Did Mary, Mother of Jesus, have other children?

[racer]

Misunderstanding of the Greek eos ou. It does not imply that something change after, but was used to affirm that His birth was of a virgin. If this verse "clearly" means Mary had other children..then this verse would imply Jesus will not be with us forever..

I will be with you always, even until the end of ages..

It helps if you quote Scripture correctly. Here is your quote in reality:

Mat 28:18; And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Mat 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mat 28:20"teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Notice it says, ". . . end of the age" not "ages." There is a difference. This is where Jesus gives the apostles the Great Commission. He's telling them to go and continue spreading the Gospel. For soon, He would not be there physically in person to do this. But, He's reassuring them that they will not be alone. He will be with them in spirit always in the sense that everywhere they go, night and day, He will be with them all of the time in spirit, guiding them spiritually--even until the end of the age. So, He was talking of a specific time period, a specific age, the age of the Great Commission. He would remain with them throughout this age. Always used in this instance does not necessitate the inference of "forever."

 

[repentant]

It helps if you quote Scripture correctly. Here is your quote in reality:

Mat 28:18; And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Mat 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mat 28:20"teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Notice it says, ". . . end of the age" not "ages." There is a difference. This is where Jesus gives the apostles the Great Commission. He's telling them to go and continue spreading the Gospel. For soon, He would not be there physically in person to do this. But, He's reassuring them that they will not be alone. He will be with them in spirit always in the sense that everywhere they go, night and day, He will be with them all of the time in spirit, guiding them spiritually--even until the end of the age. So, He was talking of a specific time period, a specific age, the age of the Great Commission. He would remain with them throughout this age. Always used in this instance does not necessitate the inference of "forever."

Greek..

Matthew
28:20 διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος

Ews, same word used in the verse referenced above about Joseph not knowing Mary until...

Also if you notice the last word, aiwvos, this is the plural of the word for age, aiwv,,so it is ages, not age...

next..

 

[racer]

Greek..

Matthew
28:20 διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος

Ews, same word used in the verse referenced above about Joseph not knowing Mary until...

Also if you notice the last word, aiwvos, this is the plural of the word for age, aiwv,,so it is ages, not age...

next..

You know, pride goeth before a fall. I'll give you the weekend to ensure that your arrogance here is just and warranted. I'm certainly no expert in Greek. But, I have checked several sources and none of them use plural when speaking of the end of the age or world. I will dig further. So, be ready to defend your stance here.

 

[repentant]

You know, pride goeth before a fall. I'll give you the weekend to ensure that your arrogance here is just and warranted. I'm certainly no expert in Greek. But, I have checked several sources and none of them use plural when speaking of the end of the age or world. I will dig further. So, be ready to defend your stance here.

Well the thing is, He was not talking about the end of the world. He was making a point that He will be with them forever, now and in the ages that come..

ages plural..KJV

Ephesians 2:7
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Not being arrogant at all..and I'll be ready..

 

[IamAdopted]

From the letter to John from Ignatius..but what Ignatius said is that James looked so much like Jesus, it was like they were from the same womb..

Gee I wonder why this is.. Could it be that they were from the same womb? I would take a guess as to yup they are. Same Mother. Different father. Look alikes as we see in most brother and sisters around the world.

 

[IamAdopted]

Not one verse in the entire Scripture says that Mary had other children..



Misunderstanding of the Greek eos ou. It does not imply that something change after, but was used to affirm that His birth was of a virgin. If this verse "clearly" means Mary had other children..then this verse would imply Jesus will not be with us forever..

I will be with you always, even until the end of ages..




Again, saying Jesus had brother's does not say Mary had other children. It only affirms the Traidtional belief that Joseph was a widower with other children before Jesus was born..



Same as above..



Same..



Adelphoi can be used as close relatives. In the verse above Mat. 13:55, it is reffering to his half brothers, sons of Joseph. The same term adelphoi, is used reffering to Lot and Abraham, allthough they were uncle and nephew..also anepsois is more of a modern term..the word does not appear anywhere in the Greek, from the Septuagint, to the NT..



Psalm 69 is not Messianic. "Stranger to brother's" and "His brother's not believeing in Him" are not the same..also verse 5 says talks about guilt and folly, Jesus did not have guilt nor did he folly..

Once again. We see that this can't be or else Joseph's first born son would have had the rite to rule. Which Jesus had because He was the firstborn to Mary and Jospeh because He was legally Joseph's. Because Jesus was not born of Joseph's blood line once again this rite to rule was effect because He was legally Joseph's.

