Apologetics 101: Why Does the Bible Say Jesus Had Brothers?

Aleteia ^ | April 7, 2015 | JOHN MARTIGNONI

[af_vet_1981]

I see you confirm the expression "personal saviour" is an extra biblical phrase, and if you disallow it that is consistent with disallowing the phrase "mother of God," albeit not ""mother of "God with us,"" which is in scripture.

I did answer your question, first by pointing out it was constructed with a name you do not pronounce correctly, and therefore I am uncomfortable with it. I am also uncomfortable with any attempt to separate Jesus from the LORD (though you may argue for the Arabic pronunciation if you believe strongly and I will entertain your argument), and secondly by substituting LORD for the Tetragrammaton. I then affirmed Mary is the mother of "the LORD Jesus Christ" and "the LORD with us," asking (I think, if you agreed). Do you agree ?

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate 
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

[CommerceComet]

Yet there can be systematic, pervasive bias in certain communities that shapes the perceptions and interpretations of scripture and people.

You mean like the modern Catholic Church reading its positions back into Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers? That sword can cut two ways. Derogatory terms which imply someone has an irrational hatred for a group serve no purpose in debate other than to try and embarrass or intimidate the other party into silence. As Redleghunter pointed out, the terms you used are akin to the use of "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobe" in political debate to quell opposition.

Your responses to my assertion that you have not proven your point: Of course I have; even Paul testifies thus. I have and I do.

No, you haven't. You provided the laws on inheritance from Numbers and some commentary by a modern Jewish writer. Both of these deal with the distribution of tangible assets which today we would call an estate. But nothing which shows as you earlier claimed that Jesus HAD to assign care of His mother to a brother (if one existed).

You seem to entirely miss the point.

It would have been helpful when you first quoted the passage to include the whole passage rather than stopping at an advantageous point for your argument. Verse 16 summarized Paul's point, not verse 8. Paul rightfully insists that the family provide for the care of the widow as is their duty assigned by God in the most important part of the Torah, the Decalogue: "Honor thy father and mother." Paul is telling the church that only true widows are entitled to church support. Of course, this doesn't apply to Mary because Jesus had saw to her care when He assigned it to John.

For the Catholic position to carry any weight, you need to show that the ONLY lawful thing that Jesus could have done to provide for the care of His mother was to assign it a brother (if one existed). Simple assertions that it was unlawful or scandalous without support are meaningless and should be seen as merely speculation.

[af_vet_1981]

No, you haven't. You provided the laws on inheritance from Numbers and some commentary by a modern Jewish writer. Both of these deal with the distribution of tangible assets which today we would call an estate. But nothing which shows as you earlier claimed that Jesus HAD to assign care of His mother to a brother (if one existed).

Yes, I have; your choice to gainsay the evidence, notwithstanding. I will further posit, in your apparent rejection of Jewish law, you must hope to be under the moral authority of the holy catholic apostolic church, for if you reject the Jewish tradition you must take the catholic, else you are orphaned with no line of inheritance to the scriptures, trusted to the Jews and holy catholic apostolic church for transmission.

The very property in Numbers is the bread of the widows and orphans, for how else shall they eat ? Surely God will provide, yet what happens to those in their immediate and extended family who deny them ? He wants families to care for their widows. OSAS ? Nay, they become infidel and apostate to the Jewish community and the holy catholic apostolic church, except they repent. Your argument has Jesus breaking the commandment in such a way to apostasize the siblings you assert he has, rather than fulfilling their Torah obligation to care for a widow, which is preposterous in its cultural bias, even if the Gentiles behave thusly.

[af_vet_1981]

Derogatory terms which imply someone has an irrational hatred for a group serve no purpose in debate other than to try and embarrass or intimidate the other party into silence.

False; what "derogatory term" are you writing about ? Which terms have you written ?

