One of the most common objections to Catholic teaching about Mary sounds very simple:
\u201cThe Bible says Jesus had brothers. Therefore Mary must have had other children.\u201d
Another objection points to Matthew:
\u00ab\u201cHe knew her not until she had borne a son.\u201d
\u2014 Matthew 1:25\u00bb
And another asks:
\u201cWhy would Mary and Joseph remain virginal after they were married?\u201d
At first glance, these objections may seem decisive.
But when we slow down and examine the biblical language, the family relationships mentioned in the Gospels, Mary’s extraordinary words at the Annunciation, what happens at the Cross, and the testimony of the earliest Christians, the picture becomes much more complicated.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a virgin:
before the birth of Christ
in giving birth to Christ
and:
after the birth of Christ.
For this reason Christian tradition has called her:
Aeiparthenos \u2014 Ever-Virgin
The Catechism explicitly identifies Mary as the \u201cEver-virgin\u201d and teaches her real and perpetual virginity.
But is this merely a later Catholic tradition?
Or are there biblical and historical reasons for believing it?
Let’s examine the evidence.
—
Begin With Mary’s Strange Question
At the Annunciation, Gabriel tells Mary:
\u00ab\u201cBehold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.\u201d
\u2014 Luke 1:31\u00bb
Mary responds:
\u00ab\u201cHow can this be, since I have no relations with a man?\u201d
\u2014 Luke 1:34\u00bb
This is an extraordinary question.
Why?
Because Mary is already:
betrothed to Joseph.
If Mary expected an ordinary married life with Joseph, Gabriel’s announcement that she would eventually have a son would not, by itself, seem impossible.
A woman preparing for marriage would normally understand perfectly well how she might one day conceive a child.
Yet Mary’s immediate response is:
\u201cHow can this be?\u201d
And she gives the reason:
\u201cI have no relations with a man.\u201d
This verse has therefore led many Christians throughout history to wonder whether Mary had already made some form of commitment to virginity.
We should be careful.
Scripture does not explicitly say:
\u00ab\u201cMary made a vow of perpetual virginity.\u201d\u00bb
So we should not pretend that it does.
But her question is nevertheless unusual enough to deserve serious attention.
—
Could a Jewish Woman Make a Binding Vow?
This is where the Old Testament becomes relevant.
Numbers 30 clearly shows that women could make serious vows before God.
It even gives rules governing vows made by young unmarried women and married women. A woman’s vow could under certain circumstances be confirmed or annulled by her father or husband.
So the idea that a woman could consecrate herself to God through a vow is thoroughly biblical.
However, Numbers 30 does not specifically command or describe Mary’s supposed lifelong vow of virginity.
That distinction matters.
The Catholic argument should therefore be:
A vow by Mary is biblically possible.
Not:
\u201cNumbers 30 proves Mary took a vow of virginity.\u201d
It doesn’t.
But when Numbers 30 is placed beside Mary’s question in Luke 1:34, the traditional interpretation becomes quite reasonable:
Mary may already have intended a virginal form of consecration to God.
This would also help explain why her question is not simply:
\u00ab\u201cWhen will this happen?\u201d\u00bb
but:
\u201cHow can this be?\u201d
—
An Ancient Christian Tradition Remembered Such a Vow
Interestingly, an extremely early Christian writing called the:
Protoevangelium of James
preserves precisely this tradition.
It is an apocryphal work.
That means:
It is not Scripture.
The Catholic Church does not treat it as inspired revelation, and we should not use it as though it were another Gospel.
But historically it is important.
The work comes from early Christianity and portrays Mary as having been consecrated to God, with Joseph chosen to protect her virginity.
That does not prove that every detail of the work is historically accurate.
What it does prove is something much more modest but still significant:
Belief in Mary’s continuing virginity is extremely ancient.
It was not an idea suddenly invented in medieval Europe.
