The not so virgin Mary

[koranist]

Question: “Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?”

Answer: Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

So it seems there is evidence from the scriptures. I don’t know why people follow traditions over scriptures. I just don’t get it and I think I will never get it. Thats why I have to read the scriptures on my own but since I am in a Sunni nation, I can not take the risk of being seen with a Gospel on my hand, both legally and socially.

 

[Canto]

…in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. **While the word can refer to other relatives, **its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used…

This word for cousin was not used in the OT either.

Fr Mateo noted “Anepsios is rather too precise a word for Jesus’ adelphoi. Anepsios means “first cousin” or sometimes merely “cousin.” Now every cousin is a kinsman, but not every kinsman is a cousin. Therefore, adelphos, not anepsios, was the appropriate word to use in Matthew 13:55 and elsewhere to describe Jesus’ relatives.”

Jesus is Mary’s firsborn son - this does not imply others

Brothers in Hebrew and Aramaic (and other ancient languages) could mean cousin or kinsman. When the OT was put in greek cousins, kinsman etc were still referred to as brothers and this tradition continued into the NT. Most of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek. Jesus and those in Israel/Palestine spoke Aramaic as their everyday language.

In Genesis 14:12 (Hebrew and Greek) Lot is referred to as the son of Abram’s brother but two verses later Lot is referred to as Abram’s brother.

adelphos (Mark 6:3) can describe brothers not born of the same parents

The editors of the Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) write:

“Since all the authors represented in the New Testament appear to have been either Jews or Jewish proselytes before becoming Christians, it is natural that their use of Koine Greek was colored by their familiarity with the special characteristics of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Septuagint). Here and there the Gospels and the first half of Acts preserve in Greek certain turns of expression which reflect an underlying Aramaic idiom, which was the mother tongue of Jesus and his disciples” (“Introduction to the New Testament,” p. 1168).

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son…who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Have you read from the begining. We have clearly shown that until (heous hou) deals with the time up to the birth of Christ and NOT after.

Jesus in the temple at age 12 – where are his brothers?

Brothers rebuke Jesus – culturally younger brothers did not give advice or rebuke the eldest brother

On the cross Jesus gives Mary to John – Under Jewish Law the oldest brother had to take care of a widowed woman, and should he die, it passed to the next oldest

The son of Mary – the people of Nazareth never referred to him as a son of Mary or one of Mary’s sons

Only Jesus is called the son of Mary – no one else

How can this be, says Mary to the angel, since I know not a man – why would she say this if she intended to have sex with Joseph, bearing in mind she assumidly knew how babies were made and that it was not uncommon for a woman to become pregnant during a betrothal? Why, because she made a vow of virginity to the Lord from here youth c.f. Numbers 30:3-16

The Ark carried the Word (OT) - Mary carried the Word (NT)
We know what happened to those who touched the ark

Ezekiel 44:2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

Even the Protestant ‘reformer’s’ believed in Mary’s peretual virginity.

gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

So it seems there is evidence from the scriptures. I don’t know why people follow traditions over scriptures…Thats why I have to read the scriptures on my own…

The Bible tells us to hold onto Tradtion wether written or spoken
Not holding onto Tradition is UN-BIBLICAL
c.f. 2 Thes:2:15 , 1 Cor:11:2 , 2 Thes 3:6
The Scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and condemns private interpretation of the Scriptures.

The site you quoted from distorts the Bible and Catholic teaching and is full of errors.

St James clearly says we are NOT justified by faith alone yet they say we are. St Paul says to hold onto oral Tradtion yet they say scripture alone (which they got from us Catholics!). They say the sacraments are unbiblical yet the anointing of the sick for example is clearly evident in James 5:14. It even claims our beliefs are pagan That’s just a few examples.

 

[Canto]

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage…

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (500) the Church says that they are close relations

Jesus’ Bros: James, Joseph (aka Joses), Simon and Jude (aka Judas) are listed as brothers of Christ.

