THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY (BARM) STUMBLES ON THE PERPETUAL VIGINITY REBUTTAL By Atty. Marwil Llasos

Mary in Glory by Guido Reni

One of the moderators of The Bereans Apologetics Ministry (Berean’s, for brevity) posted an article in his blog with the presumptuously arrogant, deceptively false and supremely misleading title: “Defensores Fidei Foundation Stumbles on the Perpetual Virginity Rebuttal.”

The moderator’s name is GERALD but seeks to hide his true identity under the alias RODIMUS. He is hiding his true self because his anonymity makes him unaccountable for his egregious blunders and atrocious errors. His being faceless accords him impunity for his wrongful acts. Thus, Rodimus – the self-appointed spokesperson and representative of the Bereans – is clearly IRRESPONSIBLE in his attacks against me, the Defensores Fidei Foundation (DFF), the Catholic Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I take the articles of Rodimus in his blog as the official stand of the Berean’s, whose moderator he is.

When Rodimus screamed in his headline that the DFF stumbled on its rebuttal on the perpetual virginity issue, it is clear that Rodimus was in a veritable “denial stage” because he could not accept that we could refute his puerile, sophomoric and unscholarly arguments. He was clearly disappointed because he thought that his arguments were unassailable. Dream on, Rodimus, dream on!

In his desperate and pathetic attempt to refute our response, Rodimus buried himself deeper in the muck. Here’s why.

I noticed that RODIMUS was only interested in my conclusion. He did not even bother to contest, much less refute, the premises on which I predicated my conclusion. It seems to me that my friend’s desire is merely to involve me in contradiction.

Guess again, Atty. Llasos. If you would recall the questions I emailed you last December 1, 2008, those questions are not only for asking but also for refuting; and I think you know that. Atty. Llasos proceeded with how the Aramaic terminology for brother works, but that was already addressed to my questions above.

It’s Rodimus who is clearly on a guessing game. As though suffering from amnesia, he conveniently forgot the stated reason for his email to me last December 1, 2008. In that email, he stated his reason as: “I wrote to state my comments in your blog concerning Mary's Perptual Virginity but focusing on your response on the Greek terminologies adelphos and anepsios as used in the Bible.” Now, Rodimus is saying that his “questions are not only for asking but also for refuting.” Which is which, Rodimus?

Honestly, when I read Rodimus email for the first time, I had the impression that he was simply a schoolboy asking for clarifications. In short, he merely wanted to be clarified about some of the things I wrote on my blog.

As a matter of fact, I noticed that his email is riddled with false assumptions. I already answered his questions and corrected his wrong premises (see below).

Questions are not always for refuting. Questions are also asked to get clarifications. When the Virgin Mary asked the angel Gabriel “How can this be, I do not know man? (Lk. 1:34), she was not refuting the angel’s message: “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus” (Lk. 1:31). Mary was asking for clarification and so the angel explained to her the mechanics of the Incarnation: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35).

Atty. Llasos asserted that I misread the statement of Mr. Evert, author of the CA article:

RODIMUS made a serious misreading of Mr. Evert’s statement. RODIMUS claims that Mr. Evert “made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins; it's a misconception.” RODIMUS’ conclusion is not accurate. He clearly misrepresents Mr. Evert’s view. Mr. Evert did not categorically say, as RODIMUS would have us believe, that Jesus brothers are not His cousins. In fact, all that Mr. Evert is saying is that “we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins.”

My response above is clear to those who are not suffering from low IQ. The reader may carefully note the exact statement of Mr. Jason Evert –

“Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: “Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins.” That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins.. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

Thus, it is clear that when Rodimus concluded that Mr.. Evert “made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins; it's a misconception,” Rodimus was not only misreading Mr. Evert’s view, he was perverting it. Mr. Evert was not saying that “these men were not Christ’s cousins” because Mr. Evert himself does not exclude the possibility that some, or even all, of them may have been cousins of Our Lord as he himself categorically averred: “If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

Yet, despite the crystal clarity of Mr. Evert’s statement, Rodimus had the temerity to accuse my analysis as myopic –

This analysis is myopic because Atty. Llasos response is concentrated on the statement, He made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins, which is not the only thing I am trying to convey in the article.

Actually, what is myopic is Rodimus thinking. He accused me of being myopic because, allegedly, I concentrated on Mr. Evert’s statement “He made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins.” Rodimus, as if suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, again conveniently forgot that I was answering his accusations point by point. So, I was not concentrating on that statement alone. Also, please note that Rodimus chopped my complete paragraph, the remainder of which states -

“Furthermore, Mr. Evert theoretically argued that “the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would have not been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins.” Finally, Mr. Evert pointed out: “If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

Rodimus tried to escape my conclusion by diverting our attention to another matter. He said -

If you will read on in the blog article I further wrote:

Oh no! I thought it is not the Catholic's position that these men were cousins. Also from the question I sent to him by email which was sent AFTER the article was posted …

Here, Rodimus clearly admitted that he already posted his article AFTER he emailed me his questioned. That was precisely my point when I said that Rodimus has already made up his mind even before he asked me the question.

