Did Jesus have brothers? Revisited

[Catholic80]

I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.

Here you are loosely using the English translated “until.”

I could say, “The kid fell and got up again.” But that doesn’t mean the child fell down before and this was the second time he got up.

Likewise, we can say, “Mary was a virgin until death.” Well, that doesn’t mean at death she lost her virginity. or “The students studied hard until they had the exam.” This doesn’t mean that they didn’t study for exams later down the line.

The “until” describes a waiting period. Mary and Joseph did not have relations until Christ’s birth meaning the child was 100% the cause of Divine intervention - and not the offspring of Joseph. It doesn’t mean Mary and Joseph had relations afterwards.

Mary asked the Angel, “How is it possible [that I can bear a son] since I do not know man?” (AKA - vow of virginity) Wouldn’t logic dictate that since she was about to marry Joseph that the son would be his if they had no vow of celibacy? But, Mary knew a vow was eternally binding and therefore asked, “how is this possible?”

“there was no word specific to “cousin” [or “close relative”] in ancient Aramaic” hence the use of “brothers and sisters.” For example, in some languages there is no word for “wrist.” It’s simply referred to as part of the hand. So, written down in those languages, they would write, “he broke his hand.” And if we translated this exactly, we would say “hand.” It would be foolish and naive to say, "he couldn’t have possibly broken his wrist, because here, it clearly says “hand.” ** No translation is ever exact.**

Here’s a good link that explains it well, and I used some of their examples:newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/12/biblical-proof-that-mary-and-joseph.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mt 1:25 25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,and he named him Jesus.

Make what you want of this.
Peace to you.

DougS-

I have explained this in post #14 of this thread.

Now, what do *you *make of that?

 

[pablope]

I t

Mt 1:25 25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,and he named him Jesus.

Make what you want of this.
Peace to you.

Doug S…why is it…that when protestants see and read this passage…the protestant thought is to immediately think about sex?

And why it is…prior to your denomination coming online not more than 400 yrs ago…a Christian who read this verse or passage did not think of sex?

 

[Doug_S]

DougS-

I have explained this in post #14 of this thread.

Now, what do *you *make of that?

In the context of this passage I am just not getting your explanation of the use of the word until. To my understanding the angel was instructing Joseph that in order for the prophesy to be fulfilled that Mary needed to remain a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. In this text there is a specified period of time given. I believe that we differ in that I believe that if God instructed his angel to be so specific that they had Gods blessing to be intimate after prophesy was fulfilled. That would leave one to believe that it would be very likely that they had children, maternal brothers and sisters.
I realize that if this is true than it blows the whole story of Mary in the Catholic church.

I come in peace and I am not try to take down the Catholic church. I do not have a personal agenda, and if I came with guns blazing than they are holstered now.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[Doug_S]

Doug S…why is it…that when protestants see and read this passage…the protestant thought is to immediately think about sex?

And why it is…prior to your denomination coming online not more than 400 yrs ago…a Christian who read this verse or passage did not think of sex?

I wasn’t thinking of sex. I explained my position in my previous post. Please check it out.

Thanks, Doug

 

[Porknpie]

In the context of this passage I am just not getting your explanation of the use of the word until. To my understanding the angel was instructing Joseph that in order for the prophesy to be fulfilled that Mary needed to remain a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. In this text there is a specified period of time given. I believe that we differ in that I believe that if God instructed his angel to be so specific that they had Gods blessing to be intimate after prophesy was fulfilled. That would leave one to believe that it would be very likely that they had children, maternal brothers and sisters.
I realize that if this is true than it blows the whole story of Mary in the Catholic church.

I come in peace and I am not try to take down the Catholic church. I do not have a personal agenda, and if I came with guns blazing than they are holstered now.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Doug,

Catholic.com has a good tract speaking to thus subject…read here

The word until denotes up to a period of time. It does not necessarily designate that an action takes place there after. Lots of examples in scripture. From scripturecatholic.com below

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

 

[Steveabrous]

In the context of this passage I am just not getting your explanation of the use of the word until. To my understanding the angel was instructing Joseph that in order for the prophesy to be fulfilled that Mary needed to remain a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. In this text there is a specified period of time given. I believe that we differ in that I believe that if God instructed his angel to be so specific that they had Gods blessing to be intimate after prophesy was fulfilled. That would leave one to believe that it would be very likely that they had children, maternal brothers and sisters.
I realize that if this is true than it blows the whole story of Mary in the Catholic church.

