Doesn't the Bible teach us that Jesus did have siblings??

[Bible_Student]

Um, the NT was written in ONE language? Jerome wrote the Vulgate because the manuscript copies of Scripture were in several languages, didn’t he?. Greek (and there is more than one form of Greek), Aramaic. . .

Hi Tantum ergo,
Sorry friend but that is in need of correction. All the empirical evidence we have today suggests that the New Testament, in its entirety, was written in Koine Greek first. The oldest manuscripts we have are all Koine Greek. The oldest complete New Testament we have is also written in Koine Greek and precede the Latin Vulgate by at least 80 years. In addition we have remnants that are centuries earlier, such as the Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodmer Papyrus II by which we can reconstruct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation.
Meanwhile the Hebrew Old Testament was also translated from Hebrew to the Greek and became known as the Septuagint (the 70). The dating has been debated but there has been surviving fragments that have been discovered dated between 50 B.C. and 50 A.D. Curiously the word “Vulgata” was applied to the Greek Septuagint. It’s not too much of a stretch to assume that perhaps this is where the word “Vulgate” was borrowed from? The claim, however, is that Jerome translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew Tanakh and finished both the Old and New Testaments Latin Translation in about 25 years completing it in the early 5th century.
That’s pretty much the perspective on this.

May God Bless, Pat

 

[holy_wood]

You know, I have heard this argument SO many times. I want to state again that I have no real pull one way or another. But if it could be the way you state above with the word ‘until’ you have to agree that it could be the other way to. Just because ‘until’ can have your definition it also has the definition and use that Nella uses. So it is moot to use this argument. Yes, I agree that ‘until’ could be the way you state but I have to agree that it could be the way that Nella takes it too… You can’t have one but ignore the other just because it doesn’t fit what you have been taught to believe. This argument just doesn’t work…

Meaning that after the tenth month the waters receded…
He didn’t eat until he had told him what he had to say…

That king stayed up on the tree UNTIL evening when they took him down at sunset…

I think we can all agree to what this means…

So you see, I can use verses to support the other side too…

Again, your tactic doesn’t stand…

Fair enoug (though I do not agree with all of your examples, you have enough to make me sway)

I won’t use my verses against the “until” argument which oppose the perpetual virginity if others won’t bring it up at all.

But I believe my position holds more water since no educated christian in scripture has ever in the history of Christianity believed that Mary had other children.

 

[YADA]

un·til (ŭn-tĭl**’**) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
prep.

1. 
   *]Up to the time of: We danced until dawn.
   *]Before (a specified time): She can’t leave until Friday.
   *]Scots. Unto; to.
   conj.
   1. 
      *]Up to the time that: We walked until it got dark.
      *]Before: You cannot leave until your work is finished.
      *]To the point or extent that: I talked until I was hoarse. See Usage Note at till2.

1. 1. 
      This is the definition of the word “until” As you can see from the definition it is a limiting word and the limit is on events [actions] before the limiting event. The word “until” is silent and non limiting upon future events [actions]. Something event or action] prevented or limited by the word “until” in a written [or spoken] statement MAY or MAY NOT happen [or occur] in the future…the statement does not reveal or make known that occurance…
      
      That is a fact of the language. Those of you who believe an posture otherwise are taking liberties with the language that is not there. You are reading the word ‘until’ in the biblical passage about carnal relations between Mary and Joseph in a way the original writer did not.
      
      The NT is focused upon Jesus…questions of the divinity of Jesus and the prophetic fullfillment of the messiah was the focus of the passage NOT whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born. The passage refers only to what happened before…Mary was a virgin - the bride of God, the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus.
      
      The word until, even in modern parlance leaves future events free of limits and makes no claim of action…it is not there…

 

[KimL]

It is stated in several verses of the Bible that Jesus has several brothers and does mention his sisters as well but does not go on to mention their names. It also says that Mary and Joseph did not have physical relations UNTIL after Jesus was born. There seems to be no reason to me why we shouldn’t take God’s word here literally as we do about the Eucharist. After all, the authors of Scripture could have use words that clearly meant cousin or other relative besides sibling. There is no good reason to assume that they didn’t mean brother or sister. After many verses of Scripture that clearly show the siblings of Jesus. And Mary and Joseph not having physical relations UNTIL after Jesus was born. Why would Roman Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin her whole life and Jesus did not have siblings?

I have never heard of Mary being a virgin her whole life, after all she was married.

And to be honest I dont know he churches teachings on this, but every aspect of Jesus’ life was not recored-ed nor was his mothers so it could be possible. I really dont see what the big deal is if he did or did not. But I am guessing IF he did I would think they would have followed him also.

I was not there so I will not believe either way. I will just say its possible.

 

[St_Violet]

I have never heard of Mary being a virgin her whole life, after all she was married.

And to be honest I dont know he churches teachings on this, but every aspect of Jesus’ life was not recored-ed nor was his mothers so it could be possible. I really dont see what the big deal is if he did or did not. But I am guessing IF he did I would think they would have followed him also.

