Posted on 05/07/2008 8:53:09 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Working from memory:
When the Septuagint was translated into the Greek, it was observed that there is no word in Hebrew for cousin, and that to avoid clumsy circumlocutions, the Hebrew used the word for brother to mean male relatives and even close males not related by blood.
The translators used the word delphos for all such translations because it matched the Hebrew word for brother which was being applied to all those categories of males.
The writers of the New Testament followed this pattern, using delphos for all such categories of relation: brother, male relative of the same generation, close male friends of non-blood relation.
The appearance of the word delphos in the NT is not significant to establish the existance of blood brothers.
Read the article as linked - the author answers your question.
Careful, this article also implies Mary was not a virgin before Marriage and all Christian in the historic tradition must reject this nonsense.
There are many pagan newspaper stories and RC web sites that show what many prottys observe as worship. I give this site as an example: http://www.maryundoerofknots.com/welcome.htm
I didn't realize Catholics think she was virgin forever; that seems odd to me.
That belief would not be Biblically grounded from what I have read.
I fail to see how it is important to Christian doctrine to determine whether Mary was a lifelong virgin. The virgin birth of Christ only requires her to be a virgin prior to his birth.
Was she not married to Joseph? I think it unlikely that she was a lifelong virgin — but I suppose its possible. I am quite sure it is entirely irrelevant doctrinally.
H
Please post the excerpt from the article that implies Mary was not a virgin before marriage.
When did the Reformers start to question the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Freegards
He also makes some impressive blunders. For example:
When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions.
There most certainly is one exception. Phillip, tetrarch of Iturea, is identified in Luke 3:1 as Herod's brother.
According to secular historians, he was Herod's half-brother. But Luke doesn't say "half-brother," because, to the Hebrews, all your contemporary male relatives were "brothers".
His argument about "first-born" demonstrates incredible Biblical illiteracy. Does he not understand that the firstborn child was especially dedicated to God, and was called "firstborn" whether or not any children followed?
(Hint: the Temple sacrifice required for the firstborn child was performed at 40 days after birth. At 40 days, there weren't any other siblings yet.)
Does he think the only "firstborn" killed in the Exodus were people with younger brothers or sisters?
Jerome runs tight little rings around him. Jerome knew the Bible; this guy doesn't.
Too many believe they know what the Catholic Church teaches. No Pope has ever said anything approaching that. This is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
169 Salvation comes from God alone;
The Bible is clear enough when it says Jesus had brothers and sisters in that all were born of Mary.
Of course anytime the truth of the Bible is pointed out it will be called “hate” because it exposes the falsity of the traditions that Jesus said tried to make the Word of God invalid.
Fine. I’ll go find the proclamation. To me it seems that too many Catholics believe they know that the Catholic Church taught.
Evidently, I'm not getting through to you.
I already know you have an endless supply of stuff to use accuse and defame Catholics.
I'm asking if you have the humility and understanding to admit that there are many in your own camp who are just as bad. And then I'm asking why you continually go after us, instead of after them.
That verse would be ... where, exactly ???
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
His divinity was being called into question. They were basically saying that how could Jesus come from Heaven when he has a mother, brothers, and sisters living in town.
LOL! That's actually a beam in the eye of the "Reformed" types who are obsessed with debunking the Catholic Church.
I’m thinking we’ll find out after we die...maybe
Well, no. The context says nothing like that. They were questioning where he got the wisdom to teach as he did, and to perform "mighty deeds".
when he has a mother, brothers, and sisters living in town.
That works whether his brothers and sisters were children of Mary or not. The point is "we know this guy, we know his family, who does he think he is?"
I guess you didn’t read Matt. 13:55,56. It’s also quoted at the site so I would trust Matthew’s inspired testimony over Jerome’s reasonings.
But as I said some would put tradition over God’s Word.
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.