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

[Heterodoxus]

And now you will tell us all which books really belong in the Bible.

And precisely where did you see--or think you saw--where I said this or anything like it?

Your apparent arrogance seems to be affecting your perception. Moreover, your incorrect presumption about what I said makes me wonder what other of your pro-Catholic opinions are also incorrect?

[TheCatholic]

And now you will tell us all which books really belong in the Bible.

And precisely where did you see--or think you saw--where I said this or anything like it?....

You said, "Historically, wasn't it Catholic churchmen who selectively compiled and misconstrued scripture in favor of their religious-political agenda?"

This implies that the Bible is incomplete, or that there are books in it that Catholics wanted but don't really belong there.

So, since you seem to know this, I am assuming you also know what REALLY belongs in the Bible. Do you? Or were you just talking out of the side of your neck?

[dan p]

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.

Hi to you , and COUSIN is also used in Luke 1:36 and Luke 1:58 and Num 36:11 and Luke 2:44 and 21:16 .

[Heterodoxus]

And now you will tell us all which books really belong in the Bible.

And precisely where did you see--or think you saw--where I said this or anything like it?....

You said, "Historically, wasn't it Catholic churchmen who selectively compiled and misconstrued scripture in favor of their religious-political agenda?"

This implies that the Bible is incomplete, or that there are books in it that Catholics wanted but don't really belong there.

So, since you seem to know this, I am assuming you also know what REALLY belongs in the Bible. Do you? Or were you just talking out of the side of your neck?

Your assumptions are incorrect. You see, I don't know what belongs in the Bible, and I really don't care what should or should not be in it. As most pro-Catholic Bible believers tend to do, you're misconstruing the text of my message (in this situation) similar to the way the early Church-approved and supported editors misconstrued the texts of the manuscripts they cited as authoritative support for their agenda and dogma. But, I digress.

If you've cited me correctly, then please note that I neither said or implied that I know what belongs in the Bible. Instead, I posted an inquiry, not a real or imagined implication or statement. You are, of course, free to construe what I said as you wish.

Nevertheless, the historical facts of the Bible's creation and evolution speak for themselves. It's not my place to put words into the mouth of history. I'll leave that to the compensated theology staffs within the church corporations.

[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.

[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.

The bible is such a condensed story, everything that the human scribes of the spiritual author of the book, had recorded, was recorded for a reason. For instance, why is Thomas Jude called the twin? A twin to who? Why add this little piece of trivia? Or when it is said that Joseph of Arimathea, place the body in his own family tomb, why bother to add the trivia that the tomb had never been used.

How many women by the name of Mary, were there at the death, burial and the empty tomb of Jesus? Luke mentions only, that the women who had followed him from Galilee were watching the crucifixion of Jesus, now we know that Mary the mother of Jesus lived in Galilee and was at the scene of his death, and so we can be sure that she was among those women. Luke then goes on to say that the women who had followed him from Galilee, which would have included his mother Mary, went with Joseph and saw the tomb and how the body of Jesus was placed in it. He then names three of those women who came to the empty tomb after the Sabbath, and they were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, who Paul describes as the brother of Jesus, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, who was the financial steward of Herod Antipas, and she ministered to Jesus and his disciples out of her own pocket. So according to Luke, there were only two women by the name of Mary.

Next we turn to Mark who states, that looking on at the crucifixion, were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the younger, who Paul describes as the brother of Jesus, who is also the mother of Joseph, which is the name of another of the brothers of Jesus, who are mentioned in Matthew 13: 55.

Mark, also mentions Salome as being there, it is unsure whether he is referring to Salome as a child of Mary, or just one of the women in attendance, some believe that Salome was the wife of Zebedee and the mother the brothers “James and John,� who were surnamed, “The Sons of Thunder,� by Jesus.

Mark goes on the reveal that the women who watched Joseph place the body of Jesus in his own family tomb, were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph, although Luke had said that Mary the mother of James the younger, (the brother of our Lord) was there watching the body of Jesus placed in the tomb, we will see that Mary is the mother of both James the younger and Joseph, and there at the empty tomb, Mark names the women present, as being Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, (the brother of our Lord), who is the same Mary, who is the mother of Joseph, who Mark revealed was at the burial.

Luke and Mark reveal that Joseph and James the younger, who is the brother of our Lord, are of the womb of Mary, or rather, the sons of Mary, who was one of the two women by the name Mary at the death, burial, and empty tomb of Jesus, the other Mary, being Mary Magdalene.

Now we come to the Gospel of Matthew 27: 56; where we read that among the women who were standing at the cross of Jesus, were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the younger, (the brother of our Lord) and Joseph. Then in verse 61, it is said, that sitting there facing the tomb in which the body of Jesus had just been placed by Joseph, were Mary Magdalene, and the OTHER Mary, not one of the other mary’s, but the only other Mary.

Who is this OTHER Mary? It is obviously the other Mary who was at the cross with Mary Magdalene, and she was Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Matthew 28: 1; states that immediately after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and the OTHER Mary, found the tomb to be empty. By referring to Mary the Mother of James and Joseph, who was at the cross, as the OTHER Mary at the burial and empty tomb, Matthew reveals that there were only two women at the death, burial and empty tomb of Jesus by the name Mary, and they are Mary Magdalene, and his mother Mary who bore his younger brothers Joseph, and James the younger of her three biological sons.

John reveals that the two women by the name Mary, who were at the death, burial and empty tomb of Jesus, were his Mother, and his mothers sister or perhaps her sister-in-law, and he names them as being Mary the wife of Cleopas (His mother) and Mary Magdalene (Her sister or rather sister in law), who could have been the sister of Cleopas the father of Simeon, and as Cleopas is one and the same person as Alpheaus, and who is the father of James the younger of Mary’s three sons, he is also the father of Judas, who is called, Thaddeus, Lebbeus, and Thomas didymus Jude, who wrote the epistle of Jude and who claims to be the brother of James, being sired by the same father, Alphaeus/Cleopas, these then are the four brothers of Jesus, "James and Joseph," the biological sons of Mary and the two sons of her last husband Cleopas/Alphaeus, "Simon and Jude."

By revealing that Joseph placed the body of Jesus in his own family tomb, “That had never been used,� could this have been Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, who had no sex with mary until after she had birthed her firstborn son Jesus, and could he have still been alive at the time of the death of Jesus?

Knowing that Jesus was preaching, that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery, and that the Jewish authorities were always looking for ways to trap Jesus by his own teachings and then accuse him in front of the people, and remembering that these hypocrites would have been obligated by the law of Moses, if this woman had actually been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than the one with who she was legally married to at that time (As divorce was allowed according to the Law of Moses) to have her stoned to death as they did with the innocent Stephen, then who was this woman that they said had been caught in the very act of adultery (According to the new teaching of Jesus) who did not break the law of Moses according to those hypocrites, whose bluff Jesus called?

That woman, to whom Jesus said, go, and sin no more, would be obligated to break her union with her current husband and his children, could this be the reason, that Jesus then entrusted the care of his mother, to his beloved disciple John? I firmly believe that this was the case.

[Ooberman]

... and since they was no word for Cousin in greek....

Except there was:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/628235

anepsiou pais, for example.

Kinda destroys your hypothesis right out of the gate, doesn't it?

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

hahahah

ooops.... on your part.... I'm a little embarrassed for you. :-/

[Skyangel]

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.

[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...

[Skyangel]

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.