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.
Interesting point. I suspect Jesus Christ did appear alien to His mother’s children. When He appointed John to take Mary as his mother and Mary to receive John as her son, I suspect He also was considering how an unbelieving body might treat her after He passed.
If the Israelite crowds insisted on beating and crucifying Jesus based upon their interpretation of the Torah, imagine how they would treat the “Mother of God”.
I actually just learned about the messianic psalms and that’s why that scripture was fresh in my mind.
That’s very true about what they would do to his mom and family. That may be a reason why Jesus seemed to not care for them, to protect them.
The more I learn the more I realize how little I know. The Bible is so amazing with deep wells and mysteries that God has not revealed yet. My faith grows stronger every day when I am studying the Word.
Shalom to all, we are all in belief who Jesus is and that is what is important, even if we argue about mostly meaningless stuff.
Having studied this extensively over the last three months with input from respectable leaders on both sides of this issue, I have come to the conclusion that the God inspired Word does not make it clear enough for it to be an issue of importance. Both the Protestant (for lack of a better categorizing term) and the Catholic argument can very well be correct. The only thing wrong is that either side insist they are right.
II Timothy 2:23.
What’s wrong with; “We believe this to be the case and here’s why, but we can’t say for sure.”?
What we see is the same type of arrogance displayed by the evolution crowd stating their case as fact.
A little humility people.
Why is this hard to say?
Because there's not an ounce of truth to it...Your fable is based on absolutely nothing...We have the words of God to prove you wrong...
The scripture proves you guys wrong and it's comical to watch the hoops you guys have to jump thru to convince each other the scriptures are wrong...
No one minds that you have imagined and invented a role for Mary outside of the scriptures...We (I) just object that you try to tie that wholesale untruth to the words of God, the scriptures...You need to leave the bible out of your religion...
When the Catholic religion collides with the bible one of them has to go...Your religion dumps the bible to justify its tradition...We dump your tradition and keep the bible...
things worked out the way they did
Eisegesis. There is no 'vestal virgin' in Judaism.
If there had been brothers and sisters, the Christ would have given his Mother to them.
There weren’t.
So he gave her to John the Apostle and to us.
So she was His earthly mother, that gives here exactly zero more power than any other saved Christian.
Jesus, the Apostles...
Mat_15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat_24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Mar_7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
Mar_8:17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?
Mar_8:21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
Joh_8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Eph_3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
1Co_1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
And who are the wise???
Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
And what's the first thing Catholic seminary students do??? They goes for 3 years of education in man's wisdom, philosophy...
Jesus and the Apostles make it very clear that we can understand the scriptures and we are instructed to understand the scriptures...
Like I said, when your religion collides with the scriptures, I always dump the Catholic religion...
Now for the BIG question...Who duped you into believing that neither you nor anyone else outside your magisterium have the authority or knowledge to understand the scriptures???
There is zero Biblical evidence for anything but many children for Mary.
The cunningly devised fables of the RCC have led billions to eternal destruction.
How many more need be lost?
.
Mark 3:31-34 “31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.
34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Jesus honored his mother (and since it’s best to take scripture in context his mother means his actual earthly mother, Mary) and his BROTHERS. Since they are mentioned in same context, I’d say they’re actual brothers.
Secondarily this scripture doesn’t really in any humanly way honor his mother and brothers.
Um no, the temple after The Resurrection becomes each individual believer’s body and soul.
Note that when a catholic wishes to “prove” something, they point to humanist catholic dogma rather than the scriptures.
To a pagan, human concoctions outweigh all other considerations.
Psalm 69 is not a reference to Jesus:
You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you. 6 May those who hope in you not be disgraced because of me, O Lord, the LORD Almighty; may those who seek you not be put to shame because of me, O God of Israel. 7 For I endure scorn for your sake, and shame covers my face. 8 I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons;
You are a dishonest man!
>> “ It’s not about Mary.” <<
.
Except to a pagan that worships Easter by Mary proxy, thus Mary then becomes all, and her son just a frill.
.
Collect the full set! :o)
.
>> Psalm 69:8
“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.” <<
.
Yes, scripture quickly demolishes all catholic dogma, and by scripture I mean the words that Yeshua called scripture; those words written centuries before the words that the catholics seek to confuse.
.
>> “Are you also contending that Jesus sinned?” <<
.
You do love a strawman argument, don’t you!
We all know that David’s words in confession serve to reinforce the validity of his prophecy.
.
And who interpreted your scriptures? That would be you, just a man. So how do you know that you are absolutely correct in your interpretation? When every one else is sure of their own interpretation. Not arguing...just a question
We need not interpret the scriptures, they are for direct reading, and hearing. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Peter told us that the scriptures are not for private interpretation, and since they are given to all of us, the plain text is obviously the intended meaning unless they indicate otherwise, as in when Yeshua’s parables were preceded by the the warning: “he spoke unto them a parable...”
What you refer to is not interpretation, but manipulation, to make the face meaning of the passage into a lie.
Catholics do this to every scripture they present.
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.