The reason why I did not answer his question publicly because I respected the privacy of communication. His email to me was private, so I had no liberty to comment thereon in public. Rodimus apparently has no idea of the meaning of “privacy of communication..” He violated it in the past for which he already apologized to me.

Oh no! I thought it is not the Catholic's position that these men were cousins …

If I read it correctly, the author states that it is not the Catholic's (sic) position that the brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are cousins of Jesus.

I already explained this in my post. All Rodimus needs to do is to read it again and again until it sinks in his brain. I wrote –

“As I stated earlier, the contradiction in the mind of my good friend RODIMUS is only apparent rather than real. Mr. Evert merely stated his conclusion that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are actually His cousins. It simply means that the Lord’s brothers should not always be taken to mean as His cousins simply because the word “brother” in Hebrew as well as in Aramaic has a more encompassing meaning. The Bible offers various meanings to “brothers” which cannot be restricted to siblings alone. Thus, it is equally true that it is not the official position of the Catholic Church that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus may not be His “cousins.” May I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church –

“Against this doctrine [of perpetual virginity of Mary] the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.” [par. 500, Catechism of the Catholic Church (Manila: ECCE Word and Life Publications, 1994) p. 124].

Simply, there is no contradiction between Mr. Evert’s statement and my conclusion. Both are actually correct. So, Mr. Evert is correct in saying that that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are not actually his cousins because as we can see, the official position of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Catechism is that these “brothers” are “close relations of Jesus” and did not use the word “cousins” to refer to them. However, my position is also correct because “cousins” are also “close relations.” The Church’s canon law as well as our own Family Code prohibits marriage between cousins up to a certain degree because of the close blood relationship that exists between them.. Thus, as far as I’m concerned, my cousins are my close relatives. I just don’t know if RODIMUS considers his cousins as distant relatives.

If Rodimus didn’t get it, there must be something terribly wrong with his reading comprehension. He argued –

Therefore, I understood Mr. Evert’s position.

Atty. Llasos tries to get out of his predicament by saying his and Mr. Evert’s position are offering alternative approaches on defending the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Simply, there is no contradiction between Mr. Evert’s statement and my conclusion. Both are actually correct. So, Mr. Evert is correct in saying that that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are not actually his cousins because as we can see, the official position of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Catechism is that these “brothers” are “close relations of Jesus” and did not use the word “cousins” to refer to them. However, my position is also correct because “cousins” are also “close relations.”

That is what Mr. Evert and I precisely did! We presented alternative arguments. These alternative arguments in no way compromise the thesis that the “brothers” of the Lord were not children of Mary.

Rodimus chopped my response to him. The long paragraphs in between were omitted. Also the paragraphs thereafter. This is my complete argument:

Simply, there is no contradiction between Mr. Evert’s statement and my conclusion. Both are actually correct. So, Mr. Everet is correct in saying that that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are not actually his cousins because as we can see, the official position of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Catechism is that these “brothers” are “close relations of Jesus” and did not use the word “cousins” to refer to them. However, my position is also correct because “cousins” are also “close relations.” The Church’s canon law as well as our own Family Code prohibits marriage between cousins up to a certain degree because of the close blood relationship that exists between them. Thus, as far as I’m concerned, my cousins are my close relatives. I just don’t know if RODIMUS considers his cousins as distant relatives.

Again, let us read Mr.. Evert’s statement –

“Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: "Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins." That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

RODIMUS made a serious misreading of Mr. Evert’s statement. RODIMUS claims that Mr. Evert “made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins; it's a misconception.” RODIMUS’ conclusion is not accurate. He clearly misrepresents Mr. Evert’s view. Mr. Evert did not categorically say, as RODIMUS would have us believe, that Jesus brothers are not His cousins. In fact, all that Mr.. Evert is saying is that “we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins.” Furthermore, Mr. Evert theoretically argued that “the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would have not been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins.” Finally, Mr. Evert pointed out: “If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

Mr. Evert and I are in full agreement that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are not the children of Mary. Mr. Evert was categorical: “All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary.” Where’s the contradiction there? In my critique of Dr. Pezzotta, I also mentioned that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were not said to be the “children of Mary.”

RODIMUS never realized that the arguments in support of Catholic teachings constitute a vast arsenal. There are many weapons in that arsenal. Catholic apologists may choose the weapon that best suits them. There are so many ways to skin a cat.

What is necessary in this discussion is that Catholics, apologist or not, agree on essential things. It’s enough that we are united in our belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The thesis to be proven, which the Church affirms and both I and Mr. Evert are unanimous about, is that the so-called “brothers” of Our Lord are not the children of Mary. There is so much room for argumentation on how one arrives at that conclusion. As I said, we are free to choose from our arsenal the weapon that best suits us.