James and Joseph
James and Joseph are Christ’s cousins, their mother being Mary of Cleophas (Mary’s sister), and their father Cleophas (can be translated as Alphaeus)
Matthew 27.56 says at the cross were Mary the mother of James and Joseph (aka Joses), along with Christ’s Mum and Mary Magdalene. c.f. John 19:25 too.
Mark 15:40 says Mary the mother of James the less and Joses (aka Joseph) was there.
Matthew 10:3 “…James the son of Alpheus”

Jude
Acts 1:13 “…James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.”
Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…”

Simon
Luke 6:15 “Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called a Zealot,”
Mark 3:18 “…James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananean…”
Matthew 2:23 “He (Jesus) shall be called a Nazarene”

 

[koranist]

This word for cousin was not used in the OT either.

The Bible tells us to hold onto Tradtion wether written or spoken
Not holding onto Tradition is UN-BIBLICAL
c.f. 2 Thes:2:15 , 1 Cor:11:2 , 2 Thes 3:6
The Scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and condemns private interpretation of the Scriptures.

The site you quoted from distorts the Bible and Catholic teaching and is full of errors.

St James clearly says we are NOT justified by faith alone yet they say we are. St Paul says to hold onto oral Tradtion yet they say scripture alone (which they got from us Catholics!). They say the sacraments are unbiblical yet the anointing of the sick for example is clearly evident in James 5:14. It even claims our beliefs are pagan That’s just a few examples.

Thats not the point. When asked a person should be transparent. It may mean he had half brothers from Mary or it may mean something else. But to say there is no mention of that or no evidence of that from the scripture is unethical. There is room for differences. As far as following traditions is concerned, there is nothing wrong with following traditions, BUT it should not be done at the expense of the scriptures and it should not be binding on people. Thats the reason why you can’t trust people when it comes to religion. They follow traditions blindly and end up manipulating the evidences from the scriptures. Be transparent and bring forth the verses and THEN talk about how you interpret it. Just like I do. I try to be transparent when it comes to the Koran since I know it well although I am not an expert at it.

But I am learning a lot being here and I am grateful for that.

 

[Canto]

Thats not the point. When asked a person should be transparent. It may mean he had half brothers from Mary or it may mean something else. But to say there is no mention of that or no evidence of that from the scripture is unethical. There is room for differences. As far as following traditions is concerned, there is nothing wrong with following traditions, BUT it should not be done at the expense of the scriptures and it should not be binding on people. Thats the reason why you can’t trust people when it comes to religion. They follow traditions blindly and end up manipulating the evidences from the scriptures. Be transparent and bring forth the verses and THEN talk about how you interpret it. Just like I do. I try to be transparent when it comes to the Koran since I know it well although I am not an expert at it.

But I am learning a lot being here and I am grateful for that.

There is no evidence to definitivly prove that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters. Tradition is clear that he didn’t. Even the Protestant reformers for all their heresy still believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Scripture and Tradition are equal. They both constitute the word of God. St Paul tells us to hold onto Tradtion wether spoken or written. We can’t just hold onto written Tradtion alone or ignore oral Tradition when is shows one’s private interpratation of the scriptures to be wrong.

Written Tradition (the Bible) is protected from error and so is oral Tradition. The books of the Bible were chose by the Catholic Church. She chose books in accord with oral Tradition. Pope Damascus promolgated this list of books at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It has never changed - 72 books.

Us Catholics from the begining of this thread have offered up mountains of scripture to show that the Bible does not contradicit and infact shows Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[koranist]

There is no evidence to definitivly prove that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters. Tradition is clear that he didn’t. Even the Protestant reformers for all their heresy still believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Scripture and Tradition are equal. They both constitute the word of God. St Paul tells us to hold onto Tradtion wether spoken or written. We can’t just hold onto written Tradtion alone or ignore oral Tradition when is shows one’s private interpratation of the scriptures to be wrong.

Written Tradition (the Bible) is protected from error and so is oral Tradition. The books of the Bible were chose by the Catholic Church. She chose books in accord with oral Tradition. Pope Damascus promolgated this list of books at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It has never changed - 72 books.

Us Catholics from the begining of this thread have offered up mountains of scripture to show that the Bible does not contradicit and infact shows Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I don’t think you understood what I am saying.

 

[altabz]

attention to all devouted catholics at this site christianster.com, a non catholic forum site they’re lambasting our catholic church i started the defences but they were to many of them. if you to join in your free to go defend our faith…!!!

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, but I just have far too many doubts to believe that a virgin birth really occurred.