I come in peace and I am not try to take down the Catholic church. I do not have a personal agenda, and if I came with guns blazing than they are holstered now.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Please Doug, The Lord Jesus promised the gates of hell would not overcome the Catholic church. If Satan doesn’t have the ability to “take down the Catholic church” I doubt you do.

Here is the reality Doug. The ancient greek word translated into “Until” in the passage does not mean that the state of Virginity changed after the birth of Jesus. it only means she was a virgin proir to. It is neutral on what happened after.
This is not our opinion, this is a fact. Therefore, the passage does not prove anything one way or another. At best Scripture is silent on the subject.

But let’s use logic and reason here. The Holy spirit overshadowed Mary and she concieved a child (Luke chapter 1), that has never happened to anyone before or since and never will again. I’m not saying they had sex in the conventional manner but they had an intimate moment that produced a child, and again this is the only woman God will ever do this with. By God’s own will this can not happen without some kind of spousal bound. Therefore, she would be off limits to any other man as The prophesy says in Ezekiel 44:

"2 And the Lord said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it. Therefore it shall remain shut. 3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord. "

Do you really think that God would have that intimate moment with Mary that produced a child and allow any man to have sex with her?

The original reformers Luther, zwingli, Calvin, and John Wesley didn’t think so.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

One additional point that you seem to be hung up on, Doug, is what the angel said to Joseph, that he should not know her until she bore a son. Please reread this passage because you will find that the angel never said this.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:20-21)

That’s all the angel said. All he instructed Jospeh to do was to be unafraid to rale Mary to be his wife. The passage continues, but it is Matthew speaking, not Gabriel.

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 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. (Matthew 1:23-25)

This hardly says anything about Jospeh being compelled to abstain from relations with Mary before Jesus’ birth. In v. 23, it states that what happened was to fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah, but Christ has priority to the prophecies. It is not that Christ ran around doing things to fulfill propchecies, but rather that the prophecies existed to fortell what Christ would do. Therefore, to determine the relevance of the prophecy, we should interpret it within the context of these present circumstances.

First, it says that a virgin would conceive and bring forth a son. I don’t think it is logically necessary from this alone that the virgin who conceived would be a virgin when she gave birth, even though we know this is true from v. 25. But this is what I was talking about in the preceding paragraph. Why would it be necesary for Joseph to abstain from relations with Mary before Jesus was born? Joseph did not do it because Isaiah said it. Isaiah said it because Joseph would do it.

Jospeh took Mary to be his wife after the angel appeared to him and before Jesus was born. It is a very natural thing for a husband and wife to have marital relations, so why would it be proper for Joseph to abstain for the duration of Mary’s pregnancy. It is not to safeguard the doctrine of Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit for the sake of their neighbors because if they were married and living together, it is only natural for them to assume that Jesus was Joseph’s son (cf. Mt 13:55). Even if it would somehow preserve the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit for their neighbors and their neighbors really did believe that Mary was a virgin, wouldn’t it be sufficient for them to abstain only until it was sufficiently clear that Mary was virginally pregnant (till the ninth month, for the sake of argument)? My point is that if there is no reason in principle for them to abstain after Jesus’ birth, there is really no reason in principle to abstain from relations before his birth either.

The issue of the word “until” has already been addressed, but I would like to add Mt 5:26 to the evidence pile. If Jesus is speaking about hell and “not until” means “not until but necesaarily afterwards,” then Jesus must be saying it is possible to be released from hell.

 

[po18guy]

This obsession with sex!

 

[cmyk0714]

E. W. Hengstenberg (1802 - 1869), a Lutheran scholar who had no interest in supporting Catholicism, points out that if Mary had other biological children besides Jesus, then what Jesus did on the cross in giving her to St. John to take into his home was illegal under Jewish law. That responsibility would have fallen to the next oldest son (or oldest, closest adult male relative if no son was living). Being a devout and observant Jew, Jesus would not have broken Jewish law in this way; nor would He have forced His Mother or St. John to break the law, either. For this reason alone, Hengstenberg concluded, you have sufficient evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Dr. Scott Hahn also does a great job of illustrating this in his talk The Virgin Mary Revealed Through Scripture, and in his book Hail, Holy Queen.

