful. Our Protestant brothers and sisters have been misled about the meaning of the text, so let us gently show them their error (2 Tim. 2:25)."

          Justification does not depend on obedience to the Mosaic Law for the reason of God declaring us righteous by faith. There are no laws that we can obey to get right with God. The author glosses over what Paul says in Galatians. The Law of Love was literally embedded into the Mosaic system (Leviticus 19:17-18). To say that a person is not justified by the Law encompasses the Law of Love. Love of God and love of neighbor are what sum up the Law in its entirety (Matthew 22:36-40). There is not a single type of good behavior or work of grace that does not fit into those categories. We are saved by faith in God, apart from the merit of any and all good works.

          Galatians 2:16 is not really one of those passages that fits neatly into a New Perspective on Paul framework. For one thing, Paul does not in that text draw any distinction between Jew versus Gentile. His focus is explicitly on faith versus works of the Law. This proves that Paul's argument has a broader element that aligns with the traditional interpretation of his words concerning justification by faith. His discussion cannot simply be reduced to racial categories. Further, Paul quotes Psalm 143:2 in Galatians 2:16, which makes the scope of his argument universal. If the Mosaic Law cannot justify due to human sin, then a stricter “new law” cannot justify either.

Micah 5:2 And The Deity Of Christ

        Micah 5:2 is regarded as a prophecy indicating where the Jewish Messiah would be born, a village called Bethlehem. This passage was written for the purpose of consoling a people devoid of hope, as it describes the arrival of a King in a futuristic sense who will bring about the redemption and restoration of Israel along with a kingdom that exists throughout the world. First century Jewish leaders during the first century understood Micah 5:1-2 to be a messianic prophecy (Matthew 2:3-6; Luke 2:4; John 7:41-42). King David was also born in Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Jesus Christ is the most prominent figure in his lineage, legally speaking. God raised Christ up to rule eternally in David's royal ancestry through a covenantal promise (2 Samuel 7:12-17).

         There is an issue of word rendering in Micah 5:2 as it relates to the divinity of Christ. Translations such as the English Standard Version render the Hebrew word "olam" in this text as from ancient days, while others such as the New American Standard and King James read as from eternity. The Hebrew can either refer to unending time or to some distant point in the past. It can be argued that the Prophet Micah was conveying the meaning of eternity. The King being described in Micah 5:2 has supernatural qualities (compare with Isaiah 9:6).

         Jesus Christ did not exist from eternity past as a human. So, in that sense, He did indeed have a beginning. God the Son came down from heaven and took on human flesh. He was not created, but took on a new mode of existence. The phrase "ancient of days" refers to the incomprehensible essence of eternity. This source provides historical background regarding the interpretation of Micah 5:2:

        "Eliezer makes a remarkable observation: though the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, he existed “before the world was created” (Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 3:1). Micah says his goings forth are מִימֵי עֹולָֽם mimei olam (“from the days of eternity”). In other words, the Messiah has eternally existed. The Messiah is not a created being. The text implies a divine nature. Early Jewish interpreters understood this. The writer of 1 Enoch says, “From the beginning the Son of Man was hidden and the Most High has preserved him” (1 Enoch 62:7). Classical rabbinic texts described a pre-existent Messiah in b. Pesachim 54a, Nedarim 39a, the Revelation of R Joshua b Levi, and Seder Gan Eden." (Jacobs and Buttenweiser, “Messiah,” 511)"

        The text is obviously addresses the pre-existence of the Jewish Messiah. The idea of beginnings is emphasized twice in a row in the same passage. Consider also the rendering of Micah 5:2 as found in the New International Version where it says "origins." The meaning of this is that Jesus Christ is eternal. If Micah 5:2 is referring to a specific point in time when the Messiah was created by God, then it would simply be redundant. It would not make any sense for Him to be brought into existence many times. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary has this excerpt:

        "goings forth . . . from everlasting--The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Psalms 90:2, Proverbs 8:22, Proverbs 8:23, John 1:1 )."