[redleghunter]

I did answer your question, first by pointing out it was constructed with a name you do not pronounce correctly, and therefore I am uncomfortable with it. I am also uncomfortable with any attempt to separate Jesus from the LORD (though you may argue for the Arabic pronunciation if you believe strongly and I will entertain your argument), and secondly by substituting LORD for the Tetragrammaton. I then affirmed Mary is the mother of "the LORD Jesus Christ" and "the LORD with us," asking (I think, if you agreed). Do you agree?

You are the first Catholic here on FR to confirm the belief Mary is the 'mother of YHWH.'

By doing so, IMO, you make her the mother of the Father and Holy Spirit as well.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “You are the first Catholic here on FR to confirm the belief Mary is the ‘mother of YHWH.’” <<

.
Truly amazing.

Can these people not understand that Mary did not bring the eternal Yehova into existence?

Therefore she cannot be his mother?

She is the mother of the man that died, but not of his spirit.
.

[af_vet_1981]

You are the first Catholic here on FR to confirm the belief Mary is the 'mother of YHWH.' By doing so, IMO, you make her the mother of the Father and Holy Spirit as well.

False; after twice declining your construct, you have publicly written that I confirmed it, and testified that I "made Mary out to be the mother of the Father and Holy Spirit as well," when, in truth, I wrote the opposite and affirmed the Nicene Creed, the which you have not yet affirmed or denied.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they, and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him. But the Lord is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten.
Exodus, Catholic chapter twenty, Protestant verse sixteen,
Jeremiah, Catholic chapter twenty, Protestant verses ten to eleven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[redleghunter]

You indicated LORD=YHWH from the OT. Then told me that was your justification for using “mother of God” for Mary.

Did I get that right or wrong?

On the other matter...Yes the Creed nicely explains the Rule of Faith from Scriptures.

[CommerceComet]

False; what "derogatory term" are you writing about?

Reread your post #189. You began it with a discussion of your perception of "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Catholic" bias.

Which terms have you written?

You're welcome to go back a review my posting history. I'm sure you can find some examples of me being less than gracious but I'm also sure that you won't find that it is a consistent habit by any means.

I try very hard not to personalize disagreements over ideas or doctrine.

[CommerceComet]

Yes, I have; your choice to gainsay the evidence, notwithstanding.

You can claim that all you like but what you have provided in not compelling at all. In my profession, I evaluate evidence all the time and your evidence doesn't even get out of the starting gate.

I will further posit, in your apparent rejection of Jewish law, you must hope to be under the moral authority of the holy catholic apostolic church, for if you reject the Jewish tradition you must take the catholic, else you are orphaned with no line of inheritance to the scriptures, trusted to the Jews and holy catholic apostolic church for transmission.

I'm not even sure where to start with all the faulty assumptions in that paragraph. As a Protestant, I hold to the Word of God as contained in the Old and New Testaments.

Rejecting Jewish law? Not being convinced by an irrelevant passage from the Old Testament isn't rejecting Jewish law. Nor is rejecting the writing of some person who claims to be an expert in Jewish law who you chose to cite. Particularly, when his commentary didn't even get to the issue at hand. Nor is rejecting your interpretation of Jewish law a rejection of Jewish law. Nor is not accepting your reading of your interpretation of Jewish law into Paul's writing.

Are you really claiming canonized Scripture as a Catholic exclusive? The process of canonization took place long before the Protestant Reformation. Back at a point of common heritage for both the Catholics and the Protestants. When a tree forks, neither fork has a superior claim to the trunk. Protestants can trace their lineage back to the apostolic church as well and prior to the 1500s, it would be a shared heritage. What you just presented is a false dilemma.

Your argument has Jesus breaking the commandment in such a way to apostasize the siblings you assert he has, rather than fulfilling their Torah obligation to care for a widow, which is preposterous in its cultural bias, even if the Gentiles behave thusly.