Christians were already telling Mary’s story in this way very early in the history of the Church.
Origen, writing in the third century, was already aware of the tradition preserved in the \u201cBook of James\u201d that Jesus’ brethren were children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.
That brings us to the biggest objection.
—
\u201cBut Jesus Had Brothers\u201d
The New Testament plainly refers to:
the brothers of Jesus.
Matthew records people in Jesus’ hometown saying:
\u00ab\u201cIs he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?\u201d
\u2014 Matthew 13:55\u00bb
The passage then mentions His sisters as well.
So Catholics should never respond by saying:
\u201cThe Bible doesn’t say Jesus had brothers.\u201d
It does.
The real question is:
What does \u201cbrother\u201d mean in these passages?
That is a very different question.
—
\u201cBrother\u201d Does Not Always Mean Another Child of the Same Mother
The Greek word commonly translated brother is:
\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2 \u2014 adelphos
Its normal meaning can certainly be a biological brother.
Catholics should not deny that.
But biblical family language can also be broader than modern English usage.
A clear Old Testament example is Abraham and Lot.
Lot is Abraham’s nephew.
Yet when Abraham speaks to Lot in Genesis 13:8, he describes them as kin \u2014 the underlying biblical tradition uses familial \u201cbrother\u201d language despite Lot not being Abraham’s biological brother. The USCCB translation renders the relationship there as \u201ckindred.\u201d
This matters because Semitic family language could use words such as \u201cbrother\u201d for relatives belonging to the same extended family or clan.
Therefore:
\u201cBrother of Jesus\u201d does not automatically prove \u201canother biological son of Mary.\u201d
We have to identify who these men actually were.
—
James and Joseph Appear Again
Matthew names two of Jesus’ \u201cbrothers\u201d as:
James
and:
Joseph
\u2014 Matthew 13:55.
Later, at the Crucifixion, Matthew mentions another woman:
\u00ab\u201cMary the mother of James and Joseph.\u201d
\u2014 Matthew 27:56\u00bb
The Catechism specifically points to this evidence when explaining that the \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus are not understood by the Church to be other children of the Virgin Mary. It identifies James and Joseph with the sons of another Mary and describes them as close relations of Jesus.
At the very least, this shows why we cannot simply read:
\u00ab\u201cJames, the brother of Jesus\u201d\u00bb
and immediately conclude:
\u00ab\u201cJames must therefore be another son of Mary, the mother of Jesus.\u201d\u00bb
The family relationships require more careful examination.
—
Two Ancient Explanations
Historically, two principal explanations developed among Christians for the \u201cbrothers of the Lord.\u201d
One held that they were:
children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.
This is the explanation reflected in the Protoevangelium of James and known to Origen. Origen explicitly reports the tradition that Jesus’ brethren were Joseph’s sons by a former wife.
Another explanation, defended famously by:
St. Jerome
understood the brothers as:
close relatives or cousins of Jesus.
Catholic doctrine does not require us to settle every detail of their precise genealogy.
What the doctrine maintains is simply:
They were not later biological children of the Virgin Mary.
And this understanding is explicitly maintained by the Catechism.
—
\u201cUntil\u201d \u2014 Doesn’t Matthew Settle the Question?
Then comes Matthew 1:25.
Speaking about Joseph, Matthew says:
\u00ab\u201cHe had no relations with her until she bore a son.\u201d\u00bb
At first this can sound conclusive.
The argument goes:
Joseph did not have relations with Mary until Jesus was born.
Therefore:
Joseph must have had relations with Mary afterward.
But that conclusion does not necessarily follow from the word until.
In fact, the USCCB’s own biblical note on Matthew 1:25 states that the Greek expression translated \u201cuntil\u201d does not imply normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth \u2014 nor, by itself, does it exclude them.
In other words:
Matthew 1:25 tells us what happened before Jesus’ birth.
Its purpose is to make clear that:
Joseph was not responsible for Jesus’ conception.
