In Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV), it is written: “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife (Mary): AND KNEW HER NOT TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON: AND HE CALLED HIS NAME JESUS.”
Implicit in that passage is that Joseph and Mary (a faithful and loving Jewish couple) did have intercourse but not until after baby Jesus was born. It doesn’t say “her ONLY son, but her FIRST born son.
Really, why this convoluted ignoring of the obvious? It’s for things like this that I could never be a Catholic — going beyond the scriptures into cultism.
John Calvin ""There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew)
Martin Luther "He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)
And, this is not “convoluting”, but saying “this is what the earliest Christians believed and saw and they were much closer in time to the actual events than some bloke in 2011”.
On the contrary, it is for reasons like this that many come to the Church because we hold to what the Early Christians believed. We don’t vote on amending scripture or marriage or anything. This is what the Early Christians believed, this is what the Apostles taught, this is what Christ told them. Full stop.
This is the most shallow argument in this pool.
You do know that under the Law, the Jews had to make sacrifices after the first born from each of their animals? Do you think they waited until the cow became pregnant and gave birth a second time to make sure that the other was a "first born"?
Since according to you, a firstborn is only possible when there are more than one?
IV. Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.
Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.
Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.
Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.
Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.
Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.
John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.
John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.
John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.
Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”
Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.
Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.
Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.
Top
V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
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.”
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.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
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.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
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.
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
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.”
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.
2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.
1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.
Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”
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).
In Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV), it is written: “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife (Mary): AND KNEW HER NOT TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON: AND HE CALLED HIS NAME JESUS.”
Implicit in that passage is that Joseph and Mary (a faithful and loving Jewish couple) did have intercourse but not until after baby Jesus was born. It doesn’t say “her ONLY son, but her FIRST born son.
Really, why this convoluted ignoring of the obvious? It’s for things like this that I could never be a Catholic — going beyond the scriptures into cultism.
Jesus,s family were not his followers, including his mother until after his death and then they saw the light.
Common sense along with the scriptures tells us that if jesus had of had younger brothers some of them would have followed him.
Not to mention all of the scriptures that indicate that if Jesus had any siblings they were older than him.
To say the least there are no scripture that points to younger brothers, but there are scriptures that indicate that his brothers were older than him, if in fact he had any brothers.
I agree with you, i could never be a Catholic either, but i will go even farther i could never belong to any religious organization.