         As for Matthew paraphrasing the messianic prophecy given through Micah and the LXX translation, it has been observed that:

         “A literal translation of Mic. 5:1 MT (5:2 ET) reads, “And you Bethlehem Ephrathah, little [or, ‘insignificant’] among the thousands [or, ‘clans’] of Judah, from you to me will go forth to be a ruler in Israel.…” Micah 5:1 LXX (5:2 ET) translates the Hebrew quite literally, but adds “house of” before “Ephrathah” and changes “thousands” to “rulers of thousands.” Matthew follows the LXX verbatim for “and you Bethlehem,” replaces “(house of) Ephrathah” with “land of Judah,” adds “by no means” before “little,” changes the adjective to the superlative form “least,” replaces “rulers of thousands” with “governors,” omits “to me,” but then reproduces “out of you will go forth” using LXX wording.” (The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by D.A. Carson and Gregory K. Beale)

On Pope John Paul II Kissing An Islamic Koran

          Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) once kissed an Islamic Koran during a meeting with the Patriarch of Chaldean. This action no doubt resulted in controversy, as one has to wonder precisely what he was thinking. After all, Islam rejects the gospel. It denies the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is fairly obvious that Islam and Christianity are incompatible with each other.

          Whatever the case, there is no wisdom in Christians, especially the alleged earthly head of the church, bowing his head and kissing the sacred texts of different religions. There is literally no excuse for such conduct, for it communicates endorsement. Further, Christ made an exclusive truth claim (John 14:6). If other belief systems are acceptable to God, then Christ would be a liar and false messiah. That charge would be blasphemous to the utmost.

           If the pope is truly the Vicar of Christ, then why would he display reverence for a religion that fundamentally contradicts his own? His action so clearly resembles that of an apostate. He also could have mislead those who are unlearned by his irresponsible act. Why then do Roman Catholics try so hard to defend this sort of behavior? The rightful thing to do would be to simply admit that the pope erred. It is not as though we will ever see an imam kissing the Holy Bible.

          It seems that the papacy these days will do anything to gain political influence. That appears to be the motivating factor behind the Vatican associating with Islam. Even today, millions flock to Rome just to behold him as he lectures. Faithful Roman Catholics bow before him and kiss the hand which wields the ring molded for his coronation. All of this is idolatry, pure idolatry.

Analyzing The Spiritual But Not Religious Movement

          There is a trend within Christianity where a distinction is made between religion and spirituality. In other words, adherents of this movement have pitted the two words against each other or treated them like distinct concepts. Organized religion altogether has been condemned by these people as being legalism, which gets in the way of people growing in their relationship with the God. The phrase "spiritual but not religious," albeit of uncertain origin, has been used as a label for this contemporary movement relating to self-identity.

          While it is true that Jesus Christ vehemently denounced the outward ceremonial righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, it is a huge mistake to oppose being religious due to having a facile understanding on the nature of faith. True faith involves obeying God on His own terms. He joyfully communes with members of His church through the sharing of and living out the gospel. Additionally, the offices of elder and deacon are structurally set up for regulating the moral principles and worship habits of God's people.

          Therefore, Christianity is, in a very real sense, religious according to the purpose and design which God has mandated to maintain His church's spiritual vitality. James, the brother of Jesus, firmly acknowledges the contrast between dead religion rooted in hypocrisy and the worship that pleases our Creator (James 1:21-27). How we view religion should be determined by the context in which that word is used. Religion and spirituality are actually synonymous. If God had a problem with "religion" in and of itself, then why did He give the Jews the Mosaic Law?

          Us placing our trust in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ alone in no way nullifies our calling to serve God in the manner that He expects us to. God does not only enjoy fellowship with us on an individualized basis, but also with us as a collective body. Spirituality cannot be found within ourselves, as is proposed in Eastern religions. We are fallen creatures. We are not deities. God Himself is the ultimate solution to our problems.

How Were Gentiles Saved In The Old Testament?

           The Mosaic Covenant was instituted for the Jewish people to serve as a code to guide behavior and a system of forgiveness. It foreshadowed the greater atonement of Jesus Christ that actually perfects those who believe on Him for salvation. The weakness of the Old Covenant is manifested by it requiring repeated animal sacrifices. While the Old Testament is mainly centered upon Israel, it does speak of the Gentile cultures which surrounded that nation. We are told that God held non-Jewish people accountable for sins such as idolatry and sexual immorality (2 Kings 22:17; Romans 1:18-32), with the reason being that they violated the law written on their hearts by God. This leaves us with an interesting question. How could the Gentiles be reconciled to a holy God before Christ came to die for their sins?