It does not tell us what Joseph and Mary did afterward.
—
Scripture Often Uses \u201cUntil\u201d Without Implying a Later Change
St. Jerome noticed this objection in the fourth century when answering Helvidius, who argued that Matthew 1:25 proved Mary and Joseph later had marital relations.
Jerome pointed out that Scripture frequently uses words such as until to describe what is true up to a particular moment without implying that the opposite becomes true afterward.
For example, Jesus says:
\u00ab\u201cI am with you always, until the end of the age.\u201d
\u2014 Matthew 28:20\u00bb
Obviously this does not mean:
\u201cAnd after the end of the age, Christ will no longer be with us.\u201d
Jerome used precisely this kind of biblical reasoning in his defence of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
So Matthew 1:25 cannot prove that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.
The verse simply does not answer that question.
—
\u201cBut Jesus Is Called Mary’s Firstborn\u201d
Another objection comes from Luke.
Jesus is called Mary’s:
firstborn son.
People sometimes reason:
\u00ab\u201cIf Jesus was the firstborn, there must have been a second-born.\u201d\u00bb
But biblically, firstborn was not merely a statement about how many children eventually existed.
It was a legal and covenantal status.
God commanded Israel:
\u00ab\u201cConsecrate to me every firstborn; whatever opens the womb among the Israelites \u2026 belongs to me.\u201d
\u2014 Exodus 13:2\u00bb
A child became the firstborn when he opened the womb \u2014 not when another child was eventually born after him.
Parents did not have to wait for a second baby before their first child acquired the status of firstborn.
Therefore:
Calling Jesus \u201cfirstborn\u201d does not prove Mary later had additional children.
—
Then We Come to the Cross
There is another piece of evidence that deserves serious consideration.
Jesus is dying on Calvary.
His mother stands nearby.
John tells us:
\u00ab\u201cWhen Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, \u2018Woman, behold, your son.\u2019\u201d\u00bb
Then:
\u00ab\u201cHe said to the disciple, \u2018Behold, your mother.\u2019\u201d\u00bb
And Scripture tells us:
\u00ab\u201cFrom that hour the disciple took her into his home.\u201d
\u2014 John 19:26\u201327\u00bb
This raises an obvious question.
If Mary had several other biological sons, why does Jesus entrust her to John?
According to the \u201cMary had other children\u201d interpretation, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas would all have been Mary’s sons.
Yet Jesus does not say:
\u201cMother, James will care for you.\u201d
or:
\u201cGo and live with your other sons.\u201d
Instead, Jesus establishes a new relationship:
Mary \u2192 John
and:
John \u2192 Mary.
John then takes her into his own care.
—
John 19 Does More Than One Thing
We should be fair here as well.
John 19:26\u201327 is not a mathematical proof that Mary had no other children.
Christians can propose explanations for why Jesus might have entrusted Mary to John even if other relatives existed.
But the passage certainly fits naturally with Mary’s perpetual virginity.
And Christians were already noticing this very early.
Origen, writing in the third century, explicitly reasons from this passage that Mary had:
\u00ab\u201cno other son but Jesus.\u201d\u00bb
That is extremely significant.
The John 19 argument is not something invented by modern Catholic apologists.
A major Christian theologian was making essentially the same observation around the beginning of the third century.
—
Mary as a Woman Consecrated to God
Now put Mary’s story together.
At the Annunciation:
The Holy Spirit comes upon her.
The power of the Most High:
overshadows her.
The eternal Son of God takes flesh within her.
Mary becomes what we have already seen in another article:
The Ark of the New Covenant.
The Old Ark was set apart for God because it carried the signs of God’s presence.
Mary carried:
God the Son Himself.
This does not prove perpetual virginity by itself.
But it helps us understand the theological logic that developed very early in Christianity.
Mary’s life had become uniquely:
consecrated to God.