In your legalistic view, there seems to be only way in which Mary could be cared for by her children (if they existed): living in their households. What if Jesus, his siblings, Mary, and John all agreed that the best provision for Mary was to go to John's household? Have they not provided for their mother (which is Paul's point)? What if the other siblings were paying for Mary's support while she lived in John's house? Would that not be providing for their mother? We know nothing about the arrangements except that Mary was to live with John.

[af_vet_1981]

Reread your post #189. You began it with a discussion of your perception of "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Catholic" bias.

Yes, I have. I used no "derogatory terms" and everything I wrote is true.

"To this day, I detect a persistent antiJewish, as well as antiCatholic, bias in some branches and twigs of Protestantism. It affects and guides interpretations. The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed. The Messiah spoke against those trying to avoid righteous behavior, not those practicing it. There have always ben those seeking to cast off righteousness with a cloak of piety."

You're welcome to go back a review my posting history. I'm sure you can find some examples of me being less than gracious but I'm also sure that you won't find that it is a consistent habit by any means.

That was not my focus nor concern. I was much more concerned with the use of terms in post 222, and how someone might misconstrue that as if I had used "derogatory terms," when I did not. I

[af_vet_1981]

Are you really claiming canonized Scripture as a Catholic exclusive? The process of canonization took place long before the Protestant Reformation. Back at a point of common heritage for both the Catholics and the Protestants. When a tree forks, neither fork has a superior claim to the trunk. Protestants can trace their lineage back to the apostolic church as well and prior to the 1500s, it would be a shared heritage. What you just presented is a false dilemma.

The problem with your scenario is that those who conjecture that Mary had other children reject the testimonies of the Reformers themselves, who, as others have already demonstrated, defended the teaching of the holy catholic apostolic church that Mary had no other physical children save Jesus. Thus the burden of proof is on the modernists who originated the supposition that Jesus had other siblings through Mary.

[CommerceComet]

The problem with your scenario is that those who conjecture that Mary had other children reject the testimonies of the Reformers themselves, who, as others have already demonstrated, defended the teaching of the holy catholic apostolic church that Mary had no other physical children save Jesus. Thus the burden of proof is on the modernists who originated the supposition that Jesus had other siblings through Mary.

I don't feel any obligation to believe something just because a Reformer believed it. Even if you're correct and most or all reformers believed that Mary had no other children, I doubt any held this belief is essential to salvation.

Having the burden of proof isn't too big a problem. With numerous references to Jesus' siblings, any natural reading of Scripture without preconceived notions would cause the reader to believe that Jesus had siblings. It seems that the Catholic position is the one that has to keep explaining away Biblical passages.

[roamer_1]

[CommerceComet:] No, you haven't. You provided the laws on inheritance from Numbers and some commentary by a modern Jewish writer. Both of these deal with the distribution of tangible assets which today we would call an estate. But nothing which shows as you earlier claimed that Jesus HAD to assign care of His mother to a brother (if one existed).

Yes, I have; your choice to gainsay the evidence, notwithstanding.

No you haven't, as technically, by the law (tradition), if the woman has no sons, and her husband's house cannot care for her, then her care can almost necessarily come from (she returns to) her father's house. The one chosen can come from any relation, providing that those with better standing are notified and consent - And his wishes in nominating John would carry much weight. We have no idea how John, son of Zebedee, was related to Mary, any more than we know for certain how Joseph of Arimathea had the familial authority to claim the body of Yeshua - It is likely that ALL who went to prepare him for the grave WERE related, because that tended to be a very family oriented event...

So, your declarations prove nothing, without laying John's claim to Mary before us, which cannot be done, and likewise, the claim of John as treated by others who may have a greater claim, which also cannot be done. As it is, Yeshua left her care to the one that he loved, and to the one who, as it turns out, was the only one long lived enough to be able to care for her - A prophecy in it's own right.

I will further posit, in your apparent rejection of Jewish law, you must hope to be under the moral authority of the holy catholic apostolic church, for if you reject the Jewish tradition you must take the catholic, else you are orphaned with no line of inheritance to the scriptures, trusted to the Jews and holy catholic apostolic church for transmission.