God Bless!

 

[pablope]

I wasn’t thinking of sex. I explained my position in my previous post. Please check it out.

Thanks, Doug

Well…thanks, but I still do not get what you are trying to get at.

Again, let me re-ask…why is it, that it was only after the protestants came on the scene about 400 to 500 yrs ago…that this verse was interpreted to mean that Mary and Joseph had marital sexual relations?

Can you explain that before the 1500s, no Christian who read this passage came to the conclusion as you have?

 

[pablope]

In the context of this passage I am just not getting your explanation of the use of the word until. To my understanding the angel was instructing Joseph that in order for the prophesy to be fulfilled that Mary needed to remain a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. In this text there is a specified period of time given. I believe that we differ in that I believe that if God instructed his angel to be so specific that they had Gods blessing to be intimate after prophesy was fulfilled. That would leave one to believe that it would be very likely that they had children, maternal brothers and sisters.
I realize that if this is true than it blows the whole story of Mary in the Catholic church.

I come in peace and I am not try to take down the Catholic church. I do not have a personal agenda, and if I came with guns blazing than they are holstered now.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Well…let us look at the words of the Angel:

20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” … 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife,

So…place yourself in the shoes of Joseph, will you. You wanted to divorce Mary…and then an angel speaks to you…and tells you these things. You realize Mary is bearing something divine and holy and from God.

So here you are, in the shoes of St. Joseph…after hearing the angel…would you still have the thought to have sex after the birth of Jesus? (knowing Mary is someone obviously favored by God to be bearing the son of God)

Would you still think of having carnal relations? Or would you spend your time doing your best to take of this child and mother that you have been told is from God?

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the context of this passage I am just not getting your explanation of the use of the word until. To my understanding the angel was instructing Joseph that in order for the prophesy to be fulfilled that Mary needed to remain a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. In this text there is a specified period of time given. I believe that we differ in that I believe that if God instructed his angel to be so specific that they had Gods blessing to be intimate after prophesy was fulfilled. That would leave one to believe that it would be very likely that they had children, maternal brothers and sisters.
I realize that if this is true than it blows the whole story of Mary in the Catholic church.

I come in peace and I am not try to take down the Catholic church. I do not have a personal agenda, and if I came with guns blazing than they are holstered now.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Doug-

As I demonstrated in post #14, the word “until” does not imply that an activity ceases. In other words, when Matthew 1:25 says that “Joseph did not know Mary until…”, it does not imply that he ceased not knowing her and knew her after delivering her firstborn. I gave lots of examples from scripture of “until” used in this manner.

Therefore, since it cannot be demonstrated that “until” requires a cessation, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to prove that Mary’s virginity ever ceased.

 

[Doug_S]

Doug-

As I demonstrated in post #14, the word “until” does not imply that an activity ceases. In other words, when Matthew 1:25 says that “Joseph did not know Mary until…”, it does not imply that he ceased not knowing her and knew her after delivering her firstborn. I gave lots of examples from scripture of “until” used in this manner.

Therefore, since it cannot be demonstrated that “until” requires a cessation, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to prove that Mary’s virginity ever ceased.

Randy, I appreciate the discussion we have had on this topic. I think we must agree to disagree. You are correct in saying that this cannot be used to prove that Mary’s virginity ceased. A member pointed out to me earlier that the angel was only speaking in verses 20-21 prior to and after these verses Mathew was speaking. Now he was speaking from the point of view of hindsight, therefor he new them personally. ( Probably not at that time though) The way he worded the text gives me reason to consider that they had children.
I understand that you cannot see it this way. I would not want someone to change their mind because of my thoughts. I believe that God reveals to each of us the truth at his time.

I do have a question. I the protoevangelism of James, it stated that Joseph and Mary had to appear before the temple authorities. How did they get out of there? How could they have explained this in a way that it could be acceptable? The were not very lenient.

Respectfully Doug

 

[melekali]

I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.

