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

[Ooberman]

The Catholic Church seems to teach that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin all her life but she was not.

Matt 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The words "knew her not" is a Jewish idiom meaning he had no sexual relations with her TILL AFTER Jesus was born.

Since Joseph would logically have had sexual relations with his own wife AFTER Jesus was born, Jesus could easily have had brothers and sisters and Mary was no longer a virgin since Matt 1:25 implies Joseph did have sex with her after she gave birth to Jesus.

Maybe they used birth control... or practiced an alternative method of intercourse that doesn't result in pregnancy, if you know what I mean...

What's the point of Mary getting married to Joseph at all if she was to be a virgin all her life anyway? He might as well not have bothered getting married to the woman and picked a different one.

For the fame, or after-life insurance benefits?

[Skyangel]

Very few men become famous for being the husbands of virgins.

[olddocbenway]

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

In what way can this be a reasonable discussion if this is what you think?

I would say that once the Catholic Church once condemned condoms, now the Pope has said they're a good idea. Which is right? Because one must be wrong.

[Ooberman]

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

In what way can this be a reasonable discussion if this is what you think?

I would say that once the Catholic Church once condemned condoms, now the Pope has said they're a good idea. Which is right? Because one must be wrong.

Obviously they were right at one time, then they changed and were right to change at another time... dontcha know!

[mitty]

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.

But who was Jesus's biological father. Luke 3:23 suggests that he was probably Heli's son (coincidently also called Joseph). Presumably this was based on eye-witness observations of a relationship between Heli's son and Mary which was somewhat more than just platonic. But as Luke suggests, maternity is a matter of fact whereas paternity is a matter of opinion, but one thing's for sure it wasn't the almighty that lifted her nightie. And the genealogy in Luke isn't Mary's as some suggest, since her parents were susposedly Joachime and Anne (Gospel of James) and the wording "so people thought" precludes that anyway and Jesus's stepfather (Jacob's son) denied paternity but still married Mary to save her from stoning.

[Adstar]

Mary had other Children. The Bible says so. the belief that She never had other children is a catholic construct, just the traditions of men.

And to one who's religion believes that what ever the authorities of the catholic church teach is infallible, even what is clearly written in the bible can by denied out of faith to their church.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[The Word]

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

Where does it say that we need to learn the old Greek or Hebrew to understand the scriptures better?

My wife understands five languages because she studied language for twenty years while she was going to school. She told me a lot about how languages change over time.

The problem with trying to understand an old language is that no one is living today that knew the languages of 2,000 years ago. It is impossible to know what the meaning of each word was in those times.

I know that a Christian who learns Greek or Hebrew will slant the meanings in english to say that they understand the true languages of those times. Not even the Jews who speak Hebrew can understand the Hebrew that was spoken in the time of Jesus. Their scriptures have been updated since then.

This is easily understood by the way the Muslims think the Dead Sea Scrolls fit their scriptures and the Christians are lying. There's no way to tell what the true meanings of the words in the Dead Sea Scrolls are because they were written over 2,000 years ago. The languages have changed a lot since then so there's no truth to be found in any old documents like that.

The only truth you can find today is in the gospel that I preach. Only God can give you the correct interpretations of the scriptures and show you all the lies that were added by the Jews and the Roman government, after they killed all the saints.

[Darias]

[font=Impact]1.[/font]

Where does it say that we need to learn the old Greek or Hebrew to understand the scriptures better?

Yes. Why learn the language the scriptures were written in? It's so much easier to understand the original meaning when you just choose whichever modern translation suits your fancy.



[font=Impact]2.[/font]

The problem with trying to understand an old language is that no one is living today that knew the languages of 2,000 years ago. It is impossible to know what the meaning of each word was in those times.

It's not impossible to learn a dead language; people learn Latin all the time. Your claim is unsubstantiated and false.



[font=Impact]3.[/font]

I know that a Christian who learns Greek or Hebrew will slant the meanings in english to say that they understand the true languages of those times. Not even the Jews who speak Hebrew can understand the Hebrew that was spoken in the time of Jesus. Their scriptures have been updated since then.

This is easily understood by the way the Muslims think the Dead Sea Scrolls fit their scriptures and the Christians are lying. There's no way to tell what the true meanings of the words in the Dead Sea Scrolls are because they were written over 2,000 years ago. The languages have changed a lot since then so there's no truth to be found in any old documents like that.

More wild, unsubstantiated claims, straight from the gut. There is no proof or truth in what you are saying -- none.



[font=Impact]4.[/font]

The only truth you can find today is in the gospel that I preach. Only God can give you the correct interpretations of the scriptures and show you all the lies that were added by the Jews and the Roman government, after they killed all the saints.

I say this with your best interests at heart: get some help bud. You are probably suffering from Schizophrenia; please, I urge you to go see your physician.