What is your purpose in coming here to CAF, RainbowGirl? You seem more focused on sharing your anti-Catholic theories than seeking Catholic Answers.

 

[guanophore]

I thought Jesus had half brothers from his mother. No?

I always thought Mary married after giving birth to him and even had children.

No. Mary the Mother of Jesus had no other children. Jesus had near kindred who were children of another Mary who was a close relative of His mother - her “sister”. Possibly of the same parents or possibly a sister of Joseph.

 

[guanophore]

Question: “Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?”

Answer: Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

Perhaps you are right, when one is using one’s “natural conclusions” one can come up with all sorts of errors. And indeed, you have. These are near kindred of Christ who are the children of another Mary, who is named in scripture as a “sister” of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother.There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used.

This is true, because the book of Matthew was written in Aramaic, and everyone translated it as best they could. Anyone who understands clan structure will know that persons born into one’s clan that are too close to be marriageable is considered a “brother or sister”. These may have been cousins, or children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

They lived close together and grew up together as siblings in Nazareth.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

It is possible that Joseph already had grown children. Most of your problem is that you are trying to obtain all your facts from Scripture, which was never intended to contain all the facts. One of the earliest peices of art we have of the Holy Family does include James on the flight to Egypt. This representation is consistent with the faith of the Church that Joseph was older, and that James was the youngest of his already grown family when Mary came into his life.

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary.

Well, we read it very differently, don’t we? Catholics read scripture in the light of the Apostolic Teaching that has been committed to the Church. We understand what is written differently because we know there is no contradiciton between what the Apostles wrote,and what they taught.

Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical:

Actually we don’t “oppose” such an idea. Furthermore, Mary’s perpetual virgniity is not 'unbiblical". Scripture is clear that Mary had no intention of ever having relations with a man.

Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Actually, Scripture does not “teach”. Teaching is an activity of persons. Someone has taught you these errors, and you have received them unwittingly. Mary had no other children.

So it seems there is evidence from the scriptures. I don’t know why people follow traditions over scriptures.

We don’t. Those who have received the Teaching of the Apostles understand the scriptures differently because we read them in the light of what was taught and left as the Divine Deposit of Faith to the Church. This was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

We follow the Apostolic command;

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

During the Reformation, men who did not like the Sacred Traditions separated themselves from them. All that was left to follow was scripture. At that time, men tried to interpret the scripture apart from the Teaching of the Apostles, and that is the source of these errors you have posted here.

I hope you are wrong about this, and that a time will come when you do “get it”. I appreciate the great risk of reading the scripture where you live, but it is even a greater risk to fall for the heresy of Sola Scriptura. Better to die for your faith than to live in a lie.

 

[guanophore]

Thats not the point. When asked a person should be transparent.

Really? Whose standard is that? What kind of a standard is it that Jesus did not follow it Himself?

Matt 13:10-14

10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:

'You shall indeed hear but never understand,
and you shall indeed see but never perceive.

It may mean he had half brothers from Mary or it may mean something else.

It means something else.

But to say there is no mention of that or no evidence of that from the scripture is unethical. There is room for differences.

Yes, but not beyond what revelation from God has been committed to the Church.

Gal 1:8-9
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

If we depart from the gospel that was preached to us, we will be accursed.

As far as following traditions is concerned, there is nothing wrong with following traditions, BUT it should not be done at the expense of the scriptures and it should not be binding on people. Thats the reason why you can’t trust people when it comes to religion.

Well, I agree, however, there is a difference between the traditions of men and the Traditions of God. Even though man cannot be trusted, God can. He is just as able to preserve His Holy Word in the Church as He is in the Scripture.

They follow traditions blindly and end up manipulating the evidences from the scriptures. Be transparent and bring forth the verses and THEN talk about how you interpret it. Just like I do. I try to be transparent when it comes to the Koran since I know it well although I am not an expert at it.

But I am learning a lot being here and I am grateful for that.

I am glad you are learning here. I hope that one thing you learn is that the Christian faith is not based upon the bible, but upon the person of Christ. Everything in the scripture reflects the faith of the Church, but is not the Source of it. The Church was founded by Christ, and built upon persons, not writings, however Holy.

