Well, I have said that the word "brother" is truly used in the Bible just as you say. I was thinking of that one particular passage, where Mary is named as His mother, and His brothers are also named, in the same sentence, along with unnamed sisters. The flow of the passage just seems wrong to me if such a jump in meaning is made. I can't imagine how that passage would have been so differently worded, if the true intent was to convey siblings.
However, in all fairness to the Protestants, the New Testament does say that +Joseph did not "know" Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus (Mat 1:24-25).
Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Very decent of you to point out. My version says "he had no union with her until..." That seems clear to me. Does that mean that the Orthodox do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity?
They [Mormons] say the words the Bible uses is "overshadow" speaking of the Holy Spirit. This is indeed terminology used in the Bible to denote sexual intercourse, so the LDS simply conclude that Christ was conceived as a union between God and a mortal!
Zeus would be proud! :) If you know, how do the Mormons get around the fact that there is no scriptural support whatsoever to suggest that either God the Father or the Holy Spirit have ever taken corporeal form? Plus, if God had "sex" with Mary, then He would be fully guilty of adultery, since Mary was already pledged to Joseph. My understanding is that such a relationship was as good as being married, but without the benefits. :)
We, and this includes your side of Christianity (I hope), sees Mary's conception as a supernatural event, the way we understand sacraments. And, in the same manner, we understand her Virgin Birth, having occurred without breaking her seal or being painful.
Absolutely.
But if you really want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk, then the Bible does suggest what the LDS seem to believe ...
If I want to be consistent, then I have to say that I always want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk. :) I would want to hear their answers to my questions above first. If God can't contradict Himself, then something has to give. I would have to think that the full weight of just scripture would have to crush their view. That must be why they felt a need to rewrite the Bible based on the good word of a thief from the east coast! :)
"That seems clear to me. Does that mean that the Orthodox do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity?"
The Orthodox Church does believe in the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. It is a very clear tradition of the Church, with evidence for its belief going way back. Most of these things about the Theotokos we consider to be part of the "inner tradition" of the Church.
By that we mean that they are not parts of the "kerygma," the things one preach or proclaim as the Good News in order to bring people to faith in Christ. They are a precious heritage, and they deepen our understanding of how we should live and spiritually grow, since the Theotokos is the prime exemplar for us of the fullness of being a Christian.
Regarding the verse in Matthew 1, the same word translated as "until" in that verse is the one translated as "unto" in the verse, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." We of course do not believe that God will be with us until the end of the world, and then will suddenly change course and abandon us.
That said, the word does not at all exclude the possibility of the Theotokos having carnal relations after the birth of Christ -- it is not evidence either way. So Protestants are correct in stating that there is no Scriptural evidence that proves her being ever-virgin.
I do find it interesting, though, that St. Matthew would take the time to point out that fact and say it in that way. It was already clear from vs 18 that Joseph could not have been the father of the child. I'd be interested in the Protestant explanation for why this verse existed or why they think that Joseph wouldn't have 'known' her...
Given that we Orthodox feel that Joseph would not have "walked on holy ground" where God was or had been, it makes sense that St. Matthew would have said something like this to indicate the reverence with which Joseph treated what was going on. We simply believe that that same reverence continued after her giving birth. Joseph being an elderly widower (in our tradition) simply makes it more clear.
I am not sure which passage you are referring to, but generally, yes, it is impossible to tell from any single passage on the New Testament is a direct brother or a cousin, or half-brother is spoken of. We've discussed it at great length by now.
Thanks, I hadn't thought of [Matthew 1:24-25]. Very decent of you to point out.
I treated this verse in a rather lengthy post to you: 2317. The point of it is, simply, that while some translations have "until" and others have "till", the original Greek does not speak at all to what happened after the Nativity.
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe in absolute, inviolate, and perptual virginity of Theotokos, the Birthgiver of God, Mary His Mother. It is inconceivable that Mary would have carnal relations, or desires after having carried the precious and sacred Child. She loved God with all her heart and mind and soul. Nor would Blessed Jospeh have been the man he was if he defiled "Sacred Ground" as Agrarian states.
This passage is a difficult one (so much for five year-old children understanding Scripture!), especially in view of the word ewV which means till or until, but is also translated as unto. The word eginwosken, which comes from "to know" (ginwsko) which was a Jewish idiom for sexcual intercourse, and does not support what the Church came to believe.
Personally, I can't imagine that someone as blessed as she was would even entartain the thought, and +Josph would tremble at the thought; yet +Matthew seems to make a strong case that this was not so, and is troubling.