Did Mary really have one Child?

[Joshua]

Well what does Scripture say.

Scripture most definately is in favour with the One,Holy,Catholic,Apostolic Church.
To fully understand scripture we must look know what the words actually mean in Greek... and since they was no word for Cousin in greek.... can Brother and Sister really be use in a wider sense....

Lets look...


There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).



the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).


The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.



So we conclude, if they was no word for Cousin in original greek, and the bible itself uses the term of brother and sister in wider sense, was it used in a wider sense when Mary and his "brothers" visited the synogogue.


Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).



So 100% definitely scripture is right in Catholic view.

To fully understand scripture you most read it in greek.. and understand the ancient jewish culture. Our English writing, and culture obscure's the writings a little bit.


Catholic Apologetics - Joshua

[McCulloch]

Is there anything in the Bible that makes you believe that Mary and Joseph did not have normal relations after Jesus was born? It would be quite unusual in that day and time for them not to have other children, yet it is not remarked upon by any of the Biblical writers.

And it was also quite unsual in them days to have the Son of God within your family. This is why Catholics called it the "Holy family". For the Lord was Holy, therefore [h]is Family was Holy. Him, St. Joseph his foster-father and Is beloved Mother, mothers of all Christians.

Nor does it specifically point out Jesus had brothers or sisters, as I stated in my previous post, the Aramaic or Hebrew language did not have a direct word for cousins, therefore they called them brothers. Providing Jesus did speak Aramaic or Hebrew to the Jewish community he was speaking to.

You would think that the inspired writers, writing in Greek might choose the appropriate word.
From Google Translate:

[row]My brother hates me. My cousin hates me.[col]�ח שלי שונ� �ותי בן דוד שלי שונ� �ותי

It looks to me that there are different words for brother and cousin in Hebrew. Do you know for a fact that this distinction is a property of modern Hebrew only?

But yes its a tricky question to answer, even the heretics of the reformation, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible.

Normally it would be considered disrespectful to refer to the founders of someone's religion as heretics. Please try to tone down the rhetoric. Personally, I don't really care what Luther, Calvin or Zwingli says on the matter. Their scholarship is at best somewhat biased.

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

Refresh my memory. Was the prophet Samuel an only child? Would it be because his mother was a dedicated perpetual virgin or that she was simply too old? So because an 84 year old widow vowed to serve the temple meant that this widow never left the temple, that means that Mary also renounced her life as a normal child-rearing mother, even though she did quite regularly leave the temple. I think that your reasoning is a bit sparse.

Also we conclude in scripture when Jesus gave his mother to be looked after by his disciple John, we ask ourself why John, it has 2 meanings. She became the mother of the Church the mother of all Christianity. We became her Sons.
Also we ask ourselfs again Why John! Why not St.Joseph or her other "Children". If Jesus did have brothers why not trust his own Brothers to her trust, do they not have the right, also St.Joseph was protecter of Mary and Jesus while growing up why not now? Probably because he's dead at this time and the other "Brothers" of Jesus are not Mary's children.

You ask but do not answer the question. Why John and not James? We can presume that Joseph, based on the Biblical silence, was already dead. But James a brother of the Lord might have been a good candidate. If no actual brother was available, why not a cousin?

Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore to Catholics insulting Our Lords Mother is insulting him, for a Mother and Son connection is sacred.

I seem to have missed where it is recorded that Mary vowed not to have other children.

As the messages of Bayside to Veronica Lueken from Lord Jesus state ; “Better that a man has died in the womb of his mother than to disgrace and to bring discredit to My Mother.� (Jesus, 11-22-75) <-- Thats the date.

check the messages on www.tldm.org

Btw Veronica Lueken was a devote Catholic mother of five, who was a Catholic Seer, Pope John Paul II visited the site the apparitions was happening upon.

We had a Prime Minister who claimed to talk with his dead mother, but the claim does not make such things true. Whatever Veronica Lueken says is just that, what Veronica Lueken says, not the words of Jesus of Nazareth.

Decide what you want but the Holy Roman Catholic Church is never wrong. The Holy Spirit guides it.

That is a topic for another debate.

[Origen]

Since you have now backed off the claim that there was no word for cousin, rather than addressing the topic you started you simply proclaim "Decide what you want but the Holy Roman Catholic Church is never wrong. The Holy Spirit guides it."

Regarding, the greek word for cousin, "maybe" I was wrong maybe my research was not good enough, I further my study.

but back onto the original debate of "mary having one child" the ancient aramaic and hebrew language, that Jesus would of spoken in, they was no word for cousin and they always regarded, cousins as brothers.

rendered as "cousin" in the KJV and Douay-Rheims NTs.

Heretic bibles, perverted the Word of God by removing scripture.

One thing the Catholic church as no authority over, but only the authority to compose the bible together.

