Mary Def. Had Other Children...

[Guest Gruvx]

Where is the basis that Mary was a Virgin till death? And that Christ did not have siblings?

Luke2:7 uses [b]firstborn[/b] and in Greek that is prototokos [the first of many others] had Mary not had any other children, the Greek word, monogenes [only son/daughter/child] would have been used. like in Luke 7:12 and in Luke 8:42 where is specifically states only son or daughter. also "The ONLY begotten son of the Father" keyword again only.

no where does it mention that Christ was her only son or child, but it does mention his brothers and his sisters.

Galations 1:19 gives his brother james
I Cor. 9:5 mentions his brothers, whom did not believe in him at first

Matthew 13:55-56

this passage is literal...how can brothers mean cousins in this text [as some claim] when it clearly is speaking of Mother [mary] and father [jospeh]. that would be changing context in the middle of a sentence. .

Matthew 12:46-50

Matthew 1:25 [And knew her not [b]till[/b] she had brought forth her [b]firstborn [/b]son...]

why would it mention firstborn if she had no other children...parents with only one child, do not say this is my FIRSTborn, because it is eviden they dont' have anymore, but the Bible specifically states firstborn to show Mary had others.

Thanks!

[Aloysius]

sorry the scholars are soooo slooooowwww... but i can answer your question!
[quote]Luke2:7 uses firstborn and in Greek that is prototokos [the first of many others] had Mary not had any other children, the Greek word, monogenes [only son/daughter/child] would have been used. like in Luke 7:12 and in Luke 8:42 where is specifically states only son or daughter. also "The ONLY begotten son of the Father" keyword again only.[/quote]

ACTUALLY, it was customary to call the person who first came out of a woman's womb the "firstborn" regardless of whether or not there would be others. menogenes wouldn't have been used there because according to Jewish Law Jesus was the firstborn of Mary and would fit into those rules in the Law that talk of a firstborn. Jesus was Mary's firstborn, there were no others born after Him, but He opened the womb and is thus called "firstborn" according to Jewish thought.

[quote]no where does it mention that Christ was her only son or child, but it does mention his brothers and his sisters.

Galations 1:19 gives his brother james
I Cor. 9:5 mentions his brothers, whom did not believe in him at first
[/quote]
his brethren, see:

[quote][b]Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin." [/b]

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

[b]Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.[/b]

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

[b]Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.[/b]

[b]Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin. [/b]

[b]Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.[/b]

[b]Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin." [/b]

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

[b]2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen. [/b]

[b]1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.[/b]

[b]Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."[/b]

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).[/quote]
[quote]
Matthew 13:55-56

this passage is literal...how can brothers mean cousins in this text [as some claim] when it clearly is speaking of Mother [mary] and father [jospeh]. that would be changing context in the middle of a sentence. .
[/quote]

it is speaking of his family. They know His mother, His father, His cousins.
Matthew 12:46-50

[quote]
Matthew 1:25 [And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son...]
[/quote]

simple, "until" or heos in greek, does not mean that he knew her after. in english, that's the connotation the word "until" has, but not in greek.

[quote]
why would it mention firstborn if she had no other children...parents with only one child, do not say this is my FIRSTborn, because it is eviden they dont' have anymore, but the Bible specifically states firstborn to show Mary had others.

Thanks!

[/quote]
your welcome. i'm sure the Church Scholars will get to it eventually.

pAx

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

If brother must absolutely mean brother, then you must admit that any and all of the brothers Jesus had were also conceived by the Holy Spirit, right? Since at most Jesus could have had half-brothers, the term brothers must mean something other than brother. It may still refer to step-brothers. Joseph may have been widowes and had sons with this first wife. When he married Mary, these children would have become Jesus's step-brothers. I guess my point is that brother not only cannot, but must not mean real full-blooded brother!

[dUSt]

Moving this to the Debate Table.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Gruvx' date='Jun 23 2004, 12:56 AM'] that would be changing context in the middle of a sentence. . [/quote]
You are rock, and on this rock I build my church. Gee let me think...

Dude, that happens a lot

Edited June 23, 2004 by RandomProddy

[crusader1234]

I think that your comments about 1:25 are interesting and would like to hear how people refute this as I don't know how.

[Aloysius]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=14388"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=14388[/url]

[p0lar_bear]

I'm too lazy right now to write this out myself, but read this

[url="http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/brotsist.pdf"]http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/brotsist.pdf[/url]

From that article:

On the word "till":

In the Bible’s languages, as in the English language prior to modern times, clauses which begin with “before” or “until” (“till”) do not necessarily imply that after the completion of an action there followed a reversal of the situation described. In other words, to say “x did not happen until y” only meant that “x” did not happen up to a certain point in time (i.e., “y”); it did not necessarily mean that “x” did happen after “y.” A clear example can be found in Paul’s words to Timothy, “Till I come, attend to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, to teaching...” (1 Tim. 4:13). Obviously, Paul did not mean to suggest that Timothy should give up these activities after his arrival. Another such use of the “until” clause is found in Psalm 123:2, which reads, “Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, till he have mercy upon us.” Obviously, the psalmist does not mean that we should take our eyes off the Lord after He has mercy on us!

On the word "firstborn":

For the Jews of Jesus’ time and their neighbors, “first-born” was always used to refer to the first male child of a marriage, regardless of whether other children were subsequently born to the couple. It was an important legal and religious term meaning that there were no prior male children.

