Absolutely not. Jesus confirmed that He is the (literal) Son of God even though the Jews (including +Peter) did not believe it. +Peter was saying that He is the moshiach (Jewish messiah), not that He is divine. No one believed that at that time. But Christ knew and He affirmed it.
Therefore, we (Orthodox/Catholics) read the word "brothers" as cousins.
Then why doesn't the angel of the Lord say to Mary: "Luke 1:36 : 36 And, behold, thy [SISTER] Elisabeth
The word used is sugennhV (sugennes), which means a kin (compatriot), of the same kind, blood relative but not the first cousin.
The Greek word aneyioV, anepsios, which means sister's son, is the first cousin. The word for sister (same father and mother) is adeljh, adelphe.
So, calling Elizabeth sugennes implies that they were related, but she was neither her first cousin nor her sister.
The idea that their mothers were sisters comes from St. Hyppolitus, a prolific writer of the 3rd century AD, who is a saint only because of his martyrdom; his teachings were not always orthodox.
Most serious Bibles will use the word "kinswoman" or "relative." I can't say why the King James uses "cousin," but given the background of the KJV I am not the least bit surprised it would be off on that account too.
“. . . but given the background of the KJV I am not the least bit surprised it would be off on that account too.”
* * * * *
Nobody in this or the past 15 generations can at all pretend to the linguistic and translation skills of the KJB translators. “Cousin” is correct.
Absolutely not. Jesus confirmed that He is the (literal) Son of God even though the Jews (including +Peter) did not believe it. +Peter was saying that He is the moshiach (Jewish messiah), not that He is divine. No one believed that at that time. But Christ knew and He affirmed it.
But Jesus affirmed that what Peter said was from the Father. At best you are saying that Jesus misled them by not responding to what was said, as it was intended. And Jesus knew exactly what was going on of course. IOW, you are accusing Jesus of using some type of lawyer's trick. Wouldn't that be among the worst blasphemies? :) Plus, what possible purpose could it serve for Jesus to mislead so greatly TO His own disciples? Jesus said many things they didn't understand, but He never misled them. That would be Jesus imitating satan.
You have Jesus admitting that He is human but not divine. If Peter meant as you say, then Jesus steered him totally down the wrong path. Why would Jesus do this disservice? You are forced into saying that the Father also wished to mislead His disciples.