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

[Origen]

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

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....

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.

Actually there is. The Greek word for cousin is ἀνεψιός and it is used in the N.T. "Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas's cousin Mark..." (Col. 4:10)

See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. p. 78, and Greek-English Lexicon With a Revised Supplement, 9th Ed. p. 137.

[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.

[Joshua]

Actually there is. The Greek word for cousin is ἀνεψιός and it is used in the N.T.

Yes I guess your right in a way, but the Ancient greek word for cousin, does not have the same meaning as it does in today age. This is what I should of pointed out in my first post.
The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

So the Greek word does not specificly identify cousins but its could mean all variety of family relations, it's not like the English language where we identify family relations specificly like cousin,brother,aunt,uncle.




But if you want to get technicle the scripture states," Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?" (Matthew 13.54-56). This language would of taken place in Hebrew or Aramiac and Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

[Joshua]

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.

[Origen]

Yes I guess your right in a way, but the Ancient greek word for cousin, does not have the same meaning as it does in today age. This is what I should of pointed out in my first post.
The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

So the Greek word does not specificly identify cousins but its could mean all variety of family relations, it's not like the English language where we identify family relations specificly like cousin,brother,aunt,uncle.

But if you want to get technicle the scripture states," Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?" (Matthew 13.54-56). This language would of taken place in Hebrew or Aramiac and Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

Yes I guess your right in a way, but the Ancient greek word for cousin, does not have the same meaning as it does in today age.

I think you are missing the point. The word ἀνεψιός was available and it means cousin (see Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd Ed. Vol. 1 p. 118).

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father...

The fact is the N.T. was written in Greek not Aramaic. The word was available but they did not use it.

So the Greek word does not specificly identify cousins but its could mean all variety of family relations, it's not like the English language where we identify family relations specificly like cousin,brother,aunt,uncle.

Not according to the sources I have checked.

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd Ed. Vol. 1 p. 118.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. p. 78.
Greek-English Lexicon With a Revised Supplement, 9th Ed. p. 137.

[Joshua]

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 is Family was Holy. Him, St. Joseph his foster-father and Is beloved Mother, mothers of all Christians.

Nor does it specificly 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.

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.

But i'll answer best I can.

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.


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.
Simple enough she had no other children, she had no time she devoted her life to the service of the Lord.
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.

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 apparations was happening upon.


The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).


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

God bless friend.

[Origen]

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 is Family was Holy. Him, St. Joseph his foster-father and Is beloved Mother, mothers of all Christians.

Nor does it specificly 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.

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.

But i'll answer best I can.

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.


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.
Simple enough she had no other children, she had no time she devoted her life to the service of the Lord.
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.

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 apparations was happening upon.


The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).


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

God bless friend.

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." It make me wonder why you even started this topic. This forum is for Bible Study. Sorry but I will decide what I think based upon evidence not what the Roman Catholic Church says. Aside from the fact the Catholic Church has gotten many things wrong, do you have a real argument?

[Heterodoxus]

The word ἀνεψιός was available and it means cousin

Confirmed! More accurately, the Greek word recorded in Col. 4:10 (ἀνε�ψιος, anepsios) is rendered into English as "sister's son" in the KJV. This means that Marcus was, according to that rendering, a cousin of Barnabas.

Moreover, the Greek word συγγενη�ς (suggenhs) in Luke 1:36 of codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus; in Codex Vaticanus (as amended), and in N-A27 is correctly (albeit alternately) rendered as "cousin" in the KJV and Douay-Rheims NTs.

[Joshua]

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."

Origen, that message was to McCullogh.


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.