 

[guanophore]

attention to all devouted catholics at this site christianster.com, a non catholic forum site they’re lambasting our catholic church i started the defences but they were to many of them. if you to join in your free to go defend our faith…!!!

It is against our forum rules to promote swarming. :tsktsk:

 

[TMC]

Thats not the point. When asked a person should be transparent. It may mean he had half brothers from Mary or it may mean something else. But to say there is no mention of that or no evidence of that from the scripture is unethical. There is room for differences. As far as following traditions is concerned, there is nothing wrong with following traditions, BUT it should not be done at the expense of the scriptures and it should not be binding on people. Thats the reason why you can’t trust people when it comes to religion. They follow traditions blindly and end up manipulating the evidences from the scriptures. Be transparent and bring forth the verses and THEN talk about how you interpret it. Just like I do. I try to be transparent when it comes to the Koran since I know it well although I am not an expert at it.

But I am learning a lot being here and I am grateful for that.

I think this is a fair point, and that you also make a good apologetic point. I always say that Scripture indicates that Jesus had close relatives, but it is unclear from the text what their precise relationship was. Catholic Tradition, passed down from the Apostles, tells us that Christ had no full-blooded siblings, so Catholics believe these were cousins, or perhaps half-siblings. Some Christian sects that reject Tradition come to different conclusions.

Overstating the Catholic position is not good apologetics. If you tell someone looking at the Faith that there is nothing in Scripture to support various protestant beliefs, and then the protestants show them some texts that do support their side, you will lose credibility with that person. Give them both sides and explain what Catholics believe. Its also useful to ask them if a particular teaching is giving them pause, and why. That usually reveals some misunderstanding about the teaching.

Personally, I don’t find the Marian doctrines an important part of the Catholic faith. Lots of protestants believe that all Catholics do is pray to Mary, sing to Mary, talk about Mary, that Catholicism is all Mary, all the time. Once they realize that Marian doctrine is a part of the Catholic belief, but that Catholicism is as Christ-centered as any Christian faith, they are more open to learning about what Catholics really believe about Mary.

 

[Good_Fella]

Personally, I don’t find the Marian doctrines an important part of the Catholic faith. Lots of protestants believe that all Catholics do is pray to Mary, sing to Mary, talk about Mary, that Catholicism is all Mary, all the time. Once they realize that Marian doctrine is a part of the Catholic belief, but that Catholicism is as Christ-centered as any Christian faith, they are more open to learning about what Catholics really believe about Mary.

Our Marian doctrines are of secondary importance in view of the primary importance of our Trinitarian and Christological doctrines. A church dogma or an infallible teaching of the Universal Magisterium is essentially a revelation of God brought to our understanding. God would never reveal his mind and will to us through his appointed stewards unless there was something important for us to know in our new covenant with him as his chosen people.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Bill_Pick]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches that Mary was no longer a virgin after she had Jesus and bore other children along with the Catholic argument on why Mary remained a virgin.

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but **kept her a virgin until **she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

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

[NIV]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

choose your favorite translation…they all say the same thing…

Blessings!

Doesn’t the title “Firstborn” in Luke 2:7 mean Mary had other Children?
In the New American Bible notes for Luke 2:7 we read:

Firstborn…is a legal description indicating that Jesus possessed the rights and privileges of the firstborn son (Gn 27; Ex 13, 2; Nm 3, 12-13; 18, 15-16; Dt 21, 15-17)

This word “Firstborn” was a very specific term in Jesus’ time. Firstborns were consecrated to God. Firstborns inherited property etc. Also in the book of Moses, there is reference to Egyptian firstborns who died during the Passover. In Biblical times, children who were the only offspring still received the important title of firstborn so that they had the rights, privileges and obligations associated with it.

 

[guanophore]

Doesn’t the title “Firstborn” in Luke 2:7 mean Mary had other Children?
In the New American Bible notes for Luke 2:7 we read:

Firstborn…is a legal description indicating that Jesus possessed the rights and privileges of the firstborn son (Gn 27; Ex 13, 2; Nm 3, 12-13; 18, 15-16; Dt 21, 15-17)

This word “Firstborn” was a very specific term in Jesus’ time. Firstborns were consecrated to God. Firstborns inherited property etc. Also in the book of Moses, there is reference to Egyptian firstborns who died during the Passover. In Biblical times, children who were the only offspring still received the important title of firstborn so that they had the rights, privileges and obligations associated with it.