In disputations, there is such a thing as “alternative argumentation.” This is case where we argue “assuming ex gratia argumenti” or “assuming arguendo.” In English, it goes something like “granting for the sake of argument” or “granting without admitting.” This is a valid form of argumentation.

That is what Mr. Evert and I precisely did! We presented alternative arguments. These alternative arguments in no way compromise the thesis that the “brothers” of the Lord were not children of Mary.

I don’t know what makes it difficult for RODIMUS to see that. Maybe, his anti-Catholic bigotry already clouded his thinking which I hope not. Notice how Mr. Evert constructed his argument:

1. The Church affirms that they were not children of Mary;

2. We can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins;

3. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage;

4. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins;

5. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi" covers the situation;

6. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

It is clear that Mr. Evert used alternative arguments as can be noticed in the words he employed: “could have been;” “probably would not have been,” “if even” (or “even if” – i.e., “assuming for the sake of argument”).

Thus said, the sweeping and hasty conclusion of RODIMUS that “The Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them. The glaring contradiction above is just one of the many,” is utterly baseless. It has no leg to stand on.

It’s just so sad that Rodimus doesn’t get the point. Anyway, that’s not anymore my problem but his. I just can lead the horse to the water but I can’t force it to drink.

Not so fast, Atty. Llasos.

This expression from Rodimus indicates that he has already conceded the point. It means that he wanted to move on to the next argument.

Mr. Evert said, we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins. Why were you able to tell that these were his cousins? That is why I am asking if what you and Mr. Evert has written are PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS, which we Evangelicals are being criticized of. Moreover, if it is not the official position of your church that the brothers are cousins, then why are you teaching that they are cousins?

I already stated the reason why I did not publicly respond to this question because Rodimus raised it in a private email. Since the cat is out of the bag, I will now publicly respond.

Mr. Evert did opine that that “we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins” because that word encompasses a lot of meanings in the Bible; nevertheless, insofar as Matthew 13:55 is concerned, Mr. Evert does not rule out the possibility that those called “brothers” of Jesus were his cousins. This he categorically admitted when he said: “But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them..”

Mr. Evert agrees with my analysis because he never called my attention if I were misrepresenting him. The fact is that he linked my blog to his signifying that he is in full accord with what I am saying.

Never appreciating the clear import of Mr. Evert’s statement, Rodimus accused me of “escaping a loophole” when I said that “Mr. Evert and I are in full agreement that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are not the children of Mary.”

I was not escaping a loophole because there was none. I was simply stating a fact. This is obvious in what Mr. Evert said: “All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary.”

The way I understand it no matter what the explanation is, it is acceptable as long as the bottom line remains the same which is the brothers of Jesus are not Mary’s children.

Of course! Rodimus’ monumental blindness caused by his overmastering hatred of Catholicism (which the Bereans deride as “Romanism”) prevents him from seeing the truth although it is staring at him in the face. Like Pontius Pilate, despite seeing Truth in person, still asked, “What is truth?”

Mr. Evert’s statement that “All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary” is actually what par. 500 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.”

Rodimus arrogantly said –

This reminded me of a funny story about a defense lawyer who is trying to win an acquittal for his client on the charges of murder. The said defense lawyer brought in two witnesses who will testify that his client, the accused, was not in the murder scene which is in Makati. The first witness testified that the accused was in Quezon City. The second witness testified that the accused was in Pasig. Of course the Prosecution questioned the testimonies of the two witnesses due to inconsistency. The defense lawyer reasoned out, “Who cares? The important thing is that my client wasn’t in Makati where the murder was committed.” This is exactly what Atty. Llasos is trying to do.

What is a lot funnier is an accountant, despite being a non-lawyer, would presume to know the law. Here, Rodimus of the Bereans displayed his gross ignorance of the law!

It’s funny to see a cat which is trying to bark! It looks like an accountant trying to be a lawyer!

While I do not share the strategy of the defense counsel in Rodimus “funny” story, I would like to point out that, based on the facts given by Rodimus, the accused is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The scene of the crime is in Makati. If there’s no testimony that the accused was in Makati where the grisly crime of murder occurred, the accused should be acquitted because it is very elementary that the quantum of proof for conviction in a criminal charge is beyond reasonable doubt.

Rodimus, just stick to your profession. You are simply a charlatan when it comes to law. That’s not your field, friend. You are just displaying in public the arrogance of your ignorance!

Atty. Llasos further stated that there are many ways to skin a cat. Unfortunately, his way of skinning the cat is also skinning the other person who is skinning the same cat.

Here, Rodimus tries to clumsily deflect the skinning away from himself. He forgot that he was the cat we were skinning!

By concluding that these brothers were cousins whereas it is not the Catholic position, anyone can say the theories concocted are not only contradictory but are also self-serving.

This has already been answered. Rodimus, in refusing to understand our answer, can opt to continue burying his head in the sand like an ostrich. I can’t do anything anymore to convince him to agree with me. As a bigoted evangelical, he has already made up his mind.

“A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

“Prejudice squints when it looks and lies when it talks.”

[More articles to follow]