The most common early warning signs of schizophrenia include:

• * Hostility or suspiciousness

• * Odd or irrational statements

• * Extreme reaction to criticism

• * Strange use of words or way of speaking, etc.

[. . .]

Signs and symptoms of schizophrenia

There are five types of symptoms characteristic of schizophrenia: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, disorganized behavior, and the so-called “negative� symptoms.
However, the signs and symptoms of schizophrenia vary dramatically from person to person, both in pattern and severity. Not every person with schizophrenia will have all symptoms, and the symptoms of schizophrenia may also change over time.

Delusions

A delusion is a firmly-held idea that a person has despite clear and obvious evidence that it isn’t true. Delusions are extremely common in schizophrenia, occurring in more than 90% of those who have the disorder. Often, these delusions involve illogical or bizarre ideas or fantasies. Common schizophrenic delusions include:

[. . .]

Delusions of grandeur – Belief that one is a famous or important figure, such as Jesus Christ or Napolean. Alternately, delusions of grandeur may involve the belief that one has unusual powers that no one else has (e.g. the ability to fly).

[. . .]


Disorganized speech

Fragmented thinking is characteristic of schizophrenia. Externally, it can be observed in the way a person speaks. People with schizophrenia tend to have trouble concentrating and maintaining a train of thought. They may respond to queries with an unrelated answer, start sentences with one topic and end somewhere completely different, speak incoherently, or say illogical things.

Common signs of disorganized speech in schizophrenia include. . .

Perseveration – Repetition of words and statements; saying the same thing over and over.

[. . .]

Signs and symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia

The defining feature of paranoid schizophrenia is absurd or suspicious ideas and beliefs. These ideas typically revolve around a coherent, organized theme or “story� that remains consistent over time. Delusions of persecution are the most frequent theme, however delusions of grandeur are also common.

_____
SOURCE

[S-word]

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

Mary had three biological sons, Jesus, whose biological father was her half brother, "Joseph the son of Heli the Levite," as opposed to Josep the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah. Apparently, Mary was unaware at the time that she conceived the child Jesus, that her father "Heli" had sired a son to another woman in Cyprus.

Her second son was Joseph, who was named after his father who had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus the grandson of Heli. We know very little of this Joseph who would have been brought up by his father who, it would seem, had later divorced Mary. Although it is thought by many, that he is the Joseph from Arimathea, who buried Jesus in his own family tomb that had never been used; even the father of Joseph of Arimathea, was apparently still alive

Her third son was the James the younger of her biological sons. James the brother of the Lord Jesus was sired by Cleophas, who was the husband of Mary at the time of the crucifixion, and Cleophas (Greek) is also called Alpheaus (Arabic).

Cleophas/Alphaeus, had previously sired two sons to another woman, and they, the two step brothers of Jesus, were Jude, also called Thomas Didymus Jude, and Simeon the son of Cleophas, who succeeded James the brother of the Lord, who was the first of a line of the family relations of Jesus, to sit on the Episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision in Jerusalem.

Matthew 13: 55; "Isn't he the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simeon, and Judas his brothers?"

[S-word]

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

[Joshua wrote]......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.

[S-word's response]....... As I have shown in my previous post, Mary had three biological sons and two step-sons. The first of who was Jesus, the grandson of Alexander Helios, (Heli) who was executed by order of Herod the Great sometime between the years of 17-13 BCE, in the pogroms which saw the demise of many of the Davidian princes, her mother Hannah apparently died a premature death.

Heli was the first husband of Anna (Hanna), who married Joachim after the death of Heli the father of "Joseph the Levite," who is the biological father of Jesus.

Her second son was Joseph, the name sake of his father, Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah: Joseph was a very common name in those days as it is today, and Joseph the Levite and biological father of Jesus, should not be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who became the step-father of Jesus, when he married Mary (Consumated their union) after she had given birth to Jesus the grandson of Heli, (Alexander Helios.)

James the younger of her three biological sons was sired by Cleophas (Greek) who is also called Alphaeus (Aramiac) and Alphaeus/Cleophas had previously sired two sons from an earlier marriage and they were Simeon and Judas, her step-sons.

There were only two women by the name "MARY" at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of Jesus, one was his mother, Mary the mother of James and Joseph the two half brothers to Jesus, and she was the wife of Cleophas, the other, was her sister-in-law, Mary Magdalene, the young sister of Cleophas.

So you were incorrect in saying, "others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons," because Matthew, Mark and Luke, all refer to the other Mary who was with Mary Magdalene at the cross, burial and/or Empty tomb, as Mary the mother of James and Joseph the two half brothers of Jesus. This other Mary we know from John, was Mary the mother of Jesus, who at that time was the wife of Cleophas.