           The Law that was given to Israel by God through the Prophet Moses exemplified its uniqueness as a nation before the pagan cultures (Deuteronomy 4:5-9; Isaiah 42:5-7). The Law even contained clauses regarding the proper treatment of outsiders, thereby demonstrating God's care for those who were not Jewish. He provides equally for both the Jew and Gentile (Deuteronomy 10:16-21). The nations are in view through the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18). The Apostle Paul further elaborated on this truth as he was given new revelation from God (Ephesians 3:1-13). Non-Jewish believers were considered as members of His kingdom in the same manner as a believing Jew.

           Paul's revelation was groundbreaking in the context of early Christianity. He emphasized that God's grace extended beyond the boundaries of ethnicity and tradition, uniting Jewish and non-Jewish believers alike under a single divine promise. Through this new understanding, he sought to break down the barriers that had long divided people. Paul fostered a spirit of inclusivity within the early church. This message of unity and equality was revolutionary, affirming that faith in Christ was the sole prerequisite for full membership in God's kingdom. Cultural or religious background was ireelevant.

           Gentiles were saved in the Old Testament by converting to Judaism. They were saved by placing their trust in the God of Israel and identifying themselves with His people. False gods were forsaken for the worship of Yahweh. One noteworthy example of conversion is that of Rahab (Joshua 2). Another example of conversion is Ruth. She exhibited faith in God and entered into His covenant, which consisted of trusting in the promise of a future redeemer as foretold by the Holy Scriptures. The coming of a Messiah was believed by the patriarchs and the Jews in general. Converts partook in the Passover (Exodus 12:46-50). God has never been beyond the reach of individuals who truthfully seek after Him (Acts 17:26-27).

1 Peter 3:15 And The Deity Of Jesus Christ

• Discussion:

          -A High Christology is foundational in Christian theology, affirming that Jesus Christ is not merely a teacher or prophet, but truly divine and worthy of worship. 1 Peter 3:15 is a piece of evidence showing that the authors of the New Testament held to exactly that kind of view concerning the nature of Jesus. The text in question is cited here as follows:

          "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (emphasis added)

          1 Peter 3:13-14 is an allusion to Isaiah 8. Peter makes that connection to encourage people of faith to live out their convictions, even in the midst of persecution. He echoes the language of Isaiah 8:13 as he makes his point:

          “But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread." (emphasis added)

          Peter substitutes the Old Testament title "the Lord of hosts" with "Christ the Lord," thereby proving that he believed Jesus Christ to be God in the flesh. Both are given the same degree of reverence. We are to honor Christ as the Holy One. As far as textual differences are concerned, the New English Translation says that:

          "tc Most later mss (P M) have θεόν (theon, “God”) instead of Χριστόν (Christon; “Christ”) here. But Χριστόν is widely supported by excellent and early witnesses (P א A B C Ψ 33 1739 al latt sy co), and as a less common idiom better explains the rise of the other reading."

           This less common idiom of referring to Christ directly may have seemed unusual to some scribes, possibly leading to the alteration in later manuscripts.

Is Mary The New Eve?

          The Roman Catholic designation of Mary as the “New Eve” is a theological construct that lacks direct biblical support and rests on a typological framework that Scripture itself does not endorse. According to this teaching, Mary’s obedience at the Annunciation is seen as reversing Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. Just as Eve’s “no” to God allegedly ushered in the Fall, Mary’s “yes” is said to have opened the door to redemption by enabling the Incarnation of Christ, the “New Adam.” This interpretation elevates Mary’s role to one of salvific cooperation, implying that her consent was not merely significant but essential to the redemption of humanity.

          However, this framework collapses under the weight of biblical scrutiny. Nowhere in the New Testament is Mary presented as a theological counterpart to Eve. The Apostle Paul, who develops the most robust typology between Adam and Christ, assigns the responsibility for the Fall not to Eve, but to Adam (Romans 5:12–21). This is not a minor detail. It is central to Paul’s argument that Christ, not Mary, is the sole agent of redemption. Paul’s silence on any Eve-Mary parallel is telling. If such a typology were divinely intended, it would be reasonable to expect it from the apostle who so thoroughly explores redemptive parallels.

          The early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, did draw symbolic comparisons between Eve and Mary. Irenaeus, for instance, wrote that the disobedience of the virgin Eve was undone by the obedience of the virgin Mary. But these reflections, while historically interesting, are not doctrinally binding and do not carry the authority of Scripture. They represent theological speculation, not divine revelation. Moreover, they stop far short of the later Catholic developments that portray Mary as a spiritual mother or mediatrix of grace.