Her virginity was therefore not viewed as a rejection of marriage or of human sexuality.
Marriage is good.
Sexual union within marriage is good.
Children are good.
The argument is not:
sex is impure, therefore Mary could not have had marital relations.
That would be bad Catholic theology.
Rather, the traditional Christian idea is:
Mary had been set apart by God for a singular vocation.
Her perpetual virginity expresses the completeness of that consecration.
The Catechism describes Mary’s virginity as a sign of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.
—
What Did the Earliest Christians Believe?
Now we move from Scripture into history.
This is important.
Even if someone remains unconvinced by every biblical argument, another question must still be answered:
What did Christians closest to the Apostolic age believe?
If perpetual virginity were a medieval Catholic invention, we would expect silence or widespread opposition in early Christianity.
Instead, we find something very different.
—
The Protoevangelium of James
The Protoevangelium of James is not part of the Bible.
Again, that must be emphasised.
But historically it is an early witness to Christian beliefs about Mary.
Its story portrays Mary as having been dedicated to God and presents Joseph not simply as a husband expecting an ordinary marriage but as a guardian entrusted with protecting the virgin.
We do not have to accept all of the document’s stories as historical to recognise its importance.
It demonstrates that Christians were already associating Mary with:
lifelong virginity
very early indeed.
Later Christians did not have to invent this idea from nothing.
It was already present within ancient Christian memory.
—
Clement of Alexandria
The historical material from the early centuries also shows:
Clement of Alexandria
speaking about Mary’s virginity in the early third century.
Clement draws a remarkable comparison between Mary and the Church:
both are mothers,
yet:
both remain virginal.
This gives us an important insight.
Mary was already becoming an image of:
the Church herself.
Virgin and Mother.
Faithful to God.
Yet fruitful in bringing forth life.
—
Origen \u2014 Around AD 230
Origen gives us particularly useful evidence.
He knows traditions concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary.
He knows the explanation that the \u201cbrothers\u201d were children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.
And, as we have already seen, he specifically points to Jesus’ words from the Cross.
For Origen, Mary had:
no other son but Jesus.
This is approximately a century before the Council of Nicaea.
Christian belief in Mary’s continuing virginity clearly did not originate in the Middle Ages.
—
Athanasius \u2014 \u201cEver-Virgin\u201d
By the fourth century the language becomes even more explicit.
St. Athanasius
the great defender of Christ’s divinity against Arianism, refers to Mary within the tradition as:
Ever-Virgin.
This is especially noteworthy because Athanasius’ primary concern was not Marian devotion.
His great theological battle concerned:
Who is Jesus Christ?
Yet the language of Mary’s continuing virginity appears naturally within his Christology.
—
St. Epiphanius
Later in the fourth century:
St. Epiphanius
strongly defended Mary’s perpetual virginity against those who denied it.
His language could be fiery \u2014 fourth-century theological arguments were rarely dull.
But his intensity tells us something historically important.
For Epiphanius, the idea that Mary had ordinary marital relations after Christ’s birth was not a harmless alternative interpretation.
It contradicted what he understood to be the received Christian tradition.
—
St. Jerome and Helvidius
Then we come to one of the most famous controversies.
Around AD 383, a Christian writer named:
Helvidius
argued that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth and that the \u201cbrothers of Jesus\u201d were Mary’s other children.
St. Jerome responded with an entire work:
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
Jerome takes on the very objections still heard today.
\u201cUntil.\u201d
\u201cFirstborn.\u201d
\u201cBrothers of Jesus.\u201d
These are not modern discoveries.
Christians were already debating the exact same biblical passages in the fourth century.
Jerome argued from Scripture that until does not require later intercourse and that the brothers of Jesus need not be children of Mary.
This is valuable because it shows something important:
Catholics are not afraid of these verses.
The verses have been examined and debated for well over sixteen centuries.
—
St. Ambrose
St. Ambrose of Milan
also defended Mary’s continuing virginity.