The until does not mean he had relations with Mary after she had Jesus, her first born. First born does not imply in any way any other children. This is widely known and can be shown from a plethora of passages. Simply from logic would you, if you were Joseph, have relations with the Mother of God? You aren’t Joseph, but he was a righteous man and no righteous man would be so bold.

The references to Jesus’ “brothers” is not what it appears in English when one considers the Greek in which it was written. The Greek word has such a latitude so as to mean anything from brother to distant relative.

Not even close, friend.

 

[Porknpie]

E. W. Hengstenberg (1802 - 1869), a Lutheran scholar who had no interest in supporting Catholicism, points out that if Mary had other biological children besides Jesus, then what Jesus did on the cross in giving her to St. John to take into his home was illegal under Jewish law. That responsibility would have fallen to the next oldest son (or oldest, closest adult male relative if no son was living). Being a devout and observant Jew, Jesus would not have broken Jewish law in this way; nor would He have forced His Mother or St. John to break the law, either. For this reason alone, Hengstenberg concluded, you have sufficient evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Dr. Scott Hahn also does a great job of illustrating this in his talk The Virgin Mary Revealed Through Scripture, and in his book Hail, Holy Queen.

God Bless!

Luther himself said and concluded the same thing. Fitting that Hang… Should say the same.

 

[Solus_Christus]

A couple of questions for my Catholic friends. Perhaps this was mentioned in one of the previous discussions, but at any rate it does not appear to have come up in this particular thread.

First question:

Looking at the Greek language it is clear, as has been pointed out, that the word “brother” (adelphos) can refer to a male sibling as well as “brethren in Christ” (Thayer’s). However, there is a Greek word for cousin, which is anepsios. An example appears for us in Colossians 4:10: “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions–if he comes to you, welcome him),” So the first question I have is why, when the opportunity presented itself, the biblical writers, and particularly Matthew in chapter 13, did not avail themselves of more precise language? I am sure we cannot satisfactorily answer that question in this forum, much less come to an agreement, but it is curious.

Second question:

What do Catholic apologists make of the fact that there is actually a unique Greek word for “only begotten” (monogenes)? The significance here is that in both Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 Jesus is called “firstborn” (uihos prototokos) whereas if Jesus had been Mary’s only born, the language used would have been “only begotten” (uihos monogenes). There are many examples of monogenes in the NT. Consider as one example Luke 7:12: “As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the **only son **of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her.” It is striking that Luke would provide this detail concerning the son of an unknown woman from the town of Nain, but would somehow, supposedly mistakenly, not identify Jesus as Mary’s only begotten. How do Catholic apologists respond?

 

[cmyk0714]

@Porknpie: Agreed. Odd that so many Lutherans (et al.) today hold a contrary opinion. Or is it?

@Pablope: The answer to your question, I think, is that while some individuals - both clergy and laity - may have held the opinion that Our Lady and St. Joseph her most chaste spouse did indeed have sexual relations following the birth of Our Lord, they were willing to accept Church authority that such was not the case. After Fr. Luther threw open Pandora’s Box (and this speaks to what Porknpie pointed out), such errors and heresies were granted free and unfettered license to pollute and corrupt the minds and souls of men. As Luther lamented toward the end of his life: “There are now as many sects and theologies as there are heads.” Every person was now free to be his or her own pope, each claiming the Holy Spirit was leading them in the “clear and straightforward sense” of the Gospel.

Oxford’s Encyclopedia of Christianity currently puts the number of Protestant denominations at about 33,000, though some claim that number is inflated. But even if the real number is 1/10 of that, do you really think the Holy Spirit is going to lead His people in over 3,000 different directions, some of which are mutually exclusive? One says Baptism is a sacrament and is required for salvation, while another says it’s merely an ordinance and is not required. Some say infant baptism is wise, while others say it is an abomination. This group says that the only requirements for salvation are to say the sinner’s prayer, believe in your heart and confess with your mouth, while that group holds that God alone will determine who is saved and nothing we do can affect that one way or the other. Pick an issue, pick a church. Female clergy? Gay clergy? Married clergy? Marriage is a sacrament, or an ordinance? Can you marry outside your denomination? Which translation of the Bible should be used? Do you have congregational or hierarchical authority?