 

[Petunia]

Once again. We see that this can't be or else Joseph's first born son would have had the rite to rule. Which Jesus had because He was the firstborn to Mary and Jospeh because He was legally Joseph's. Because Jesus was not born of Joseph's blood line once again this rite to rule was effect because He was legally Joseph's.

Regarding the term 'firstborn'.. Luke 2:7 ..refers to the Lord as Mary's 'firstborn'. Wouldn't that indicate that Mary later had other children?

 

[repentant]

Gee I wonder why this is.. Could it be that they were from the same womb? I would take a guess as to yup they are. Same Mother. Different father. Look alikes as we see in most brother and sisters around the world.

Oh boy..now you are claiming that Mary had children with someone other than Joseph?? Wow..

"As if they were from the same womb", as it says, implies they are not of the same womb.

 

[repentant]

Once again. We see that this can't be or else Joseph's first born son would have had the rite to rule. Which Jesus had because He was the firstborn to Mary and Jospeh because He was legally Joseph's. Because Jesus was not born of Joseph's blood line once again this rite to rule was effect because He was legally Joseph's.

Mary was a descendent of David too...and why are you talking about earthly rule anyways..?

 

[repentant]

Regarding the term 'firstborn'.. Luke 2:7 ..refers to the Lord as Mary's 'firstborn'. Wouldn't that indicate that Mary later had other children?

No, cause the Greek does not say her first born, it only says she brought forth a son. uiov..in Matt 1:25 and in Luke it says she brought forth a son "the firstborn", it does not say He was her firstborn (allthough He was), it is saying Jesus was the firstborn in a Spiritual sense..

Romans 8:
28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified

Colssians 1:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Hebrews 12
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

[Hentenza]

I am grasping? We have a belief stemming back since the beginning, and you are trying to use verses that make no claim to Mary having other children as "proof" she did?

As far as your first paragraph, like I said, "mother's children" is not Prophetic, it is about the Psalmist..

The Bible never says anything about Jospeh having children with Mary or anyone else. No where does it say he and Mary had children together. You are grasping here..the brother's depicted are Josephs children, not Mary's...not once does Scripture say she had other children..not once..you are grasping my friend..what purpose would it serve the early Church to make up something like this?

It is proof that she had other children You can't honestly tell me that all the verses referencing Mary's children are all misinterpreted, are you? And if the church had this belief from the beginning, why isn't it in the bilbe? After all oral traditons is what wrote the bible, according to other discussions with you, so why isn't it there?

The bible doesn't say anything about Joseph having other children because it is not true. All that you can offer is your opinion. I am yet to see any biblical evidence regarding this.

 

[repentant]

It is proof that she had other children You can't honestly tell me that all the verses referencing Mary's children are all misinterpreted, are you? And if the church had this belief from the beginning, why isn't it in the bilbe? After all oral traditons is what wrote the bible, according to other discussions with you, so why isn't it there?

No it is not. There is not one reference to Mary having other children in the whole Scripture. Only people called Jesus' brother's and sister's. I have 2 bro's and 2 sis', yet my mother has no other children but me. So if someone say's "there's your borther's and sister's", is it to assume they are my mother's children? This is what you are doing. Not one reference refer's to Mary having any other children. You are building a strawman.

And when did I say oral Traditions wrote the Bible? I have never said that. I said they picked the Books of the Bible, because what was in them were true because it was Tradition they had recieved passed down. I and the EOC brethren have always stated not all of what was orally taught, is in Scripture..just some of it.

The bible doesn't say anything about Joseph having other children because it is not true. All that you can offer is your opinion. I am yet to see any biblical evidence regarding this.

Bible doesn't need to. Bible was not about Joseph, nor his other children. The Apostles and the early Christians knew this was true, and passed down. It is in the Protovangelion of James (along with many other things about Mary and her life), which if you do any research on the Scripture Canon, you will see this was a highly favored Book to be put in the Scripture Canon. Only reason they didn't, was because it wouldn't fit in with what they were trying to do with the NT. Tehy wanted it to be about Jesus and the beginings of the Church, and how it developed. A Book about Mary's and Joseph's life, before Jesus and after Mary's life after Jesus' Ascension wouldn't fit in with the theme..where would they put it?