I was not there so I will not believe either way. I will just say its possible.

reasons for this is because the Bible does not mention Mary having other kids, Indeed the bible does mention Jesus having cousins (brothers was a word to describe cousin, or a really close friend). The Early Church fathers also acknowledged that Mary remained a virgin. the idea of Mary loosing her virgin because of the modern protestant theory that " humans cannot live withoutsex" is a very new idea, even Martin Luther believed she was a virgin.

 

[YADA]

I have never heard of Mary being a virgin her whole life, after all she was married.

This kind of statement is funny…have you ever sung the hymn “Silent Night”? In this hymn she is still a virgin after the birth of Jesus…Let me help you out…

“Silent night, holy night,
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon virgin mother and Child.
Holy Infant, so tender and mild,
Sleep in heavenly peace,
Sleep in heavenly peace…”

Martin Luther taught that Mary "remained a Virgin all of her life".

John Calvin taught that Mary was “ever Virgin” and also argued that those who held otherwise “will [not] obstinately keep up the argument [against her remaining a virgin], except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

Huldrich Zwingli taught that “To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God”

John Wesley also taught that Mary remained "pure and unspotted" after bring forth Jesus.

This is what the four major Protestant Reformers believed and taught regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Protoevangelium of James [not canonical scriptures but very early circa 120 AD] speaks to this belief as do many of the early church fathers.

There you have it, common gorund, teachings and beliefs from the early Christians throught he Protestant Reformers to hymns [circa 1800’s] sung by protetastants …Mary, Virgin Mother…

How can you not know what beliefs were held by your church [or the churches from which your chrurch sprang from] only 500 to 600 years ago and yet pass judgement over something that occurred 2000 years ago?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

You are grabbing at straws. There is far too much irrefutible evidence that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born. The Scriptures say,"Joseph and Mary didn’t have physical relations UNTIL after the borth of Jesus

. QUOTE]

I’m sorry, Nella, but this is a goofy assertion.

Where in your Bible does it say that “Joseph and Mary didn’t have physcial relations UNTIL after the birth of Jesus”?

This is REALLY silly.

Robert

 

[YADA]

It is silly…

See my post #353…even the modern definition of the word “until” does not support Nella’s contention and definition…

And all of the original reformers held the catholic view of the Mary’s perpetual virginity…

But Nella [and the others posting here] do not want to see or hear the truth or consider the possibilty that they are mistaken [even as they profess that they cannot see why it matters] If it does not matter than why passionately argue against the clear historical record…?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Frankly, I’m depressed and ashamed my fellow Catholics…I’ve spent a good part of the morning reading this tripe and it took until page 18 for someone (PONS) to get the scriptural arguement correct.

Nella, et al,

First, as a Catholic, I accept all that the Church teaches about Mary. I’m not a big rosary guy, I will pray a rosary at a wake or some such thing…but not daily…not a big Hail Mary guy…Second…IT DOESN’T MATTER ONE WIT whether Mary had other children or not…but there are strong reasons to believe she did NOT have other children…

1. CONSISTENT CHURCH TEACHING has ALWAYS upheld Mary’s perpetual virginity…almost 2000 years worth of Sacred Tradition holds to this…so if you want to change it…You’d Better have a Darned good reason to do so other than you have a different understanding of the word “until”. Here’s an “until” for you…UNTIL you personally have a working knowledge of ancient languages don’t try to force your personal understanding of a word on to the meaning of scripture…like I said…almost 2000 years of Sacred Tradition has held that Mary was perpetually a virgin…that can’t be dismissed without GOOD REASON.
2. Here’s the stronger scriptural arguement AGAINST Jesus having biological brothers…and it’s the arguement that PONS mentioned…that should have been the first one that a Catholic responded with…in the gospel of Mark…some of those listed in Chapter 2 as being Jesus’ brothers are in Chapter 16 named as the children of another Mary.
3. The next SCRIPTURAL arguement is Christ on the Cross giving the care of his mother over to John…WHAT REASON would Christ have to slap his family in the face by doing this IF he had other brothers?

SO, based on the Church’s consistent teaching, and finding nothing explicit in the gospels about Mary having other children, I will simply accept that the Church is correct.

Nella, am I going to hell for believing that Mary is a perpetual virgin? Can you understand why, given the explicit scripture and given consistent church teaching Catholics accept this idea?

Miss Nella, for a former Catholic you have some mistaken ideas about infallibility and impeccability…or rather, you use arguements against infallibility that allude to the idea that you don’t understand it…Infallibility is a pretty narrow thing…it means much more than to simply not err…all popes err, and this is not a reference impecability, which NO POPE ever enjoyed…there are probably only some 15 times in history (gotta check the exact number) when all the conditions of INFALLIBILITY have been met in a pronouncement of a Pope…not many at all.

You seem to place scripture and worse yet YOUR PERSONAL understanding of scripture ABOVE Sacred Tradition…why? The Scriptures are on an EQUAL FOOTING with the rest of Sacred Tradition…so, by what authority do you flout 2000 years worth of Sacred Tradition? THE CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth. For 2000 years THE CHURCH has consistently upheld Mary’s perpetual virginity…