Absolutely incorrect. Yeshua tore down the tradition of the rabbis - A disciple of Moses is a disciple of Moses, and not of anybody else. And he established (necessarily) the same exact thing through himself - He came to teach the doctrine of his Father, not of Himself, thus his doctrine IS his Father's, and his Father's doctrine is Torah. He said 'Follow ME'. not 'follow the pope' or 'follow the elders'.

Those that do the will of His Father, not any silly succession of men. That's the very same trap the Pharisees fell into.

[af_vet_1981]

I don't feel any obligation to believe something just because a Reformer believed it. Even if you're correct and most or all reformers believed that Mary had no other children, I doubt any held this belief is essential to salvation.

Having the burden of proof isn't too big a problem. With numerous references to Jesus' siblings, any natural reading of Scripture without preconceived notions would cause the reader to believe that Jesus had siblings. It seems that the Catholic position is the one that has to keep explaining away Biblical passages.

I think the word feel sums it up nicely. It seems to me that the modernist view that Mary had other natural children is a primarily a natural consequence of a reconstructionist type of Christianity that rejects almost two millenia of sacred tradition from both the holy catholic apostolic church and all the reformed faith communities. I see it as a continual rebellion against any spiritual authority other than the individual's. This would then always cause problems in the faith communities where the leadership tries to establish new interpretative traditions and the rank and file members (although antimembers may be a better term) are constantly shrugging off any tradition for autonomy and free expression. It almost reminds me of the Western music scene.

[af_vet_1981]

No you haven't, as technically, by the law (tradition), if the woman has no sons, and her husband's house cannot care for her, then her care can almost necessarily come from (she returns to) her father's house. The one chosen can come from any relation, providing that those with better standing are notified and consent - And his wishes in nominating John would carry much weight. We have no idea how John, son of Zebedee, was related to Mary, any more than we know for certain how Joseph of Arimathea had the familial authority to claim the body of Yeshua - It is likely that ALL who went to prepare him for the grave WERE related, because that tended to be a very family oriented event...

I would rather characterize it as you are not persuaded rather than I have not provided proof, for I have provided proof. Americans have the constitutional right to follow or create any religious tradition they desire (witness the Mormons, J Witnesses, etc.), nor none at all. However, the theory that Mary had other natural children is a modern tradition.

I see you have carefully advanced the possibility that neither Joseph nor Mary had any natural children and that the Apostle John, being a cousin, was a natural choice, so to speak.

So, your declarations prove nothing, without laying John's claim to Mary before us, which cannot be done, and likewise, the claim of John as treated by others who may have a greater claim, which also cannot be done. As it is, Yeshua left her care to the one that he loved, and to the one who, as it turns out, was the only one long lived enough to be able to care for her - A prophecy in it's own right.

False, true, true, true, false

Absolutely incorrect. Yeshua tore down the tradition of the rabbis - A disciple of Moses is a disciple of Moses, and not of anybody else. And he established (necessarily) the same exact thing through himself - He came to teach the doctrine of his Father, not of Himself, thus his doctrine IS his Father's, and his Father's doctrine is Torah. He said 'Follow ME'. not 'follow the pope' or 'follow the elders'.

False, false, true, true, true, false

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.
Malachi, Catholic chapter four, Protestant verses one to six,
Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses seventeen to twenty,
Matthew, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verses one to three,
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty three, Protestant verses one to three,
John, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses forty size to forty seven,
Hebrews, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verses one to five,
Revelation, Catholic chapter fifteen, Protestant verses two to four,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Those that do the will of His Father, not any silly succession of men. That's the very same trap the Pharisees fell into.

False; the trap the Pharisees fell into was unbelief, hypocrisy, and unrighteousness which can afflict men of any religious denomination, faith community, sect, or cult. The Pharisees sat in Moses seat, your gainsaying notwithstanding.