 

[Hentenza]

No it is not. There is not one reference to Mary having other children in the whole Scripture. Only people called Jesus' brother's and sister's. I have 2 bro's and 2 sis', yet my mother has no other children but me. So if someone say's "there's your borther's and sister's", is it to assume they are my mother's children? This is what you are doing. Not one reference refer's to Mary having any other children. You are building a strawman.

This is no strawman. There are plenty of biblical references to Mary had other children. You are the one building the strawman when you say that Jesus brothers and sisters were not really Mary's other children but Josephs children from a previous marriage. There is nothing in scripture that even hints to this. In fact, the scriptures do paint a clear picture that Jesus had brothers and sisters and since their is nothing inscriptures that the brothers and sisters were not Mary's kids, the conclusion is inescapable.

And when did I say oral Traditions wrote the Bible? I have never said that. I said they picked the Books of the Bible, because what was in them were true because it was Tradition they had recieved passed down. I and the EOC brethren have always stated not all of what was orally taught, is in Scripture..just some of it.

You misunderstand me. We have had plenty of arguments concerning oral tradition being pivotal in the writing of the bible. You have said that before the NT was written, all we had WAS oral tradition. Are you now backing up from that?
How useful is tradition that is inconsistent with scripture? Not much.

Bible doesn't need to. Bible was not about Joseph, nor his other children. The Apostles and the early Christians knew this was true, and passed down. It is in the Protovangelion of James (along with many other things about Mary and her life), which if you do any research on the Scripture Canon, you will see this was a highly favored Book to be put in the Scripture Canon. Only reason they didn't, was because it wouldn't fit in with what they were trying to do with the NT. Tehy wanted it to be about Jesus and the beginings of the Church, and how it developed. A Book about Mary's and Joseph's life, before Jesus and after Mary's life after Jesus' Ascension wouldn't fit in with the theme..where would they put it?

And how can you possibly know that the early christians and the apostle knew this to be true? That is speculation. The protovangelion was not canonized because is NOT inspired which means that it could be myth or legend. The teachings was not consistent with the other canonized books which makes its teachings suspect at the very least.

 

[repentant]

This is no strawman. There are plenty of biblical references to Mary had other children. You are the one building the strawman when you say that Jesus brothers and sisters were not really Mary's other children but Josephs children from a previous marriage. There is nothing in scripture that even hints to this. In fact, the scriptures do paint a clear picture that Jesus had brothers and sisters and since their is nothing inscriptures that the brothers and sisters were not Mary's kids, the conclusion is inescapable.

You are making a statement without direct evidence. You are building a strawman. Jesus' brother's and sister's are mentioned, but never once that Mary had other children. How can you make a 100% claim with this lack eivdence and go against 2000 years of history? You do know her having other children, and that she was not ever virgin is some new post reformation teaching don't you? Who would know better, the people who were there, and the people had teh original Gospel's? Are these people who's sole purpose was to alienate anything Roman Catholic..regardless if it was true or not..?Would serve you well to look at the history of the Church, do some reading, instead of believeing the liars who taught you this junk..

In fact, the scriptures do paint a clear picture that Jesus had brothers and sisters and since their is nothing inscriptures that the brothers and sisters were not Mary's kids, the conclusion is inescapable.

So picture that Jesus had brother's and sister's, and since nothing in Scripture doesn't say they weren't Mary's..it is inescapeable that they are Mary's? This makes real sense. Argueing 2000 years of teaching, based on an assumption like this. If this is how you think, please don't ever be a lawyer, or even a member of a jury..you are highly ilogical..

You misunderstand me. We have had plenty of arguments concerning oral tradition being pivotal in the writing of the bible. You have said that before the NT was written, all we had WAS oral tradition. Are you now backing up from that?
How useful is tradition that is inconsistent with scripture? Not much.

I didn't misunderstand you. You made the claim that I said oral Tradition wrote the Bible, something I never said. Oral Tradition played an important role as to what Scripture was and wasn't. What they put in, lined up with the oral Tradition. There is no Tradition in the EOC that is inconsistant with Scripture. The ECF's knew the language and the culture, and they also knew what was Apostolically passed down. Scripture does not say Mary had other children, so this lines up perfectly with her perpetual virginity..

And how can you possibly know that the early christians and the apostle knew this to be true? That is speculation. The protovangelion was not canonized because is NOT inspired which means that it could be myth or legend. The teachings was not consistent with the other canonized books which makes its teachings suspect at the very least.

Well for one, the Apostles had nothing to do with the Canonization, considering it was about 300 years after the fact..We know because we know. The Protoevangelion was a written recored of the life of Mary and explained things about Joseph. This book lined up perfectly with Apostolic Tradition, and was used then and still is until this day. It was not put in because it didin't fit with the theme of the Bible, not because it was false. Where would you put a Book about the life of Mary? At the begining so it takes longer to get to the part about Christ? At then end, after the fact..in the middle? Where? It didn't fit with what they were trying to do, that's all. It was not rejected like the other books such as the Acts of Peter, which were thrown out and never touched again. The Proto of James was still used, and always has been on teaching about the life of Mary..

 

[Hentenza]

You are making a statement without direct evidence. You are building a strawman. Jesus' brother's and sister's are mentioned, but never once that Mary had other children. How can you make a 100% claim with this lack eivdence and go against 2000 years of history? You do know her having other children, and that she was not ever virgin is some new post reformation teaching don't you? Who would know better, the people who were there, and the people had teh original Gospel's? Are these people who's sole purpose was to alienate anything Roman Catholic..regardless if it was true or not..?Would serve you well to look at the history of the Church, do some reading, instead of believeing the liars who taught you this junk..



So picture that Jesus had brother's and sister's, and since nothing in Scripture doesn't say they weren't Mary's..it is inescapeable that they are Mary's? This makes real sense. Argueing 2000 years of teaching, based on an assumption like this. If this is how you think, please don't ever be a lawyer, or even a member of a jury..you are highly ilogical..




I didn't misunderstand you. You made the claim that I said oral Tradition wrote the Bible, something I never said. Oral Tradition played an important role as to what Scripture was and wasn't. What they put in, lined up with the oral Tradition. There is no Tradition in the EOC that is inconsistant with Scripture. The ECF's knew the language and the culture, and they also knew what was Apostolically passed down. Scripture does not say Mary had other children, so this lines up perfectly with her perpetual virginity..




Well for one, the Apostles had nothing to do with the Canonization, considering it was about 300 years after the fact..We know because we know. The Protoevangelion was a written recored of the life of Mary and explained things about Joseph. This book lined up perfectly with Apostolic Tradition, and was used then and still is until this day. It was not put in because it didin't fit with the theme of the Bible, not because it was false. Where would you put a Book about the life of Mary? At the begining so it takes longer to get to the part about Christ? At then end, after the fact..in the middle? Where? It didn't fit with what they were trying to do, that's all. It was not rejected like the other books such as the Acts of Peter, which were thrown out and never touched again. The Proto of James was still used, and always has been on teaching about the life of Mary..

So let me make sure I understand what you are claiming. You say:

1. Jesus had brothers but they were not Mary's because Joseph was a widower with other children. So, Jesus halfbrothers are not from Mary's side. -Not biblical.

2. 2000 years of oral tradition tells you this.- "word of mouth" over the word of God, mmmm......

3. The noncanonized infantile gospel of James or protevangelium is the authority on the life of Mary and Joseph. - A noncanonized book which makes an unbiblical claim. Another mmm.....

4. The protoenvangelion did not make it into the bible because it just did not fit into the design of the bible.- see below

5. All oral traditions in the EO are consistent with scripture. - that is your opinion but judging by this issue I seriously doubt it.

6. I only make this claim because of some post reformation jargon that I have believed.- Not true.

7. I have no knowledge of the history of the church.- My first college degree is in history. I have studied the church history.

So really as far as you are concerned the bible plays no role in determining truth. It is obvious to me that you hold oral traditions above the word of God. It is also obvious that the protevangelium is at the center of your claim.
The protevangelium did not make it into the bible because it is inconsistent with scripture. There are other problems as well. The authorship has never been established because is dated at the middle of the second century so James could not have written it.
Another problem is the errors in the geography of Palestine which sugests that the author did not live in Jerusalem or the surrounding area. Another problem is the timing of the writting which coincides with the charges of adultery agaist Mary by the heretics and the Talmud. The above is suggestive of the purpose of writting the protevangelium as a defense against those charges. Needless to say the teachings of this book are suspect since the teachings are not consistent with the bible accounts and the writtings themselves are suspect.
So far everything that you have used as a refute is either supposition, guesses, or unsupported claims. Your argument is unbiblical just like the protevangelium.

 

[repentant]

1. Jesus had brothers but they were not Mary's because Joseph was a widower with other children. So, Jesus halfbrothers are not from Mary's side. -Not biblical.]

Please show me where it says these children were Mary's. Oh wait you can't, because that theory is Not Biblical..difference is, we have history, Tradition and the teachings of the same men who Canonized Scripture, and you have..well nothing..

2. 2000 years of oral tradition tells you this.- "word of mouth" over the word of God, mmmm......

Oral Tradition as Paul spoke of many times in Scripture, is the Word of God..it was because of the oral Tradition passed that decided the 27 Books were truly the Word of God in the first place...

3. The noncanonized infantile gospel of James or protevangelium is the authority on the life of Mary and Joseph. - A noncanonized book which makes an unbiblical claim. Another mmm.....

Scripture is not about Mary and Jospeh, but about CHRIST...maybe when you realize what Scripture is, you won't have this problem and realize that the same Saints who gave us Scripture, held this book in high regard, and believed what it says..

4. The protoenvangelion did not make it into the bible because it just did not fit into the design of the bible.- see below

Exactly..Evangelion Good news..about CHRIST..Evangelion is what the Gospels are called in Greek..it means "Good News"..

5. All oral traditions in the EO are consistent with scripture. - that is your opinion but judging by this issue I seriously doubt it.]

Ok what contradicts it..please tell me. Considering the men who gave us the Bible had the same Traditions..

6. I only make this claim because of some post reformation jargon that I have believed.- Not true.]

Pretty much..

7. I have no knowledge of the history of the church.- My first college degree is in history. I have studied the church history.

Well you need to take that Degree back to Walmart...but if you're lucky, with that degree and $3.50, you might get some Starbucks..

So really as far as you are concerned the bible plays no role in determining truth. It is obvious to me that you hold oral traditions above the word of God. It is also obvious that the protevangelium is at the center of your claim.

It's obvious your oblivious to the teachings of the Orthdodox Church. This is obvious. The Word of God was decided because of oral Tradition. Yes the Proto is my Gospel.. No, it's called a historical account of someone...and it's more than you got to back up your circumstancial evidence of Mary having other children..which is un Biblical..

The protevangelium did not make it into the bible because it is inconsistent with scripture. There are other problems as well. The authorship has never been established because is dated at the middle of the second century so James could not have written it.
Another problem is the errors in the geography of Palestine which sugests that the author did not live in Jerusalem or the surrounding area. Another problem is the timing of the writting which coincides with the charges of adultery agaist Mary by the heretics and the Talmud. The above is suggestive of the purpose of writting the protevangelium as a defense against those charges. Needless to say the teachings of this book are suspect since the teachings are not consistent with the bible accounts and the writtings themselves are suspect.
So far everything that you have used as a refute is either supposition, guesses, or unsupported claims. Your argument is unbiblical just like the protevangelium.

Question..where would you put an historical count of someone besides Christ's life in the NT? Please answer that, where would it fit? Also answer why this Book was and still is used in the same Church that Canonized Scripture if they thought it to be false? Why did this Book stick around and not the other books like the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thekla, the Gospel of James, Gospel of Thomas, Apocolypse of Peter, and all the other Gnostic books? Why is it still used by the Church that Canonized Scripture? Please tell me...


Lets see what some of the chief Canonizers had to say...

St. Athanasius
It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God and Master who was born of you. For this reason, you are called full of grace. Remember us, most holy Virgin, and bestow on us gifts from the riches of your graces, Virgin full of graces.

St. Damascus (Sermon 1 on the Dormition of the mother of the Lord)
We, too, approach thee to-day, O Queen; and again, I say, O Queen, O Virgin Mother of God, staying our souls with our trust in thee, as with a strong anchor. Lifting up mind, soul and body, and all ourselves to thee, rejoicing in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, we reach through thee One who is beyond our reach on account of His Majesty. If, as the divine Word made flesh taught us, honour shown to servants, is honour shown to our common Lord, how can honour shown to thee, His Mother, be slighted? How is it not most desirable? Art thou not honoured as the very breath of life? Thus shall we best show our service to our Lord Himself. What do I say to our Lord? It is sufficient that those who think of Thee should recall the memory of Thy most precious gift as the cause of our lasting joy. How it fills us with gladness! How the mind that dwells on this holy treasury of Thy grace enriches itself.

This is our thank-offering to thee, the first fruits of our discourses, the best homage of my poor mind, whilst I am moved by desire of thee, and full of my own misery. But do thou graciously receive my desire, knowing that it exceeds my power. Watch over us, O Queen, the dwelling-place of our Lord. Lead and govern all our ways as thou wilt. Save us from our sins. Lead us into the calm harbour of the divine will. Make us worthy of future happiness through the sweet and face-to-face vision of the Word made flesh through thee. With Him, glory, praise, power, and majesty be to the Father and to the holy and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever. Amen.

 

[Axion]

This issue is brought up time after time on these and other boards - largely because it is one issue where some people think that they find a direct contradiction between what is in scripture and the teachings of the traditional Apostolic church.

However they are in error, basing their opinions on MODERN English word usages and poor readings and translations of an ANCIENT text.

One important point is that the language used in the Palestine of Jesus's time was Aramaic. In the Aramaic language used at that time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews therefore had to use the word brother where they meant to describe any close male relative. This is so even today in many languages and cultures, particularly where there is an extended family system. The loose term "brother" or "sister" is used to cover the children of ones uncles and aunts as well as those of ones own parents.

Gen 14:14 "And when Abram heard that his Brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan."

The "brother" referred to here is Lot. Lot was the son of Aran, Abram's own dead brother (Gen 11:26-28). He was therefore Abram's Nephew, even though the text refers to him as a "brother".

The new T was written in greek But
This is a bit of a red-herring for two reasons. Firstly, there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers that the Book of Matthew, at least, was originally written in Aramaic, and so was translated into Greek. Secondly, we know that the people of Palestine in Jesus's time spoke in Aramaic, and it is therefore in Aramaic in which the oral stories which were later written down to form the Gospels, were transmitted. So it is likely that the Aramaic word "brother", meaning not only sibling, but any kinsman, was translated into the Greek word "brother", which has the tighter meaning of sibling only. This is clearly what has happened in Genesis 14.14 above.

 

[IamAdopted]

This issue is brought up time after time on these and other boards - largely because it is one issue where some people think that they find a direct contradiction between what is in scripture and the teachings of the traditional Apostolic church.

However they are in error, basing their opinions on MODERN English word usages and poor readings and translations of an ANCIENT text.

One important point is that the language used in the Palestine of Jesus's time was Aramaic. In the Aramaic language used at that time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews therefore had to use the word brother where they meant to describe any close male relative. This is so even today in many languages and cultures, particularly where there is an extended family system. The loose term "brother" or "sister" is used to cover the children of ones uncles and aunts as well as those of ones own parents.

Gen 14:14 "And when Abram heard that his Brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan."

The "brother" referred to here is Lot. Lot was the son of Aran, Abram's own dead brother (Gen 11:26-28). He was therefore Abram's Nephew, even though the text refers to him as a "brother".

The new T was written in greek But
This is a bit of a red-herring for two reasons. Firstly, there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers that the Book of Matthew, at least, was originally written in Aramaic, and so was translated into Greek. Secondly, we know that the people of Palestine in Jesus's time spoke in Aramaic, and it is therefore in Aramaic in which the oral stories which were later written down to form the Gospels, were transmitted. So it is likely that the Aramaic word "brother", meaning not only sibling, but any kinsman, was translated into the Greek word "brother", which has the tighter meaning of sibling only. This is clearly what has happened in Genesis 14.14 above.

The scriptures in the NT were written in greek. Precise wording used. Not the greek translated from the latin either But written in the original greek. We see through these writings that Jesus did indeed have brothers and sisters and that they were from Mary. This is why the word that is used was used. Why people cannot accept that Jesus had brothers and sisters is beyond me. For Salvation comes through Jesus. What is the big deal if He had brothers and sisters?

 

[Hentenza]

Please show me where it says these children were Mary's. Oh wait you can't, because that theory is Not Biblical..difference is, we have history, Tradition and the teachings of the same men who Canonized Scripture, and you have..well nothing..

Show me where the authorative word of God says that the children were not Mary's. Questionable writtings do not make your case. I have the bible to prove my point, or do you consider the bible to be "nothing". That is just plain arrogant.

Oral Tradition as Paul spoke of many times in Scripture, is the Word of God..it was because of the oral Tradition passed that decided the 27 Books were truly the Word of God in the first place...