          Historically, the development of Marian doctrines such as her role as the “New Eve” coincided with the rise of veneration practices in the post-apostolic church, particularly in the fourth and fifth centuries. These developments were influenced as much by cultural and devotional trends as by theological reflection. The Council of Ephesus in 431, which affirmed Mary as Theotokos (“God-bearer”), was as much a Christological safeguard against Nestorianism as it was a Marian elevation. Yet from that point forward, Marian devotion began to take on a life of its own, often shaped more by liturgical poetry and popular piety than by scriptural exegesis. The “New Eve” motif, while rhetorically powerful, thus reflects a trajectory of doctrinal expansion that lacks firm biblical grounding and rests on a foundation of ecclesial sentiment rather than apostolic instruction.

          Furthermore, the elevation of Mary to a redemptive role alongside Christ introduces a theological ambiguity that the New Testament authors take great care to avoid. The consistent witness of the biblical text is that deliverance from sin is accomplished solely through the person and work of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 declares, “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” There is no mention of Mary’s consent as a necessary component of this sanctification. To suggest otherwise is to introduce a co-redeemer into a gospel that is explicitly Christocentric. The danger here is not merely theological overreach, but a subtle displacement of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.

          The notion that Mary is the mother of a new spiritual humanity is not found in the New Testament. She is never described as the mother of the church, nor is she presented as a figure of unique holiness above other believers. In fact, the only woman explicitly given a spiritual maternal role in the New Testament is Sarah (1 Peter 3:6), and even that is based on her moral example, not any redemptive function. To assign Mary a role that Scripture reserves for Christ alone is to distort the Gospel and elevate tradition above revelation.

Was Jesus Christ Married?

"The canonical Gospels, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) preclude any option of understanding Jesus as married. He operates as an unmarried teacher with a band of devoted disciples. He is not the head of a household, but builds a household of faith — the church. At the crucifixion, he assigns John responsibility for caring for Mary, his mother. There is no mention of any wife, and certainly no mention of children."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/historical-propaganda/

Catholic Apologists And The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologist De Maria rebutted my comments relating to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. He appeals to church tradition, makes false claims about ancient Jewish culture, and tries really hard to wiggle around texts which mention brothers and sisters of Jesus. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "The New Testament was originally passed on in Tradition. This is what Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:18-21)."

          That is true as far as it goes, but those same teachings have been written down for us in the four gospels and apostolic epistles.

          "The original Scriptures were not written in English. Nor were they written in modern Greek. They were written in ancient Greek and Latin. And they were written by Catholics who were simply writing down Catholic Doctrine. The same Doctrine which Jesus Christ passed down."

          The New Testament was not originally composed in Latin, but Koine Greek. The Vulgate was a translation of the original manuscripts, and textually deficient. Moreover, it is not as though the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars who know this type of Greek would say outright that the text favors the perpetual virginity of Mary. They will merely say that it is possible that she was.

          "You're reading the New Testament in modern English 2000 years removed from the ancient Jewish culture which gave birth to the Christian faith."

           Biblical translations convey with a remarkable degree of accuracy and faithfulness what the original authors of such texts intended to say. Sweeping, wholesale dismissals of them are largely unjustified. As far as ancient Jewish culture is concerned, the following excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia is helpful here:

          "In post-Biblical literature Jewish opinion stands out clear and simple: marriage is a duty, and celibacy a sin. "The world was created to produce life; He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited" (Isa. xlv. 18; Giṭ. iv. 5 = 'Eduy. i. 13). "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. i. 28) is taken as a command; marriage with a view to that end is a duty incumbent upon every male adult (according to some the duty devolves also upon woman; Yeb. vi. 8; Maimonides, "Yad," Ishut, xv.; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 1, 13)...Abstention from marital intercourse on the part of the husband exceeding a legitimate limit, which varies with the different occupations, may be taken by the wife as ground for a divorce (Ket. v. 6, 7). A single man who is past twenty may be compelled by the court to marry (Shulḥan 'Aruk, l.c. i. 3)."

          "[in response to Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4] Only if you follow the traditions of men which Protestants believe. However, Tradition and Scripture tell us that Jesus was an only child. Therefore, any use of the word "adelphoi" must be in the general sense that we use the word "brother" today. As in good friend, cousin, church companion, and many other senses."

          Nowhere does the New Testament state that Jesus Christ was an only child or that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Never do we see the Angel Gabriel or some other messenger sent by God to tell Joseph that he was not to consummate his marriage. The basis for Mary's perpetual virginity is uninspired legends and unreasonable assumptions.