So the short answer to your question as I understand (or misunderstand) it is: yes, over the first 15 centuries of Christianity some individuals may have held the belief that Our Lady & St. Joseph had relations / other children after Jesus. But, prior to the Protestant revolt, they were willing to accept Church teaching to the contrary just as they accepted the instructions of their schoolteachers on subject / verb agreement or the importance of the Battle of Hastings. Once Luther removed the lynchpin of Church authority, the impact of the individual interpretation of Sacred Scripture became manifest in the cacophonous din and clutter of multiple and ever-increasing denominations. Only then did anyone feel arrogant enough to publicly and proudly assail the virtue and honor of Our Lady and St. Joseph.

God Bless!

 

[adrift]

A couple of questions for my Catholic friends. Perhaps this was mentioned in one of the previous discussions, but at any rate it does not appear to have come up in this particular thread.

First question:

Looking at the Greek language it is clear, as has been pointed out, that the word “brother” (adelphos) can refer to a male sibling as well as “brethren in Christ” (Thayer’s). However, there is a Greek word for cousin, which is anepsios. An example appears for us in Colossians 4:10: “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions–if he comes to you, welcome him),” So the first question I have is why, when the opportunity presented itself, the biblical writers, and particularly Matthew in chapter 13, did not avail themselves of more precise language? I am sure we cannot satisfactorily answer that question in this forum, much less come to an agreement, but it is curious.

Anepsios appears only once in the Bible that I could find. That is odd that it is only used once. If you have another occurrence, I would be interested. I understand there is much dispute of who wrote and when Mathew was written. I do not accept the “modern” scholarship. I believe that Matthew was first written in Hebrew which does not have a word for cousin. Matthew was a Jew. I don’t think his mind set would be to use a term not familiar in his own language. I also believe that the Hebrew text was translated. Translation are never perfect. Why didn’t they use the more precise Greek when translating it?

Second question:

What do Catholic apologists make of the fact that there is actually a unique Greek word for “only begotten” (monogenes)? The significance here is that in both Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 Jesus is called “firstborn” (uihos prototokos) whereas if Jesus had been Mary’s only born, the language used would have been “only begotten” (uihos monogenes). There are many examples of monogenes in the NT. Consider as one example Luke 7:12: “As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the **only son **of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her.” It is striking that Luke would provide this detail concerning the son of an unknown woman from the town of Nain, but would somehow, supposedly mistakenly, not identify Jesus as Mary’s only begotten. How do Catholic apologists respond?

Because the point was not to say that Jesus was an only child but that [among the Hebrews, as well as among other nations, the first-born enjoyed special privileges…The right of primogeniture belonged to the first male child born in the family, either of wife or concubine; the first child of any woman having a legal status in the family (wife or concubine) was to be redeemed, provided that child were a boy.

](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06081a.htm)

The point is that the first born son was given this title at birth. It did not require a second child to be given this title.

 

[Steveabrous]

A couple of questions for my Catholic friends. Perhaps this was mentioned in one of the previous discussions, but at any rate it does not appear to have come up in this particular thread.

First question:

Looking at the Greek language it is clear, as has been pointed out, that the word “brother” (adelphos) can refer to a male sibling as well as “brethren in Christ” (Thayer’s). However, there is a Greek word for cousin why, when the opportunity presented itself, the biblical writers, and particularly Matthew in chapter 13, did not avail themselves of more precise language?

Adolphos had an even wider range used in the bible: 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).

Are there not more exact greek words to refer to these as well? As to why, why no the other times too.
Second question:

What do Catholic apologists make of the fact that there is actually a unique Greek word for “only begotten” (monogenes)? The significance here is that in both Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 Jesus is called “firstborn” (uihos prototokos) whereas if Jesus had been Mary’s only born, the language used would have been “only begotten” (uihos monogenes). There are many examples of monogenes in the NT. Consider as one example Luke 7:12: “As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the **only son **of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her.” It is striking that Luke would provide this detail concerning the son of an unknown woman from the town of Nain, but would somehow, supposedly mistakenly, not identify Jesus as Mary’s only begotten. How do Catholic apologists respond?

The text is only interested in showing that Jesus had all the rights and privilages of being the first born. Nothing else.