[roamer_1]

I would rather characterize it as you are not persuaded rather than I have not provided proof, for I have provided proof.

Accepted. Forgive my presumption. Your proofs rather, are insufficient in their construction.

Americans have the constitutional right to follow or create any religious tradition they desire (witness the Mormons, J Witnesses, etc.), nor none at all. However, the theory that Mary had other natural children is a modern tradition.

It is not a tradition. It is just a plain reading of the scriptures, without the need to make Mary ever-virgin, thus removing an element of eisegesis... The concept has zero foundation in Scripture (particularly Torah and the Prophets), or in Hebrew culture and tradition. It is a foreign concept. But the 'Ever-Virgin' has deep roots in paganism. That it is a syncretism is almost without an argument. That most titles given to Mary have their profane counterpart should be a mighty clue.

I see you have carefully advanced the possibility that neither Joseph nor Mary had any natural children [...]

Not at all - I was simply entertaining your argument for the purpose of the subject matter: 'Yeshua had no brothers because he gave his mother to John' is a faulty premise without an understanding of the familial relations and conditions at the time. Since that data is not available, the premise remains, and must remain, without merit.

[...]and that the Apostle John, being a cousin, was a natural choice, so to speak.

But that cannot be, else the Bible would have called John Yeshua's brother. ; )

The Pharisees sat in Moses seat, your gainsaying notwithstanding.

Take off your Rome colored glasses, wipe the Greece from your eyes and study that passage in depth. Yeshua is telling the people to do as Moses says, and not to follow the tradition of the Pharisees (their takanot and ma'asim... what they 'say' and 'do')... He then follows with a point by point tear-down. Every time he went up against the Pharisees, it was an intentional, premeditated attack upon their greater tradition... Their 'authority'. They had no authority.

[af_vet_1981]

It is not a tradition. It is just a plain reading of the scriptures, without the need to make Mary ever-virgin, thus removing an element of eisegesis... The concept has zero foundation in Scripture (particularly Torah and the Prophets), or in Hebrew culture and tradition. It is a foreign concept. But the 'Ever-Virgin' has deep roots in paganism. That it is a syncretism is almost without an argument. That most titles given to Mary have their profane counterpart should be a mighty clue.

False; it is a post-reformation tradition, as is Mormonism, J Witnesses, Pentecostalism, Seventh Day Adventism, etc. It is modern.

Not at all - I was simply entertaining your argument for the purpose of the subject matter: 'Yeshua had no brothers because he gave his mother to John' is a faulty premise without an understanding of the familial relations and conditions at the time. Since that data is not available, the premise remains, and must remain, without merit.

False; the premise remains. If there had been natural children of Mary other than Jesus, then those children had a solemn Jewish obligation to care for her as a widow, modern revisionist theories notwithstanding.

Take off your Rome colored glasses, wipe the Greece from your eyes and study that passage in depth. Yeshua is telling the people to do as Moses says, and not to follow the tradition of the Pharisees (their takanot and ma'asim... what they 'say' and 'do')... He then follows with a point by point tear-down. Every time he went up against the Pharisees, it was an intentional, premeditated attack upon their greater tradition... Their 'authority'. They had no authority.

False;they had the authority of Moses seat, and the Messiah said to obey their authority, but not their example if it were unrighteousness.

There has been some doubt as to whether their were really consecrated Jewish virgins at the Temple. In my previous post I referenced the first-century Jewish historian Josephus in support of “Temple virgins” in Jerusalem, but I fear that this cannot be substantiated. Jimmy Akin asked me for the citation and I cannot find it. One would assume that it would be in Book 5 of the Jewish Wars of Josephus. There Josephus mentions cloisters, but he does not tell us who lived in them. That’s as close as Josephus gets.

There are, however, three Scriptural accounts that are used by Catholics to demonstrate that there were special women who ministered at the Temple complex.

Exodus 38:8 mentions women who “watch (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle.”