          Adelphoi does not always refer to physical brothers, but the New Testament uses the Greek word in just that way. The context of Matthew 13 and Mark 6 demands that we understand His brothers and sisters to mean blood relatives. For instance, the phrase "a prophet is not without honor except in his own household" implies the presence of close family members, such as biological siblings. They lived with Him and were part of His immediate family. British Methodist theologian and scholar Adam Clarke said the following when commenting on Matthew 13:55:

          "Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children? Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh?"

          The claim that brothers in Matthew 13:55 means cousins or distant relatives does not hold up when examined in context. The people in Jesus hometown are clearly referring to His immediate family, His mother, His father's trade, and His siblings, all mentioned together. If these were just cousins or step-siblings, their inclusion would not make sense in a statement meant to express familiarity and skepticism. These were children from the same household. Redefining common words to support a later dogma is forced and unnecessary.

          If a person wants to argue that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are from a previous marriage, then why were they were nowhere mentioned during the escape to and return from Egypt (Matthew 2)? The context only presents Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus. Why were the relatives not mentioned when Joseph traveled with Mary to Bethlehem for the census (Luke 2)? The silence in these contexts strongly suggests that Jesus was their only child at the time.

          "And the writer knew that Catholics would understand the true meaning of the word. And if they didn't, they have an infallible Teacher to correct them."

          The New Testament uses language in such a precise fashion that the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is rendered highly unlikely. If the inspired writers of the New Testament actually believed in this dogma, then why did they not forthrightly proclaim it as truth? They could have easily resolved any potential conflict on this matter by simply saying that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, but they did not. That silence is striking.

          "[In response to Matthew 1:24-25] The entire idea presented there is "knew her not". This is a perfect example of you treating ancient Jewish speech patterns the same as modern English. But you assume too much. heos hou, or "until", was used differently by Jews than by modern English speakers. So, let's look at the Scripture. Matthew "knew her not until". To, English speakers, that means that Matthew did not know her until a certain point in time and then he did. But to an ancient Jew, that isn't the case. Let me give you an example (2 Samuel 6:23)."

           The New Testament contains instances in which the word until denotes a change in circumstances as well as the figurative sense meaning an unspecified point in time or never again. Therefore, its authors would have been familiar with both usages. Further, there are no contextual cues demanding that the occurrence of word until in Matthew 1:25 means anything other than a change in situation or status. What leads people to insist otherwise here are prior theological commitments, and nothing else. The temporal sense of the word until can be found in Matthew 17:9 and Matthew 24:39. 

          "Even that doesn't show a change of status after the wedding day, if read in the culture of the ancient Jews."

           Relations between marital partners is seen as normal in the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 2:22-24). According to Jewish law, one could not be considered married without consummation. Celibacy was never the norm, except among smaller sects such as the Essenes. Judaism in general placed a special emphasis on marriage and childbearing, as did most of the ancient world. That is why men married females who were even decades younger than themselves, something which we today would consider abhorrent. The underlying reason for that was fertility, which decreases with age. As far as a biblical theology of marriage is concerned, sexual relations are a part of God's design for it. It is a measure that brings about sanctity and honor (Hebrews 13:4).

          "[In response to Matthew 1:18] Again, since Catholics have always knows that they never came together sexually, then we know that there must be an alternate meaning. That meaning must be "before they came together in one household."

          Matthew 1:18 speaks of Mary and Joseph being betrothed, but not yet having slept together. Merely stating that an idea should be accepted as true because that is how it has always been is an instance of begging the question. Since there is not enough evidence to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, Catholic teaching on this matter can most certainly be trashed, even centuries worth of it.

          "[In response to Psalm 69:8-9] Lol! Really? That is a prophet saying that he has alienated himself from the entire nation of Israel. Have you ever heard that Israel killed the prophets. Come on."

           Psalm 69 is treated by the New Testament as a messianic psalm as a whole, so its non‑sinful elements, including the familial language of “my brothers” and “my mother’s sons,” naturally belong to the messianic portrait, especially since this wording is a literal Hebrew expression for biological siblings and aligns with the gospel accounts of Jesus’ brothers. Excluding this verse while accepting others is arbitrary, since only the sinful elements (like v. 5) must be set aside for Christ, leaving Psalm 69:8 as legitimate evidence against Mary’s perpetual virginity.

