I agree.
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.
Because some Catholics are hung up on the sex act itself.
Three yellow boxed cereal replies. I know, a loss for words.
Those brothers and sisters weren't THERE with Mary at the foot of the cross, were they? They had deserted Jesus just like the rest of the Apostles, besides John. John was THERE and was why Jesus entrusted His mother's care to him.
Not to be toady about this but only from studying diligently and often the Scriptures do these things become clear. If you have a beef about a Psalm going from Messianic one or two verses to the actual supplication of the psalmist and back again, then don't worry because the disciples of Christ were originally 'lost' on these matters too. That is why we see in Luke 24 Christ opening their minds to the Law, Prophets and Psalms. They needed some huge help and Jesus left His followers with the Comfortor who He said would explain these things to us.
Please don’t ask me to provide proof of this, but I read some years ago that Joseph was in his nineties when he took Mary as his wife. If that is the case, then why would you think it strange that Mary and Joseph did not have an intimate marriage? How well do you think you will me functioning when you reach that age. Yes, and in those days, a few people did live to a ripe old age.
I noticed you are putting words in other posters responses. I did not ping the moderator because you generally apply the same prevarications to each response. It is a nice twist of people's words you do and accuse folks of something they did not state or even intimate.
It would be like me responding to you saying:
"So you believe Mary is above Christ, Queen of Heaven seated at the right hand of the Father, ever existing and Mother to the Trinity?"
See what I just did above? It is really easy for me to state you are implying the above but I have a bit more sense in these forums. So I would stop the nonsense you are doing by misrepresenting what people are actually responding to.
I will ping you to the Oneness Pentacostal and JW threads when the Deity of Jesus Christ comes up in a thread. Then your questions would apply. I know of no poster posting so far which fits your accusations, so give it up because not only is it annoying, it is dishonest.
If you can't take the heat, don't step up to the plate. I think Nolan Ryan said something like that.
I agree.
I am sorry if I led you to such a terse response. Was just quoting the good ol' Padre from EWTN. Please see the link.
If your 'central controlling figure' is Mary or the Pope, then you are correct. Christians follow the Voice of the Good Shepherd and He don't wear a pointy hat.
I stopped looking to scripture to try to understand Catholicism. Look at mysticism and paganism and one can begin to see the foundation of Catholicism. Trying to discuss the Catholic religion from scripture is futile.
In my days of Jesuit university I have seen the Rev 12 references mentioned as both Mary and Israel. And they can be. We should be cautious, however, building doctrines on such prophetic images.
Are you changing the subject again and saying something I did not say or even intimate at? Nice try.
Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. And He did a lot of speaking. When He spoke what did He use a lot?
Wow this is very helpful for me. I’ve always had the instances of “sungenis” in Scripture in the back of my mind.
Thank you for posting. One less topic I need to eventually research.
Does a hat and cane come with that dance? Really can a woman have a baby after she dies. No. So why the DRA uses unto instead of 'until' in 2 Sam 6:23. Because it is evident the author is communicating she would not bear children period and death is the end of mortal life. So I hear unless someone changed the definition of death too. So Joseph we are told did not know Mary 'until' the birth of Jesus Christ. If you want to redefine until as it is clearly stated in that passage to fit a traditional doctrine, fine but don't cast stones at other Christians who see "until" meaning what it is.
Good point. Very good point.
Wouldn't this string of logic then infer that God did not exist until Mary gave birth to him? So then the God that Mary gave birth to travels back in time, creates the universe, then inspires Old Testament prophets to write regarding the birth that God knows he will have...
Then he travels to the future so he can see if he returns, and what leads up to it, so he can then tell New Testament apostles what to write regarding the future....
Sorry.... Sounds like a bad scifi story. Chicken/egg question: which came first, God, who created the universe, or the mother of God, who was born roughly 4000 years after the creation of the universe that God created?
Mary gave birth to the physical body of Jesus. Jesus, the word, has always been. The first few verses of the Book of John confirm this.
Interesting thought just occurred to me (something to research): perhaps Michal did have a child. Perhaps she died in childbirth, thus she could have bore a child on the day she died...
Just a random thought...
If Mary is the mother of God and the Father is God, then Mary is the mother of the Father.
If Mary is the mother of God and the Holy Spirit is God, then Mary is the mother of the Holy Spirit.
That puts Mary above the Godhead, makes Mary deity, makes her the mother of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, making them created, finite beings with beginning.
It totally messes up all kinds of theology.
Do Catholics EVER think through what they have been spoon fed for their entire lives, cause it sure doesn't look that way with the arguments they use.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
In Scripture, the Holy Spirit calls her *mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Scripture is clear in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
If there's no proof for it, then why does anyone believe it, besides the fact that it conveniently fits one's theology?
PRE-Jesus' birth there is no argument.
POST-Jesus' birth requires a suspension of most all that is human nature.
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.