This is a very good point. A firstborn son still had this title and obligations, even if there were no other children.

 

[Good_Fella]

Question: “Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?”

Answer: Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55).

Indeed, the Bible informs us that Jesus had three apostles by the names of James, Judas (Thaddeus/Jude), and Simon (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14-15). James and his brother Joseph are the offspring of Mary’s elder sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (Alpheus) (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:47). Thus James and Joseph are cousins of Jesus. You will note that in the lists of the apostles in the synoptic gospels, Judas (Thaddeus/Jude) follows James. This is because Judas is the younger brother of James. In Luke we read Judas is the “son” of James. But the term means he has the same biological father as his elder brother.

The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56).

You are a garden enclosed my sister (achoth), my spouse (kallah); a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Songs 4, 12

The Church perceives a twofold allusion in this verse to the Church as the bride of Christ and to Mary as the young bride of the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her upon our Lord’s miraculous conception. In many instances in the Old Testament the Hebrew word *kallah *refers to a bride and groom on their wedding day. And a woman may be considered a kallah from betrothal on, not from the point of the consummation of the marriage. It may also refer to a “daughter-in-law” by marriage in many Old Testament passages.

The Church has perceived Mary’s betrothal to the Holy Spirit as having been formalized at the first instant of her conception - the precise moment when the Holy Spirit sanctified her soul and preserved her free from the stain of original sin in preparation for the consummation of their union at the Annunciation. The description “a garden enclosed” is traditionally believed to be alluding to our Lady’s Immaculate Conception and her Perpetual Virginity. In a Mosaic legal sense, the Holy Spirit held a claim on Mary forbidding Joseph to have conjugal relations with her. Uzziah had touched the ark of the old Covenant with good intentions, trying to keep it from toppling, but he was struck dead nonetheless. In any event, the term “sister” does not strictly apply to female siblings. Both Rebekah’s mother and brother addressed her “sister” (achoth) (Gen 24:60)

In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

The brothers in John’s gospel are male relatives. They are portrayed as disciples after the resurrection (Acts) praying together with Mary and the apostles. Again, James was both a cousin and apostle of Jesus

A contextual presupposition isn’t exactly an undeniable conclusion. :nope:

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used.

There was no word for cousin in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother?

Because these cousins of his were also apostles.

There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

There is no reason to conclude with certainty that these “brothers” of his were actually siblings.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

This isn’t a definitive teaching of the Catholic Church.

“But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

“Until” refers to the period of time before an event. The conjunction doesn’t function to imply what may come after.

So it seems there is evidence from the scriptures. I don’t know why people follow traditions over scriptures.

Because Scripture comes from Tradition. The Jews reject our claim that the prophecies of Isaiah, for instance, find a complete fulfillment in Christ. Meanwhile, you should look at the scriptures more closely. You missed the list of the apostles.

PAX :harp:

 

[jack8888]

In the small town of Calexico, a Sonoran desert town on the border of California and Mexico, persons who were already afflicted with ridiculous Catholic-brand religious delusions reported a miraculous Marian apparition on a restaurant grill that was being cleaned when a shape, vaguely phallic or reminiscent of a butt plug, appeared on the surface of the grill. king of fighters flash Play Free Online Games News reports of this “miracle” have cited the fact that Mexican wrestlers wearing masks believe the image is literally a 2,000 year old virgin who never once had a penis penetrate her vagina causing her virgin hymen to tear. Or it could be a penis. Or a butt plug. Our Lady of the Mexican Butt PlugLike the ones you can buy at this website. No doubt this miraculous appearance by the mother of a deity who was born so humans could kill him in an effort to persuade himself to forgive humans for killing him is related somehow to the recent H1N1 virus outbreak that threatens the menudo supply.

 

[altabz]

It is against our forum rules to promote swarming. :tsktsk:

Sorry dude…i’m just quit embarrassed with that site…!! I beleive it’s our supreme duty as Catholics to defend our Church,

 

[altabz]

Guys can you enlightened me about this issue A lot of non catholic says Mary is not the woman being mention in that verse in the rev.3:15