          "[Responding to Luke 2:7] Read about Jewish culture. It would do you a world of good. Ok, let's see. OT Jews were polygamous. Let's say that Jew#1 had two wives. One of them had the Firstborn son and that's all. The other had the rest of the children. All boys. The Firstborn would receive double the inheritance of the other boys. That's all. It doesn't mean that wife #1 had any more children. Jesus was Mary's first and only son."

           There is no way of knowing whether most Jews in ancient times were polygamous, much less if Joseph himself was. It is doubtful if he could even have afforded to have multiple wives. Even if any of these points are true, they are tangential to the core issue.

          "[Responding to the question of how marriage consummation would defile Mary] One of the main reasons is that we know that Joseph was a righteous man. In Scripture, righteous men do not have sexual relations with other men's wives. Joseph knew that the Holy Spirit had brought about the birth of Christ. And that means that Mary had become the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Joseph would not dare come to know her physically."

           The biblical text never affirms or even hints at the idea that the Holy Spirit "married" Mary or she became His spiritual wife. He is not like a Roman or Greek god who has sexual relations with a woman and a god-man is born. The Holy Spirit is not physical, but immaterial. Mary was simply "overshadowed" by Him. His divine power created the physical body of Jesus Christ in her womb.

          "[In Response to John 7:1-10, Acts 1:13-14, and Galatians 1:18-19] In all those passages, the context shows that they were either some other relative or close friends, but in context with the Traditions which were passed down by Jesus Christ, we know that they were not the children of Mary."

          There is simply no objective reason to dogmatically assert that the siblings of Jesus were cousins or from a previous marriage. Those theories are bereft of a truthful foundation.

The False Authority Of The Mormon Priesthood

         “There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood. … The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations. Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances.” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:1–5, 13–14)

          The Old Testament distinctly delineates the roles and lineage of priesthood, confining it exclusively to Aaron and his descendants within the tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:6; Leviticus 6:19-23). This genealogical specificity underscores the legitimacy and authenticity of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods within the Judaic tradition. By contrast, the priesthood claimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which includes members outside this lineage, diverges significantly from this scriptural foundation.

         In traditional Judaic practice, priestly roles were inextricably linked to one's lineage within the tribe of Levi, specifically the descendants of Aaron. Numbers 18:1-7 explicitly delineates that the Aaronic priesthood was a hereditary office, underscoring the exclusivity and sanctity of this role. The Mormon claim to the Aaronic priesthood, conferred upon members not descended from Levi but believed to be restored through divine revelation, thus appears unorthodox and scripturally unsupported.

         The New Testament introduces a paradigm shift in the understanding of priesthood through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 7 particularly emphasizes this transition, portraying Christ as the eternal high priest in the order of Melchizedek. This priesthood is described as "unchangeable" or "non-transferable," signifying a permanent and exclusive role for Christ, unlike the temporal and lineage-bound Levitical priesthood. Hebrews 7:11-12 and 23-25 highlight that Christ’s priesthood supersedes the old covenant, rendering traditional Levitical roles obsolete. This theological framework challenges the LDS Church’s interpretation and application of these priesthoods within their ecclesiastical structure.

         The restoration claims of the LDS Church, particularly regarding the priesthood, encounter significant historical scrutiny. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s accounts of angelic visitations and ordinations were not publicly revealed until several years after the alleged events. This delayed disclosure raises questions about the veracity and authenticity of their claims. The absence of early documentation and the subsequent inclusion of these revelations in later publications, such as the Doctrine and Covenants, further complicate their historical credibility.

         The New Testament extends the concept of priesthood to all believers, as articulated in 1 Peter 2:5-9 and Revelation 1:5-6. This doctrine, known as the "priesthood of all believers," democratizes spiritual authority, contrasting sharply with the hierarchical priesthood structure within the LDS Church. The tearing of the temple veil at Christ’s crucifixion (Matthew 27:51-54) symbolizes the end of exclusive priestly mediation, emphasizing direct access to God for all believers through Christ.

         The LDS Church’s theological stance on priesthood, rooted in the belief of restored divine authority, diverges significantly from traditional Christian interpretations. While the LDS Church views its priesthood as a restoration of ancient authority, traditional Christianity interprets the New Testament as signifying the fulfillment and cessation of such roles through Christ’s atonement. This fundamental theological discrepancy underpins the critique of the LDS priesthood as lacking scriptural and historical legitimacy.