Good come back. But I do like the hats:
Posted on 05/31/2014 4:33:21 PM PDT by narses
In my previous article, I wrote about the “Hebraic” use of the Greek adelphos: as applying to cousins, fellow countrymen, and a wide array of uses beyond the meaning of “sibling.” Yet it is unanimously translated as “brother” in the King James Version (KJV): 246 times. The cognate adelphe is translated 24 times only as “sister”. This is because it reflects Hebrew usage, translated into Greek. Briefly put, in Jesus’ Hebrew culture (and Middle Eastern culture even today), cousins were called “brothers”.
Brothers or Cousins?
Now, it’s true that sungenis (Greek for “cousin”) and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.”
In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use adelphos even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.
Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.
Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isn’t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine Mark 6:4 (RSV), where sungenis appears:
And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him”)
What is the context? Let’s look at the preceding verse, where the people in “his own country” (6:1) exclaimed: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus’ reference to kin (sungenis) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His “brothers” and “sisters”: His relatives. Since we know that sungenis means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus’ “brothers”.
What about Jude and James?
Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe.
Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19: dealt with above). It’s true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion, and (to say the same thing another way) nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture. Moreover, no Scripture can be produced that absolutely, undeniably, compellingly defeats the perpetual virginity of Mary. Human Tradition
The alleged disproofs utterly fail in their purpose. The attempted linguistic argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity from the mere use of the word “brothers” in English translations (and from sungenis) falls flat at every turn, as we have seen.
If there is any purely “human” tradition here, then, it is the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary, since it originated (mostly) some 1700 years after the initial apostolic deposit: just as all heresies are much later corruptions. The earliest Church fathers know of no such thing. To a person, they all testify that Mary was perpetually a virgin, and indeed, thought that this protected the doctrine of the Incarnation, as a miraculous birth from a mother who was a virgin before, during and after the birth.
nonne iste est faber filius Mariae frater Iacobi et Ioseph et Iudae et Simonis nonne et sorores eius hic nobiscum sunt et scandalizabantur in illo
Muslims have no central controlling figure, neither do Protestants. Perhaps, you could just bow to Mecca as well.
This looks like commentary calling Mary the woman in Revelations or similar to Her could be better said. It’s not a big deal to call Mary the woman in Revelations.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html
But it’s not really easy to answer and I’m no Bible scholar.
“What do we say about the option that both Rhodes and Geisler give us as the woman being the Nation of Israel? The main problem is that this option totally misses the main point of what the woman does in Revelation 12. In Rev. 12:2, the ‘woman’ is one that gives birth to the child. In v. 5, the ‘woman’ again is referred to as one who brings forth a male child who will rule. Now, who does the Bible say is the woman who brings forth a male child? In Isaiah 7:14, there is a prophecy of a virgin (or as the RSV says, a young ‘woman’) who will give birth to a child. That of course is a prophecy on the virginity of the woman. The woman happens to be Mary, not Israel.”
But nothing I’m going to be worried about.
I don’t know if there is an Official Roman Catholic Church interpretation calling Mary the woman in Apocalypse/Revelations.
Did the Protties get the English all wrong?:
Mark 6:3
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA){Roman Catholic}
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.
Mark 6:3:
New American Bible {Roman Catholic}
3 Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Mark 6:3
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Isn’t he just the carpenter? the son of Miryam? the brother of Ya‘akov and Yosi and Y’hudah and Shim‘on? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
As I pointed out in previous posts, it seems St Jerome understood the context as well:
nonne iste est faber filius Mariae frater Iacobi et Ioseph et Iudae et Simonis nonne et sorores eius hic nobiscum sunt et scandalizabantur in illo
Why are you questioning the Deity of Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God? Is Jesus' Deity based on His mother or Father?
Good post.
Good come back. But I do like the hats:
Really? So all those jots and tittles just might not get fulfilled, huh? I don’t think your approach is sound with Scripture.
Scripture is adequate for us to fulfill His Plan.
If you wish to add more to ..or take away from it by Tradition, the Admonishment in His Revelation to John might apply.
I guess almost a billion Muslims are in good company with you:
OUR LADY AND ISLAM: HEAVEN’S PEACE PLAN Fr Ladis J. Cizik, Blue Army National Executive Director
In the Koran, the holy name of the Blessed Virgin Mary is mentioned no less than thirty times. No other woman's name is even mentioned, not even that of Mohammed's daughter, Fatima. Among men, only Abraham, Moses, and Noah are mentioned more times than Our Lady. In the Koran, Our Blessed Mother is described as "Virgin, ever Virgin." The Islamic belief in the virginity of Mary puts to shame the heretical beliefs of those who call themselves Christian, while denying the perpetual virginity of Mary. Make no mistake about it, there is a very special relationship between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Moslems!