To understand this better, look at Exodus 13. The Lord said to Moses that Israel should “set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb” (Ex. 13:12). This included “first-born” male humans: “Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem” (Ex. 13:13b; cf. Num. 3:12; Lk. 2:22-23). Further evidence is found in Exodus 12, when the first-born of Egypt die. Verse 12:30 says, “There was not [an Egyptian] house where one was not dead.” This would include the houses of young couples who only had one son. That Jesus was Mary and Joseph’s “first-born” cannot refute Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Edited June 23, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[Aloysius]

actually, read this! [url="http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html"]http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html[/url]

like i mentioned in the other thread, for Matthew 1:25, "heos" in greek does not connotate that after Joseph knew Mary.

The coolest one I can think of to refute the idea that scripture means that is that you'd havta use the same logic when Jesus says "I will be with you until the end of the world" He's still gonna be with us after the end of the world too.

[dUSt]

Merged.

[Quietfire]

Also please keep in mind. One must study scripture in the context of the first Christian mind. Cousins were 'brothers' in the sense of family to first century Christians. Do some studying (outside of the Bible) and you will understand.

Do you really think it was foremost in the mind of the apostles and disciples that some thousands of years later this would be an issue? No. This is how they were. This is how we are. You cannot take what you are today and apply it in the same sense as them. You must look at it from their perspective, not yours.

Same as hundreds of years ago it was customary to marry 'within' the family to continue the blood line. Yeah, we go yuck! But things [b]were[/b] different then, and that is how you must understand to see the subletities.

Also, if you understand that there is a 'hidden' meaning in the word 'brother' and 'sister'. I am not an expert, but I have noticed more and more in my studies that Jesus was making a point that the whole human race is connected. We are all responsible for the ultimate salvation of our race, as well as our own personal salvation. So each of us is important. In that sense, we are all brothers and sisters.

Every unbeliever, as well as every Catholic is, a being with an immortal spirit, made in the image of God, for whom Christ died. That being said, we are all related. Not because God happened to make us all in his image, but because precisely God did make us in his image.
God is,(to all of us), our Father.
Mary is our Mother, precisely because she gave birth to God in the Flesh.
Jesus is God, concieved of the Holy Spirit, borne of the Virgin Mary. Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity.

The Bible records no other immediate 'family' in Jesus' line. He is the first, He is the last. The Alpha and Omega. His cousins were his brothers and sisters.


Peace :peace:

Edited June 23, 2004 by Quietfire

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The charge that Mary had other children was considered ridiculous until the time of the Reformers. The only major contest to Mary's perpetual virginity until that time came from Helvidius (circa 380 A.D.). St. Jerome was eventually persuaded to write a reply that was so convincing, Helvidius never responded. Jerome's work, entitled [i]The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary[/i], can be viewed online here:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm[/url]

The great thinkier, St. Thomas Aquinas also used his logic to refute arguements against Mary's perpetual virginity in his [u]Summa Theologica[/u]:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/402803.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/402803.htm[/url]

The Fathers of the early Church also agreed that Mary remained a virgin her entire life:
[url="http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_mary_ever-virgin.htm"]http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_mary_ever-virgin.htm[/url]

There are also many Biblical tracts online to meet these claims:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ153.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ153.HTM[/url]

Edited June 23, 2004 by thedude

[Quietfire]

[quote]The charge that Mary had other children was considered ridiculous until the time of the Reformers.[/quote]

And here is the interesting thing that many protestants have not thought of, but what got me into Catholicism in the first place.

Before the Reformation everybody was Catholic. (you all know what I mean) We were all taught by the Church, our knowledge came from the Church. Ask a question, and the Church had the answer.

But NOW, since the Reformation, those who left the Church. (the Protestants) had to teach their children and any persons they converted with their own wisdom and understanding. They no longer had 1500 years of research and information at their immediate disposal. They had to prove their point on their own retained wisdom. As time passed and more information was put into print, more information was available from the Church to show time and time again that Luther and Calvin (to name a few) were incorrect. Unfortunately, being conditioned to think a particular way made it seem as though the Church was 'introducing something new', when it was there all along. And like the proverbial game of "telephone line", so to speak, as some questioned the authority of theie own Protestant churches, they would end up leaving [b]that[/b] Protestant church and start their own 'new and correct' church. As a result we now have more Protestant denomination than we can shake a stick at.
Now we have churches that deny the divinity of Christ altogether.

No one ever questioned this issue (Jesus the only son of Mary)before the Reformation.(minus the exception stated in the other post above) This is something the Church has always known and taught. Not because it was some big conspiracy, but because it is, and always shall be, the truth. What would the Church gain by lying? And consequencially (sp), had the Church started lying about Scripture, hiding things and omitting things as some accuse, she would not have lasted 2000 years.(and still going)
Think about it. The gates of Hell shall not (as in...never has, never will) prevail against her. Oh, she may be tested, may go through trials and tribulations, but those who are faithful and trust in God, will not jump ship; cause the ship wont sink. Jesus gave his word, " I shall be with you always, even unto the end of the world".

Thats good enough for me.
Amen.


Peace. :peace:

Edited June 23, 2004 by Quietfire

[Lil Red]

Get the book, Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn. it's dope

[P3chrmd]

Mary = Spouse of the Holy Spirit!


are you calling Gods Mother an adulterous!?!



Whenever I get angry with people who bring this subject up...and I don't feel like throwing bible verses their way, I just state the above fact!

Jesus et Maria, Amos Vos, Salvate Animas
Brandon V.