Replies

no, Mary gave birth to several children according to the Bible

The Bible says nothing of the sort, and suggestions to the contrary are mere Protestant "projection" (a.k.a. "eisegesis"). See below.

Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Firstborn, meaning more than one.

Nonsense. "Firstborn" is true of any oldest child of a mother; even an only child is "firstborn"; the term used in the Bible refers to "the child which opens the womb". Have some sense, here: the Law required that every firstborn male be consecrated to the Lord (cf. Luke 2:23, etc.) on the fortieth day after birth... but would anyone seriously suggest that the woman would have to have another child in the interim (that would be an impressively brief gestation period!), so that the original child could properly be called "firstborn"? No... the first child is the first child, even if no others come afterward, and even if the mother dies in childbirth.

Mt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

"Brethren" (Gk: "adelphos") was a rendering of the Aramaic word for "kin"--which could mean anything from "blood-sibling" (cf. Matthew 4:21, etc.) to "fellow Israelite" (cf. Phillipians 4:8, etc.) No one can simply (and carelessly) "run away" with the English word "brother", and immediately conclude, "Ah! Blood siblings, and fellow biological children of Mary!" Ditto, for Matthew 12.

Here, Jesus rebuked the crowd,

That's a mere projection; there's no reason at all to consider this a "rebuke". It's a clarification, and a teaching, certainly... but there's no reason to suppose that Jesus was being severe, here.

plainly saying that even though his siblings were present,

The word "siblings" is nowhere in the text.

that those who believed on Him were brothers, also, not just blood relations

There's no difficulty with "blood relations" (since cousins would be that); but you're arguing that Mary had other children... and there's no proof in the text for that idea, at all.

The Apostle James is called the Lord’s Brother, family, blood brother

The Apostle James (the less--as opposed to James, the son of Zebedee, who was already martyred by the time the events in Galatians 2, etc., were recounted) was the son of Mary, mother of this James and of Joses (cf. Matthew 27:56)... not the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's another Mary altogether, albeit apparently a blood relative.

Evaluating the Greek as used in Luke and John in describing Jesus proves the teaching of the roman catholic church regarding the perpertual virginity of Mary is wrong.

This explains why you rarely see the roman catholic appeal to the Greek in this matter.

In the Greek, Luke uses the phrase τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, translated literally as the son of her, the firstborn. In English we would say, her firstborn son.

The key word in this section is πρωτότοκον (prototokos). It means first, pre-eminent; the first among others. It allows for other children to be born to Mary.

Contrast this with John 3:16 where John uses the Greek Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, literally Son the only begotten.

The key word is μονογενῆ (monogenes). It means one and only; one of a class.

We know this is the correct description of Jesus as He is the only Son of God.

However, He is not the only son of Mary. Recall that Luke was a physician who by his own account researched a lot so we would have an accurate account of what happened.

If Luke wanted to indicate Mary had only one child he would have used the phrase John did.

In reading the accounts where the brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned we need to keep the verses in context.

We have the account of Paul in Galatians where he noted he met James, the Lord's brother among others.

These are not cousins of Jesus as the word cousin, ἀνεψιός, is used only in reference to Barnabas's cousin Mark. As Paul had traveled with Barnabas so he would know if he was a cousin or a brother or other relative.

>Mt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.<

"Brethren" (Gk: "adelphos") was a rendering of the Aramaic word for "kin"--which could mean anything from "blood-sibling" (cf. Matthew 4:21, etc.) to "fellow Israelite" (cf. Phillipians 4:8, etc.) No one can simply (and carelessly) "run away" with the English word "brother", and immediately conclude, "Ah! Blood siblings, and fellow biological children of Mary!" Ditto, for Matthew 12.

Here is where the roman catholic departs from the clear reading of the text....allowing the text to interpret itself as it does not fit their agenda.

In Phil 4:8 the text tells us Paul is writing to the church at Philippi. Were fellow believers called brothers and sisters? Yes. And how do we know the difference? CONTEXT IS KEY!!!!!!

Now, in this next passage in Matt, ask the following questions:

Where are they?

Where was Jesus from?

Where did His family live?

Some background on Nazareth will help with this. It was not a big town; rather it was a small village. Estimated population was around 500. The people know each other.

Where was Jesus teaching?

Was his teaching something new; something they'd never heard before?

To show their astonishment what did they ask?

When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56“And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” Matt 13:53-56

Now, after answering the questions and reading the verse in context.....we see Jesus had brothers and sister.

nice try, but Biblically wrong

The Bible clearly says Jesus had brothers and maybe sisters

One of the more baffling prejudices I've found in some Evangelical Protestants (especially those of the anti-Catholic-Church type) is the idea that God somehow does not WANT anyone but Himself involved in the business of handling the needs of the faithful.

That's a classic example of applying nature to God. God is Spirit, His ways are not our ways. Mormons and wiccans do that all the time. It's natural for man to have a wife therefore God must have a wife. God didn't show Himself with any form because people would build an idol that looked like that and worship the idol. Man is finite and needs help with things therefore God must also. It's pure blasphemy.

Talk about projection....You guys are the champions...

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Knew her not = did not have sex
til = until (after Jesus was born)

And the the scriptures list Jesus' mother's other children...

The word "siblings" is nowhere in the text.

Do you know what siblings means??? Of course it is in the text...

"Brethren" (Gk: "adelphos") was a rendering of the Aramaic word for "kin"--which could mean anything from "blood-sibling" (cf. Matthew 4:21, etc.) to "fellow Israelite" (cf. Phillipians 4:8, etc.)

Adelphos never means kin in the scriptures...And neither does 'alelphe'...There is a word used for kin in the scriptures and it is not adelphos...

Adelphos means brothers..
Adelphe means sisters...
And Jesus had them both...