For Ambrose, Mary’s virginity belonged to her unique dedication to God and her role as the Mother of Christ.
Again we see the same theme:
Mary’s virginity is not presented as contempt for marriage.
It is a sign of:
consecration.
—
St. Augustine
Then comes:
St. Augustine
one of the most influential Christian theologians in history.
Augustine understood Mary as having freely chosen virginity and remaining a virgin while becoming the Mother of Christ.
The Catechism itself preserves Augustine’s description of Mary as remaining virgin in conceiving, giving birth, carrying and nursing Christ \u2014 \u201calways a virgin.\u201d
This is mainstream ancient Christianity.
Not an obscure medieval speculation.
—
St. Cyril of Alexandria
In the fifth century:
St. Cyril of Alexandria
the great defender of Christ at the Council of Ephesus, also belongs to the tradition affirming Mary’s continuing virginity.
Remember what we saw in our article on:
Theotokos
Cyril’s concern was ultimately Christological.
Who is the child born of Mary?
God the Son made flesh.
Mary’s identity and Mary’s consecration always point beyond Mary herself to:
Jesus Christ.
—
Pope St. Leo the Great
And:
Pope St. Leo the Great
speaks of the mystery in similarly strong terms:
Christ was conceived through divine power.
The virgin conceived.
The virgin gave birth.
And:
the virgin remained.
By the fifth century, Mary’s perpetual virginity was deeply embedded within the faith and preaching of both East and West.
—
Look at the Historical Progression
Now stand back and look at what we have.
We are not starting in the Middle Ages.
We begin with:
Scripture itself
Then very early Christian tradition.
Then:
the Protoevangelium of James
Then:
Clement
Origen
Athanasius
Epiphanius
Jerome
Ambrose
Augustine
Cyril
Leo
Different centuries.
Different countries.
Greek-speaking Christians.
Latin-speaking Christians.
Eastern Christians.
Western Christians.
And yet Mary’s continuing virginity repeatedly appears.
That historical evidence cannot simply be brushed aside.
—
What About Tertullian?
There were exceptions.
Catholic apologetics should acknowledge them.
Tertullian appears to have understood the brothers of Jesus as Mary’s later biological children.
So it would be wrong to say:
\u00ab\u201cAbsolutely every early Christian writer agreed without exception.\u201d\u00bb
History is rarely that tidy.
But one dissenting or ambiguous voice does not erase the overwhelming development of the tradition.
What matters is what became the settled conviction of the ancient Church.
And the historical evidence shows that Mary’s perpetual virginity became firmly and broadly confessed across ancient Christianity.
—
The Question Becomes Historical
At this point, someone who rejects the doctrine has to answer an interesting question.
If Mary actually had several other biological children and everyone in the earliest Church knew this, then:
How did Christianity so quickly come to believe the opposite?
Remember how close these Christians were to the events.
Jesus’ family was known.
James became an enormously important figure in the Jerusalem Church.
The early Christian communities cared deeply about Apostolic memory.
Yet the tradition that emerges is not:
\u201cMary later had a large family with Joseph.\u201d
Instead, the ancient debate concerns whether the \u201cbrothers\u201d were:
Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage
or:
other close relatives of Jesus.
The assumption that they were Mary’s later children did not become the dominant belief of historic Christianity.
That deserves an explanation.
—
The \u201cBrothers\u201d Argument Does Not Settle the Question
We can now return to where we began.
Does the Bible call James, Joseph, Simon and Judas:
brothers of Jesus?
Yes.
Does that automatically mean:
sons of Mary?
No.
Scripture never says:
\u201cMary gave birth to James.\u201d
It never says:
\u201cMary gave birth to Joseph.\u201d
It never says:
\u201cMary gave birth to Simon.\u201d
It never says:
\u201cMary gave birth to Judas.\u201d
Jesus is repeatedly identified as:
the son of Mary.