Most of the Early Church fathers saw the woman in Rev as Israel.
Sola scriptura still fails it’s own test, self-refuting. If it is true it must be false.
>>”Christ did not have to “teach” sola scriptura.” He IS the Word made flesh.”
Are you confusing the Word with word? Reducing God to words?
There it is...the prevarication of Roman Catholic apologetics. See the bold part above in your comments. Please show us the evidence of Protestant or Evangelical faiths denying the virginity of blessed Mary. Show us please. No one has denied on this thread the virginity of Mary 'until' or 'till' she gave birth to Jesus Christ.
That is the Scriptural evidence presented. There is no doubt from Scriptures Mary was a Virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ. NO ONE has argued against that, no one. The debate is AFTER she gave birth. There is no Scriptural evidence she remained a virgin---was a perpetual virgin. No evidence. There is evidence that she and Joseph lived a normal married life. It is all in the 'until' or 'till'.
The other prevarication we are seeing on this thread is to project to non RCs the notion that we or some of us deny the Deity of Jesus Christ because we do not adhere to the perpetual virginity of Mary. How that came about I don't know but it is obvious and dishonest.
In the same manner I could say a Roman Catholic relies on the Deity of Jesus Christ through Mary.
Completely irrelevant to His birth, incarnation, His mother. If you had "your father's eyes," it would not mean your mother is therefore not your mother.
If you wish to split the person of Jesus in two, you are following in the footsteps of the heresy of Nestorius.
Why are you questioning the Deity of Jesus
Of course I'm not, the question was to you, because the logic of your argument calls into question whether you doubt it. The problem is evident in a simple syllogism:
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.
If you deny the conclusion, then you have to deny either the major or minor premise. If you do not deny that Mary was His mother, then it can only follow that you deny his divinity.
Or just that none of her other sons were at the crucifixion.
That's irrelevant to the use of the word "until."
Until means until; it does not necessarily mean the converse afterward even in English today - as I illustrated previously.
Eos ou in Matthew is used to tell that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus, that he had no sexual relations with Mary prior to the birth of Christ. This is obviously a very important fact to tell.
Other examples:
"And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death." and "'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." (Mark 12:36)
I neither of the uses of eos, is it meant that the converse occurred or will occur after the event.
This would be a great explanation if Matthew 1 said "and she remained a virgin until her death." But it does not say this and death is not in the equation. Matthew 1 says "And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son." Now if the text said "until her death" then we are talking about something different. But we are not. We are specifically addressing 'until' 'till' in context of the birth of Jesus Christ.
Second point, the DRA (Roman Catholic) has "unto" in the 2 Sam. 6:23 verse and not 'until'. I know being picky but within in the context of not bearing children unto death is a striking difference from "and knew her not till she brought forth her first born son."
The attempt of wresting out of context verses to apply or cast doubt on what is clearly communicated is noted. Just another RC piecemeal prevarication.
Chairmen Mao would be proud of your statement above. Sir the pre-occupation is on one of your Catholic caucus members. I ask...who posted this article and what were their motives in doing so? If it was to discuss the matter with RCs then it would be a caucus article, No? So spare me the Tokyo Rose commentary and look at the screen name and tell me why you think this is some Prot pre-occupation when in fact one of your RC propagandists posted this piece.
If 'until' does not mean 'until' then what does it mean?
"Yu Darvish pitched the baseball game against the Nationals UNTIL Joakim Soria came in for the closing save in the 9th inning."
We know from the above Yu Darvish did not finish the game because Soria came in the 9th to finish the game.
"Yu Darvish pitched TO (UNTO) the end of the game earning the win."
There is the difference in the passage you cited. One has something not finite and one does.
Truly? What tradition of the time was there where Hebrew women vowed perpetual virginity? You may be reading too much into Mary's statement. She was a young virgin and being told she would bear a child. So being a virgin thus the question. Pretty simple really.
I also blows away the explanation that Jesus' "brothers and sisters" were Joseph's from a previous marriage. If he already had sons, there would have been no need for the offering for the first-born since Joseph would have already done that. One does it for their first born son, not sons afterward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.