The second is in 1 Samuel:

“Now Heli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all Israel: and how they lay with the women that waited (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle:” (1 Samuel 2:22, D-R)

In both of the verses above, Hebrew verb for “watch” and “waited” is the same. It is the Hebrew word צָבָא, which is the same verb used to described the liturgical activity of the Levites (see Num 4:23; 8:24). This corresponds to the Latin translation in the Clementine Vulgate, which relates that these women “observabant” at the temple doors – another liturgical reading.

So these women are not simply hanging out around the Temple, looking for men, gossiping, or chatting about the weather. These are pious women devoted to a liturgical function. In fact, the Court of Women might exist formally for these special “liturgical women.”

The third and final reference to these liturgical females is in 2 Maccabees:

And the virgins also that were shut up, came forth, some to {High Priest} Onias, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows. And all holding up their hands towards heaven, made supplication. (2 Macc 3:19-20)

Here are virgins that are shut up. In the Greek it is “αἱ δὲ κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων” or “the shut up ones of the virgins.” In this passage the Holy Spirit refers not to all the virgins of Jerusalem, but to a special set of virgins, that is, those virgins who had the privilege and right to be in the presence of the High Priest and address him. It’s rather ridiculous to think that young girls would have general access to the High Priest of Israel. However, if these virgins had a special liturgical role at the Temple, it becomes clear that they would both address the High Priest Onias and would also be featured as an essential part of the intense supplication in the Temple at this moment of crisis.

There is further testimony of temple virgins in the traditions of the Jews. In the Mishnah, it is recorded that there were 82 consecrated virgins who wove the veil of the Temple:

“The veil of the Temple was a palm-length in width. It was woven with seventy-two smooth stitches each made of twenty-four threads. The length was of forty cubits and the width of twenty cubits. Eighty-two virgins wove it. Two veils were made each year and three hundred priests were needed to carry it to the pool” (Mishna Shekalim 8, 5-6).

We find another reference to the “women who made the veils for the Temple…baked the showbread…prepared the incense” (Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a).

Rabbinic Jewish sources also record how when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70, the Temple virgins leapt into the flames so as not to be abducted by the heathen soldiers: “the virgins who were weaving threw themselves in the flames” (Pesikta Rabbati 26, 6). Here we also learn that these virgins lived in the three-storey building inside the Temple area. However, it is difficult to find any other details about this structure. The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich placed the cloisters of the Temple Virgins on the north side of the Temple (Emmerich’s Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary 3, 5).

Even more, the first century document by the name of the Apocalypse of Baruch (sometimes called “2 Baruch”) describes the Temple virgins living in the Temple as weavers of the holy veil:

“And you virgins who weave byssus and silk, and gold from Ophir, in haste pick it all up and throw it in the fire that it will return it to its Author, and that the flame will take it back to its Creator, from fear that the enemy might seize it” (2 Baruch 10:19).

So then, there is ample evidence for the role of consecrated women, especially virgins at the Temple. If one were to accept the passages above, we have plenty of testimony for cultic women in the time of Moses’ tabernacle, in the time of David, in the Second Temple era, and in the first century of Our Lord.

This substantiates the claims of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who claim that the Blessed Virgin Mary was presented to the Temple and served there from the age of three until the age of fourteen. To claim that Temple virgins are a myth of celibacy-crazed Catholic bishops does not hold up. Scripture and Jewish tradition records that there were specially commissioned virgins associated with the Temple. We may not know much about them, but we know that they existed.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Those that do the will of His Father, not any silly succession of men.” <<

Matthew 7:21

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 12:50

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

John 5:30

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Revelation 22:14

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

John 5:45

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Scripture and Jewish tradition records that there were specially commissioned virgins associated with the Temple. We may not know much about them, but we know that they existed.” <<

Then it should be easy for you to post that scripture.

(”Jewish Tradition” is a broad and vaporous term, including practices instituted by Torah, and the practices of liars and whore mongers)
.