But Scripture never gives us a verse saying that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, bore another child.
That distinction is important.
—
\u201cUntil\u201d Does Not Settle It Either
Does Matthew say Joseph knew her not until she gave birth?
Yes.
Does until prove what happened afterward?
No.
Even the USCCB’s biblical commentary specifically says it does not.
—
\u201cFirstborn\u201d Does Not Settle It
Is Jesus Mary’s firstborn?
Yes.
Does firstborn necessarily mean Mary later had another child?
No.
Firstborn was a covenantal status belonging to the child who opened the womb.
—
And the Cross Points in the Other Direction
Then John gives us this extraordinary scene:
\u201cWoman, behold, your son.\u201d
\u201cBehold, your mother.\u201d
John takes Mary into his care.
That scene fits naturally with what Christians would later confess:
Jesus was Mary’s only biological Son.
And Origen was already making that connection in the third century.
—
Does Scripture Explicitly Say \u201cMary Remained a Virgin Forever\u201d?
No.
And good Catholic apologetics should simply admit that.
There is no verse that reads:
\u00ab\u201cMary remained a virgin until the end of her earthly life.\u201d\u00bb
But many Christian doctrines are established by examining the whole biblical picture rather than demanding one sentence containing later theological terminology.
The question is therefore not:
\u201cWhere is the one verse?\u201d
The better question is:
\u201cWhich interpretation best fits Scripture and the earliest Christian evidence?\u201d
And the cumulative case is substantial.
—
Mary Had One Son \u2014 Jesus Christ
The Catholic position is beautifully simple.
Mary’s motherhood was unique because her Son was unique.
She was chosen to carry:
The Word made flesh.
She was overshadowed by:
The Holy Spirit.
She became:
The Ark of the New Covenant.
She gave birth to:
Theotokos’ Son \u2014 God the Son made man.
And at the end of Jesus’ earthly life, the Son she had borne entrusted her not to another biological son but to:
the Beloved Disciple.
Her virginity therefore forms part of a much larger biblical picture of:
consecration
faith
obedience
and:
complete self-gift to God.
—
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
When everything is placed together, the Catholic belief does not depend upon one isolated argument.
It rests upon a cumulative case.
Mary’s unusual question:
\u201cHow can this be?\u201d
The biblical possibility of binding vows to God.
The flexible biblical use of family language.
The identity of the \u201cbrothers of Jesus.\u201d
The fact that until does not require a later change.
The legal meaning of firstborn.
Jesus entrusting Mary to John.
And then the testimony of the ancient Church.
All of these pieces point in the same direction.
The doctrine is not saying that marriage is impure.
It is not saying that marital relations are sinful.
It is saying that one woman received an utterly unique vocation.
The woman who said:
\u00ab\u201cBehold, I am the handmaid of the Lord.\u201d
\u2014 Luke 1:38\u00bb
gave herself completely to God’s plan.
She conceived as a virgin.
She gave birth to:
Jesus Christ.
And the ancient Church came to know her by a title that expresses the uniqueness of that vocation:
Aeiparthenos
Mary \u2014 Ever-Virgin.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of the most common objections to Catholic teaching about Mary sounds very simple: \u201cThe Bible says Jesus had brothers. Therefore Mary must have had other children.\u201d Another objection points to Matthew: \u00ab\u201cHe knew her not until she had borne a son.\u201d \u2014 Matthew 1:25\u00bb And another asks: \u201cWhy would Mary and Joseph remain virginal…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":301,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1,14],"tags":[23,31,18,38,7,4,41,51],"class_list":["post-302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-latest-articles","category-mariology","tag-bible","tag-catholic","tag-church-fathers","tag-eve","tag-mary","tag-the-blessed-mother","tag-the-new-eve","tag-theotokos"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/file_0000000034a88246a5af2af37e1aadc1.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/302\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/defendingthetruefaith.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}