Posted on 07/22/2004 11:27:00 AM PDT by dangus
***Well, in ancient times, there was no concept of an "in-law." Mary of Cleophas was apparently BVM's sister-in-law.***
You've obviously never read Ruth. See Ruth 1:14.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Col 4:10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas's cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him);
From the Greek word "anepsios".
or this
Luk 1:61 And they said to her, "There is no one among your relatives who is called by that name."
Distinctions are sometimes made with family even in the New Testament.
Not when James, at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, was a sceptic/unbeliever. He probably wasn't even AT the crucifixion. He thought Jesus was nutty.
Paul was a Roman citizen writing to Greeks. Different author, different audience. I didn't say there was no GREEK word for cousin, I said that JEWS called their cousins "brothers," and that Greeks often did.
There has never been any scholarly debate as to whether "adelphos" can refer to cousins. The debate has been over whether its usage is unusual in that circumstance.
>>You've obviously never read Ruth. See Ruth 1:14.<<
You caught an error. Allow me to rephrase myself: They did not distinguish that someone was merely an in-law.
I also stood corrected that Mary of Clopas/Cleophas had to be an in-law. According to one source (not that I can confirm it), expectation was so high that the Messiah was imminently to be born to a woman named Mary, parents would name each daughter they had, "Mary." It's even been suggested that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany were sisters.
The point remains that Mary of Cleophas's children, James, Judas and Joses would've been Jesus' cousins.
On another note I can't help but think of poor Joseph. Here you have a man who is eagerly anticipating his wedding day only to find out his future wife is pregnant. While contemplating whether to marry or not an angel comes forth and tells him to go ahead. The Bible says:
And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matt 1:24-25
It would be a real bummer to want to marry this beautiful lady and be told of God to go ahead and marry this lady but know you never can have sex with her for your entire life. As noted above Matthew puts in a conditional clause by adding “until she gave birth”. If he kept her a virgin all her life then I believe Matthew would have said that or would have ended at “kept her a virgin.”
BTW-I always think Joseph gets the short end of the stick. God appears to Joseph far more times than Mary.
I don't even mean to go so far. Paul can say "anepsios," because he is writing his own words to a Greek audience. He specifically means a cousin, and so he chooses a word specifically meaning cousin.
Matthew is reporting what was spoken by Jews. Since the Jews don't have a word for cousin, Matthew isn't going to report that the Jews called them cousins. The Jews said the Jewish word for brothers, so when Matthew writes in Greek, he uses the Greek word for brothers.
If we look at JUST that passage, we still don't know whether Jesus had cousins or brothers. Certainly "adelphos" does refer to actual brothers as well. I just set about to prove that people named James, Judas and Joses were in fact Jesus' cousins.
I have heard the argument over the word "until." The classical Greek word has been used to mean actions which did not necessarily stop after the condition was met, both before and after the writings of the gospel. I read one apologist, posted on this site, who made the strange claim that the gospel was written during a period where the word "until" was not so used; Catholics pointed out other uses of the word in the New Testament; the person who posted the original article claimed that conditions hadn't necessarily been meant afterward, and the whole thing became quite absurd.
Oh, and umm, of course, God never appeared to Joseph, except in the person of the Son, who was Mary's own flesh and blood.
Yikes!!! Excuse my theological boo-boo on poor typing.
“Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
If the word “brother” meant “cousin” what does “sister” mean within this context? I believe He is referring to His immediate family (notice there is no mention of “father”). It doesn’t make sense and its inconsistent that our Lord Jesus would mean cousin in one case and brother and sister in another.
I still don't get what you're driving at.
Our Lord Jesus puts serving Him in context of His immediate family, not his cousins. I don't see how it could be more clearer.
Not the same Salome who witnessed the Resurrection, nor the daughter of Herod. Salome, like Mary (or Miriam) seems to have been a common name in first century Palestine.
It kinda makes you question why the evangelists mention her, if there's no way we could attach significance to the name. On the other hand, I heard that following Peter's proclamation that Christians could eat non-Kosher foods, there was a nasty slander spread among the Romans that they had brought Salami to the resurrection. The evangelists probably just wanted to clarify.
Yes, but that he asks us to be his brother or sister doesn't mean he *has* a biological brother or sister. And the sentence isn't structured in such a way to suggest an intended parallel. He says, “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
If a parallel was meant, he'd probably say something more like “Behold My brothers and sisters and mother! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
or “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My mother and My brother!”
All I see is a clear invitation to be mother and sister, not just mother. Why not father? Because God was his father, and he does not invite us to that role.
>>I don't know if referring to Jesus's brothers meant actually brothers, or cousins, or just brothers in the faith, but I do have a problem with the perpetual virginity of Mary. She married Joseph, and I would expect that they had a normal married life together and I can't find any scripture that states they didn't. Do you know of any?<<
No, I don't. There is, for instance, a biblical basis for asserting the document of the immaculate conception, but it is admittedly certainly esoteric (in the literal sense of the word, "esoteric.") There may be some similarly esoteric basis for the perpetual divinity, but I do not know of it.
This is one of the issues that demonstrates the problems with Sola Scriptura. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary predates the compilation of the New Testament by centuries; it is not an invention of the "Roman Catholic" Church. It was a belief universally held by the apostolic Church long before the apostolic Church even announced which apostolic writings were to be considered scriptural. There may be nothing in the scriptures that states that Mary did not have sexual relations with Mary; there is also nothing stated she did. You may think that it is presumable that they did have relations, but, on the other hand, Joseph was traditionally held to be an old man while Mary was about thirteen. This would suggest an obvious reason for them not having relations. Another suggestion is that Mary and Joseph, in the direct presence of the physical body of Christ, did not have a spiritual need for sexual relations.
Neither the Catholic Church nor the bible ever asserted Sola Scriptura. (The Church does assert *Prima* Scriptura, however, which is that the bible is the primary source of doctrine.) So I do not feel bound to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary according to the rules of Sola Scriptura.
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.