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

[S-word]

To the question, "Did Mary really only have one child"? The answere is no.
Mary had three biological sons, Jesus, Joseph, and James the younger of the three, who is the brother of Jesus and the son of Alphaeus who is also called Cleopas. The two step-sons of Mary, were the sons of Alpheaus/Cleopas.

Cleopas/Alphaeus was the husband of Mary at the time of the death of Jesus, and he is the father also of Judas, who is called Thomas Didymus Jude (Didymus means Twin) , and Simon who succeeded to the episcopal throne of the church of Christ in Jerusalem, when his half brother James was murdered in 62 AD.

According to Matthew 13: 55; Jesus had four brothers, James the younger of all his brothers, who was the biological son of Mary and Cleopas/Alpheaus. Then there is Joseph, of who we know nothing, although there are those, including myself, who believe that he is the Joseph from Arimathea, who placed the body of Jesus in his own family tomb, which had never been used, then Judas and Simon the sons of Alpheaus/Cleopas, plus Jesus had sisters ; how many? Who knows, although it is supposed by some that Salome, who is mentioned as being at the empty tomb was one of the sisters of Jesus.

[Dokimas]

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?

Yes!!!

Jesus said in "That day" many will come saying Lord, Lord did we not .... do such and such in Your Name and He will tell to depart from Him. Too many of us fall far shorter than we know.

[Dokimas]

"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?

The word 'catholic' means universal. When the NT uses it, I think you'll find it is NOT as a proper noun such as Catholic Church.

[The Tongue]

[Heterodoxus wrote]…….. "Scripture most definately is in favour with the One,Holy,Catholic,Apostolic Church.

Scripture, which is the unleavened bread that has come down to us from the very heights of time, that has been polluted with the added yeast of the authorities of the Roman church of Constantine, may be in favor with the unholy catholic church, the Roman bride of the anti-christ who refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, but not to those who have remained with the teachings of the apostles of Jesus.

[Heterodoxus wrote]…….. "So 100% definitely scripture is right in Catholic view."

The bread that has been so polluted and swollen so as to be nothing like the original taste of the unleavened bread of God, is definitely right in catholic view, but not to those who have remained with the teachings of the apostles of Jesus.

[Heterodoxus wrote]…….. 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?

Yes they chose only the books that could be conformed to the Roman belief of Isis and her godchild Horus, after they had added their filthy yeast to make it appear that words such as “ALMAH� from the Hebrew, and “Parthenos� from the Greek, meant “VIRGIN,� etc, etc, etc.

[Heterodoxus wrote]…….. Did you think the Catholic Church would spin scripture to conform to a non-Catholic perspective

No we don’t. Nor do we “THINK� that the Catholic Church would spin scripture to conform to the false belief of "The Virgin Birth" for it has been conclusively proven that she has done so, and we "KNOW" it.