I may not be an 'expert' on the Catholic faith, but I have done quite a bit of reading concerning their history 'and' beliefs.
I have also done a bit of reading and studying of the Word. Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But, I have read it intensely and feel that I have a pretty good 'basic' understanding of it's principles and history. I now focus on geography in my latest studies.
Having a relatively descent knowledge of the Bible brings me to the fact that as we see in Acts 1:16-26, their lots fell upon Matthias and not Barsabas. So, when we see the mention of Barnabas indicating his possible apostleship, we can safely deduce that even if NOT an apostle, much like Stephen, he was certainly a powerful Saint.
No, Thess, I do not claim to know all the 'reasons' that the Catholic Church chooses to follow and teach their doctrine. I do recognize much that doesn't have an 'obvious' connection to the Word. What I am MOST confused about is why they didn't just 'completely' change the Bible into something that more closely resembles that which they teach and follow. But, I guess, since the written Word was denied to the people, for a time, it didn't really matter what it said if no one except the leaders got to read it.
And, even if we don't have direct 'proof' of James being the sibling of Christ, we have even less 'proof' or even reason to believe that Mary remained a 'virgin' throughout her life. I believe that the marriage between Joseph and Mary would have been of no purpose were they not to consummate their marriage in the marriage bed, after the birth of Jesus.
And, as for her being a symbol of the Church in the respect of her virginity, the Church has been introduced to such corruption over the centuries that this would make it's virginity nothing more than 'wishful thinking'. And, even though you, and those of your faith, would tell me of these similarities of Mary, her life, and the Church, I believe these too are wishful thinking, for I find no massive amount of scripture to indicate the importance of this 'Mary, 'Queen' of heaven worship. Since there is no specific offering of her overwhelming importance in the Word to warrant the honor or esteem that your Church places upon her, I question this part of the doctrine as well.
16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
What we have above is the fulfilling of prophecy that the apostles were insistent must be fulfilled. And this offers only that there need be twelve at 'one time' so 'one' needed to take the place of Judas. There is no reason to believe that 'after' the Holy Spirit was received of them that there weren't any other apostles.
NO, I am NOT a believer in 'modern day' apostles. I truly believe that they were; for 'a time' and for a 'purpose' and once that purpose was fulfilled, there was no longer a need for them. After the apostles, who were impowered with the power of Christ, had completed their mission, the Church was 'then' to rely upon faith instead of miracles. And no, I am NOT trying to start another thread folks. Just clarifying my position on apostleship.
So, whether James WAS the son of Mary or not, there is still indication that Mary had other children, or at least the indication by the offering that Joseph 'didn't' sleep with Mary before, and during her carrying Jesus, is that he did 'after' Jesus' birth. And, unless one of them, (Mary or Joseph), were sterile, they most likely had children.
And this in NO way makes Mary any less the mother of Jesus to me. And it in NO WAY makes her unworthy of her position. She followed the law in her marriage and it was her 'duty' to offer herself to her husband after the birth of Christ.
And, let us not forget that the Word specifically warns us about those that would forbid others to wed. We were also told that through a marriage two become ONE and neither are to deny the other without a mutual agreement.
: