Check out some similar questions!

Wondergirl · Mar 20, 2010, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by elscarta

Actually the question was raised in this post as to whether Mary had any other children.

Luke wrote his Gospels years after Jesus had left the Earth and thus knew that Jesus had had other siblings, thus his use of "firstborn."

elscarta · Mar 20, 2010, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Luke wrote his Gospels years after Jesus had left the Earth and thus knew that Jesus had had other siblings, thus his use of "firstborn."

You missed the point of my posting. You cannot use the fact that Luke called Jesus Mary's firstborn to support your argument that Jesus had other siblings as I have shown that an only child is still a "firstborn".

There are two possibilities:

Jesus had other siblings. Jesus would thus be "firstborn"

Jesus had no other siblings. Jesus would still be called "firstborn" as I have shown in my previous posting.

Thus that fact that Luke called Jesus "firstborn" sheds no light on whether Jesus had any other siblings!

If you still think that an only child cannot be called "firstborn" then please point out the error in my argument in my previous post, otherwise stop insisting that Luke called Jesus "firstborn" because Jesus had other siblings. Luke would still have called Jesus "firstborn" even if he had no other siblings!

And finally there actually is a third possibility. Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage and may have been a widower when he married Mary.

This means that even if Jesus had other siblings, Mary could still be "Ever Virgin".

Fr_Chuck · Mar 20, 2010, 07:05 PM

You may prove either side with scripture, it depends on how you wish to define s various usage of greek words and their translations.

arcura · Mar 20, 2010, 07:17 PM

450donn,
Please do NOT accuse me of not reading the bible, all of it because I do and have for a long time.
Fred.

Wondergirl · Mar 20, 2010, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by elscarta

This means that even if Jesus had other siblings, Mary could still be "Ever Virgin".

Joseph's having other children and Mary never producing any children other than Jesus has nothing to do with Mary's being a virgin or not.

arcura · Mar 20, 2010, 08:31 PM

Wondergirl,
THAT is and interesting observation.
Thanks,
Fred

paraclete · Mar 20, 2010, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Joseph's having other children and Mary never producing any children other than Jesus has nothing to do with Mary's being a virgin or not.

What seems to be lost in this argument is the fact that once Mary had borne Jesus she was no longer a virgin since by definition a virgin is a female who has not had sexual relatiosn but also has not had a child, you cannot say a woman who has had a child is a virgin. To have have a child is not something unrighteous even Scripture says a woman a woman who has had a child can be saved

Wondergirl · Mar 20, 2010, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

What seems to be lost in this argument is the fact that once Mary had borne Jesus she was no longer a virgin since by definition a virgin is a female who has not had sexual relatiosn but also has not had a child

I disagree. A virgin can have a child and still be a virgin if she has never had intercourse. The penetration, not the childbirth, is what takes away the virginity.

450donn · Mar 21, 2010, 09:13 AM

Fred, I am truly sorry that you feel that way. But you leave me no choice but to come to that conclusion. Many many people have given you scripture references that prove Mary had other children by Joseph, but dogmatic refusal to accept the bible on this subject left me with no other conclusions. While the RCC does not hold the exclusive rights to ignoring scripture because it does not fit their teachings, it appears from your posts to be very bad in this area. Throughout the history of the church age this has happened many times, there is still no excuse for not reading and believing the entire bible. Except to control people. You have many times claim to have converted to the RCC from a protestant religion. That is merely saying that you were not catholic or Jewish prior to your conversion. I am sorry that you went from a dead religion to one that forces it's members to swear allegiance to the mother church instead of God, To force it's members to swear to raise their children in the "church" instead of bringing up your children according to the scriptures.
If you want to not become offended again, choose your words carefully and read the scriptures for what they actually say, not what your priest tells you it says and we will get along just fine.

elscarta · Mar 21, 2010, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

you may prove either side with scripture, it depends on how you wish to define s various usage of greek words and thier translations.

While I agree that sometimes this is true it is not in this case.

You cannot just use any definition that you want for words found in Scripture. The meanings of words must be supported by their use in Scripture.

Wondergirl and 420donn both agree that the definition of "firstborn" excludes an "only child", yet they have not once posted any reference in Scripture to support their definition.

The reason for this is that there is no support in Scripture for their definition in fact as I have shown in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post2281391 this definition leads to a contradiction.

Scripture supports only a definition of "firstborn" that includes an only child!

Wondergirl and 420donn, if you can find fault with my argument presented in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post2281391 please be so kind as to point it out otherwise do you accept that your definition of "firstborn" is incorrect?

450donn · Mar 21, 2010, 10:52 AM

Why should I post a false pretense?
Scripture is very clear on this subject. Several times the reference is made to Jesus siblings as has been quoted already. Please go back and reread these posts.
Or start in MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.

If your religion does not support the fact that Mary had more than one child, I am truly sorry for you. Your leaders are doing a great disservice to you by not using the entire bible, and instead are picking and choosing to suit their whims, or the whims of your religious leaders. Sound like the Pharisees of 1st century Jerusalem ?

JoeCanada76 · Mar 21, 2010, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by 450donn

Why should I post a false pretense?
Scripture is very clear on this subject. Several times the reference is made to Jesus siblings as has been quoted already. Please go back and reread these posts.
Or start in MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.

If your religion does not support the fact that Mary had more than one child, I am truly sorry for you. Your leaders are doing a great disservice to you by not using the entire bible, and instead are picking and choosing to suit their whims, or the whims of your religious leaders. Sound like the Pharisees of 1st century Jerusalem ?

I agree with all your posts on this thread. About the conclusions that were made by Fred, but the thing is Fred thinks he talks for the church. Honestly though not all Catholics are in the same blind state as Fred is about the church.

Wondergirl · Mar 21, 2010, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by elscarta

The meanings of words must be supported by their use in Scripture.

Wondergirl and 420donn both agree that the definition of "firstborn" excludes an "only child", yet they have not once posted any reference in Scripture to support their definition.

The meanings for words come from a dictionary.

Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child, but when someone declares a child is "firstborn," he assumes the child is the first of several, that the child will have siblings ("secondborn" and "thirdborn" and maybe even "fourthborn"). "First" by definition means there are more to follow. Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) knew that Jesus was the firstborn or first child with more following. Otherwise, he would have said, "And Mary brought forth her only Child...."

Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born."

elscarta · Mar 22, 2010, 07:20 AM

Wondergirl, when I read the start of your post

Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child

I thought "finally she understands", but then as I continued reading I realised that you still don't get it.

There are many problems with your post and I am hestitant in pointing them all out as I fear that you will do as you have done in the past and focus on only one of the points I make when all of them are important.

1. You contradict yourself

Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child

This means that there may be no more children following the "firstborn", but then you say

"First" by definition means there are more to follow

2. You make assumptions about what people are assuming and present them as absolutes.

when someone declares a child is "firstborn," he assumes the child is the first of several, that the child will have siblings

Do you speak for all people who declare a child "firstborn"? The least you should have said was "he usually assumes".

3. You make up words to support your position.

"secondborn" and "thirdborn" and maybe even "fourthborn"

I cannot find these words in any dictionary!

4.You present a definition of a word as if there are no other possible definitions or usage of that word

"First" by definition means there are more to follow.

I prefer: "First" by definition means that more may follow, but necessarily so.
I am not the only one who uses this definition. In the following link
United Arab Emirates at the Olympics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "first" is used when there is only one.
Also try Googling "first and only" you get 146,000,000 hits!

5.Again you make an assumption and present it as an absolute.

Otherwise, he would have said, "And Mary brought forth her only Child...."

Do you really know Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) so well that you can state for certain what he would have said?
Also you seem to miss the point that "Firstborn" in Jewish tradition is not just a ranking of the child in the order of birth but also "a title", "a position of honor and responsibility", with "special priviledges of inheritance and authority" as well as being "dedicated to God" and "receiver of a special blessing".
I doubt that Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) would have chosed the word "only" in place of "firstborn" as this would appear to deny Jesus all of what is listed above!

6.You state a falsehood and present it as truth.

Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born."

"Firstborn" would not mean "only born" even in China! There are many families in China that have more than one child, even though China has a one child policy!

7.You have reversed the order of the "firstborn" and "only born(only child)" and so are not even discussing the same thing that I am discussing!

Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born".

This discussion is about whether "an only child" is "firstborn" not whether a "firstborn" child is an "only child". The order is important!
As an analogy I am trying to establish that a square can be considered a rectangle while you are arguing that a rectangle is not a square.

Please take the above criticisms in the light in which they were given; as positive critcism. While I am interested in discussions like this one, I do find it frustrating when people do not present their arguments in a logical manner and insist that they are right even when it has been shown that their beliefs are inconsistent and contradictory.

I started posting on this thread because I disagreed with the statement being made that 'Luke's use of the word "firstborn" proves that Jesus had siblings because "firstborn" cannot be used for an only child'.

As I have shown in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post2281391 it is illogical and contradictory to exclude an "only child" from being called "firstborn".

Furthermore, I have shown in point 5 above that even if Jesus was an only child Luke would have had good reason to use the title "firstborn" when relating to Jesus.

So where does this leave us? Hopefully at the same point:

'That Luke's use of the word "firstborn" neither proves nor disproves that Jesus had siblings.'

Please do not read more into this statement than was intended. I am not saying that Jesus did not have siblings, nor am I saying that he did. All I am saying is that the proof/disproof of Jesus' siblings is not found in Luke 2:22-23.

450donn · Mar 22, 2010, 11:43 AM

Again, for the record, all your claims are worthless in light of
MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.
Why is it so hard to understand the word of God?

galveston · Mar 22, 2010, 03:27 PM

Bottom line:

Catholics don't believe the Bible.

I don't believe the RCC.

classyT · Mar 22, 2010, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by galveston

Bottom line:

Catholics don't believe the Bible.

I don't believe the RCC.

Galveston,

To the point and right on! They do NOT believe the Bible. It is frustrating to say the least.

JoeCanada76 · Mar 22, 2010, 03:33 PM

I am a catholic and I do believe in the bible. Although I do also believe many people Catholics are misled. Catholics are not encouraged to pick up a bible and study for themselves. There are no bibles in catholic churches that I have been too. They teach what they want to teach, there are lots of traditions , etc... that are not biblical based which is very misleading.

I have been to many different denominations and churches growing up and still visiting other churches and will say that there are other denominations out there that clearly teach straight from the bible and encourage study of the bible, unlike the Catholic church.

classyT · Mar 22, 2010, 03:59 PM

Jesushelper,

You are right. AND in fairness it isn't just the Catholic church that doesn't encourage reading of the Bible either. I have visited other churches and sat in amazement at what they taught. It wasn't even out of the Bible. And I really detest someone who gets behind the pulpit with a political agenda... So didn't mean to pick on Catholics.

galveston · Mar 22, 2010, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

I am a catholic and I do believe in the bible. Although I do also believe many people Catholics are misled. Catholics are not encouraged to pick up a bible and study for themselves. There are no bibles in catholic churches that I have been too. They teach what they want to teach, there are lots of traditions and etc... that are not biblical based which is very misleading.

I have been to many different denominations and churches growing up and still visiting other churches and will say that there are other denominations out there that clearly teach straight from the bible and encourage study of the bible, unlike the Catholic church.

Now you puzzle me.

Why do you remain a Catholic?