Regarding, the greek word for cousin, "maybe" I was wrong maybe my research was not good enough, I further my study.

There is no maybe about it.

but back onto the original debate of "mary having one child" the ancient aramaic and hebrew language, that Jesus would of spoken in, they was no word for cousin and they always regarded, cousins as brothers.

Even if what you say it true, it does not matter. The N.T. is in GREEK, not Aramaic and Hebrew. If the authors of the N.T. wanted to use the Greek word for cousin they could have. They did not. They used the GREEK, not Aramaic/Hebrew, word for brother. Were the authors of the N.T. restricted to Aramaic and/or Hebrew vocabulary and grammar? No they were not. Your argument is really no argument at all.

[Heterodoxus]

]rendered as "cousin" in the KJV and Douay-Rheims NTs.

Heretic bibles, perverted the Word of God by removing scripture.

... the Catholic church [h]as ... the authority to compose the bible together.

Heretic Bibles? How did you conclude that? With the exception of the KJV, the 3-4 CE codices and Bible to which I referred are Catholic and pro-Catholic writings.

Moreover, the Douay-Rheims version is used as a parallel text for reading the Latin Vulgate Bible here where the Latin word consobrinus is read as "maternal first cousin" in Col. 4:10.

"Saint Jerome" was authorized by the Catholic Church to compose the Vulgate. The KJV and Douay-Rheims echo that version. Did Jerome also remove scripture from his Church-approved Bible?

[scottlittlefield17]

I would like some examples of places where the KJV or NIV bible scholars deliberately left out or twisted scripture to come against Catholicism. The Catholics disobey many of the Bibles commands, such as making idols, praying to others except God, believing that man has the power to forgive sins, killing of heritics etc. How do you defend those things? As for family, it says that his brothers and sisters and mother were waiting outside and trying to get him something to eat. When he was approached with that fact he looked around and said that theses people were his brothers and mothers and sisters. Also his brothers asked him if he was going up to Jerusalem for the feast. Very, very clear.

[Heterodoxus]

I would like some examples of places where the KJV or NIV bible scholars deliberately left out or twisted scripture to come against Catholicism.

There are way too many examples to give in a short response here. However, you might find some answers to your Bible history-related questions here, perhaps in the section that addresses the post-Reformation, English language Bibles.

If the information at that link is not helpful to you, then I suggest you study a text that addresses the history of the Bible. Such books may be available at your library or at a Christian book retailer.

The Catholics disobey many of the Bibles commands

Yes, many Catholics do seem to do that.

[Goat]

The Catholics disobey many of the Bibles commands

Yes, many Catholics do seem to do that.

How is that different that substituting the word 'Christian' for Catholic, or 'Human' for Catholic?

[Heterodoxus]

The Catholics disobey many of the Bibles commands

Yes, many Catholics do seem to do that.

How is that different that substituting the word 'Christian' for Catholic, or 'Human' for Catholic?

Yup, many other Christians also seem to do that, especially the teachings about charity and loving one's neighbor. (I'm not qualified to speak regarding people who might be unaware of the commands of Biblegod.)

[TheCatholic]

Well what does Scripture say.

Scripture most definately is in favour with the One,Holy,Catholic,Apostolic Church.
To fully understand scripture we must look know what the words actually mean in Greek... and since they was no word for Cousin in greek.... can Brother and Sister really be use in a wider sense....

Lets look...


There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).



the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).


The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.



So we conclude, if they was no word for Cousin in original greek, and the bible itself uses the term of brother and sister in wider sense, was it used in a wider sense when Mary and his "brothers" visited the synogogue.


Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).



So 100% definitely scripture is right in Catholic view.

To fully understand scripture you most read it in greek.. and understand the ancient jewish culture. Our English writing, and culture obscure's the writings a little bit.


Catholic Apologetics - Joshua

Excellent post. Yes, the Blessed Virgin only had one child.

There is an excellent explanation about that here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethre ... e_Lord.asp

[Heterodoxus]

"Scripture most definately is in favour with the One,Holy,Catholic,Apostolic Church.
.....
"So 100% definitely scripture is right in Catholic view."

Ya' think? And why wouldn't it agree with Catholic dogma? Historically, wasn't it Catholic churchmen who selectively compiled and misconstrued scripture in favor of their religious-political agenda?

Did you think the Catholic Church would spin scripture to conform to a non-Catholic perspective?

[TheCatholic]

....Ya' think? And why wouldn't it agree with Catholic dogma? Historically, wasn't it Catholic churchmen who selectively compiled and misconstrued scripture in favor of their religious-political agenda?....

So I guess the Holy Spirit was asleep at the wheel eh? And now you will tell us all which books really belong in the Bible.

Please do tell: Which books do, and do not, belong in the Bible?