Tradition appears 13 times in the KJV with 10 times having a very negative connotation. The remaining 3 speak of traditions as "just like I, apostles, delivered them to you". Books like the protevengelium do not meet this criteria and since it does not meet this criteria, you are in a sense adding words to scripture. Remember Gal 1:8 "8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Scripture is not about Mary and Jospeh, but about CHRIST...maybe when you realize what Scripture is, you won't have this problem and realize that the same Saints who gave us Scripture, held this book in high regard, and believed what it says..

You finally said something that makes sense. Scripture is about Christ not Mary. There is nothing in scripture to back up the rest of your comment.

Exactly..Evangelion Good news..about CHRIST..Evangelion is what the Gospels are called in Greek..it means "Good News"..

The "Good news" is the gospel that our Lord commanded the apostles to spread to all corners of the world. I don't recall the protevangelium being part of the "good news".

Well you need to take that Degree back to Walmart...but if you're lucky, with that degree and $3.50, you might get some Starbucks..

Insults weaken your position because it shows your desperation. You are obviously not well equip to maintain a discussion in civilized terms. Grow up.

It's obvious your oblivious to the teachings of the Orthdodox Church. This is obvious. The Word of God was decided because of oral Tradition. Yes the Proto is my Gospel.. No, it's called a historical account of someone...and it's more than you got to back up your circumstancial evidence of Mary having other children..which is un Biblical..

As usual, just your opinion.

Question..where would you put an historical count of someone besides Christ's life in the NT? Please answer that, where would it fit? Also answer why this Book was and still is used in the same Church that Canonized Scripture if they thought it to be false? Why did this Book stick around and not the other books like the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thekla, the Gospel of James, Gospel of Thomas, Apocolypse of Peter, and all the other Gnostic books? Why is it still used by the Church that Canonized Scripture? Please tell me...

It is still in use because it supports the unbiblical accounts of Mary. Due to the humble nature of Mary, based on the biblical accounts, the "cult like" exhaltation of Mary that this book is causing is contrary to her very nature.

Lets see what some of the chief Canonizers had to say...

St. Athanasius
It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God and Master who was born of you. For this reason, you are called full of grace. Remember us, most holy Virgin, and bestow on us gifts from the riches of your graces, Virgin full of graces.

St. Damascus (Sermon 1 on the Dormition of the mother of the Lord)
We, too, approach thee to-day, O Queen; and again, I say, O Queen, O Virgin Mother of God, staying our souls with our trust in thee, as with a strong anchor. Lifting up mind, soul and body, and all ourselves to thee, rejoicing in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, we reach through thee One who is beyond our reach on account of His Majesty. If, as the divine Word made flesh taught us, honour shown to servants, is honour shown to our common Lord, how can honour shown to thee, His Mother, be slighted? How is it not most desirable? Art thou not honoured as the very breath of life? Thus shall we best show our service to our Lord Himself. What do I say to our Lord? It is sufficient that those who think of Thee should recall the memory of Thy most precious gift as the cause of our lasting joy. How it fills us with gladness! How the mind that dwells on this holy treasury of Thy grace enriches itself.

This is our thank-offering to thee, the first fruits of our discourses, the best homage of my poor mind, whilst I am moved by desire of thee, and full of my own misery. But do thou graciously receive my desire, knowing that it exceeds my power. Watch over us, O Queen, the dwelling-place of our Lord. Lead and govern all our ways as thou wilt. Save us from our sins. Lead us into the calm harbour of the divine will. Make us worthy of future happiness through the sweet and face-to-face vision of the Word made flesh through thee. With Him, glory, praise, power, and majesty be to the Father and to the holy and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever. Amen.

The fact remains that the protevangelium was not chosen as canonic because of the inconsistencies in the book. Even the "chief cononizers", as you call them, could not make it so.

In summary, you can not make doctrine based on questionable noncanonical writtings. Only the writtings that follow scripture are of value.

 

[Hentenza]

The scriptures in the NT were written in greek. Precise wording used. Not the greek translated from the latin either But written in the original greek. We see through these writings that Jesus did indeed have brothers and sisters and that they were from Mary. This is why the word that is used was used. Why people cannot accept that Jesus had brothers and sisters is beyond me. For Salvation comes through Jesus. What is the big deal if He had brothers and sisters?

What amazes me the most is that repentant accepts the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters but claims that they were Joseph's from a previous marriage. But, axiom obviously claims that Jesus did not have any children. mmmm.... Didn't they use to be the same church when the bible was canonized? Don't both of them read and believe in the protevangelium? They can't even get their stories straight. That is the result of unbiblical oral tradition.