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.
For the same reason that the Bible gives lots of details on things that likewise have nothing to do with salvation. The Bible is a book of faith, but also poetry and history. If you went to Wikipedia for information about, say, when Bob Dylan wrote “It Ain’t Me Babe,” you’d also find out when he was born, where he lived, what influenced his work, and a host of other information not germane to “It Ain’t Me Babe.”
Then you keep the entire Bible rather than throwing out part of His Word, right?
People can say what they like but when they show through their actions that they believe Luther has more authority than Christ the reality that they have more faith in Luther than in Christ overshadows everything they may say just like the actions of the Pharisees overshadowed what they said.
Christians don't throw part of the Word of God in the garbage can to avoid the clear Scripture that disagrees with their own personal twisting of Scripture by substituting the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture for the entire Bible Christ and the Apostles taught from and quoted.
People who accept the authority of someone other than Christ over the Word are followers of whoever they grant that authority, not of Christ.
Only if you enjoy it.
Song of Solomon
She
8:14 Come away, my beloved,
and be like a gazelle
or like a young stag
on the spice-laden mountains.
Or as I like to call it: “The FMN verse.”
sorry, the current popes say I am a Christian without the RCC.
It would be a different story in earlier centuries.
Oh, one of those new 19th or 20th Century denominations then; just try to differentiate all the Church of Christ derivatives; a veritable puzzle palace with their naming rules.
Mary was not the mother of the divinity of Jesus...That part of Jesus has always been...God chose to be revealed; manifest in an undivine, natural human body...The body came from Mary...The divinity came from God...
What part of Jesus' human makeup was divine??? His flesh??? Or his soul or his spirit???
Jesus' flesh grew older and ultimately died...His body wasn't too divine...But Jesus' divinity never died...
So, Mary was the mother of a God incarnated body...But she certainly wasn't the mother of God...Who gave Jesus life??? Mary, or God???
I haven’t had time to read through many of the replies on this thread, so I don’t know if anyone else has replied on this, but that passage doesn’t support what you say. Unless Jesus’ brothers, if He had them, were believers, which they weren’t then, then there would be no way Jesus would leave His mother with them. The family of the Kingdom of Heaven was what Jesus was establishing, and unbelievers weren’t a part of it then. It would have been like Jesus leaving His Christian mother in the hands of Muslims. Second, even if these brothers were just cousins, one would think that if it was the blood tie that mattered here, they would still be under obligation to help their aunt who had no son. Clearly, though, again, it was the family of God that Jesus was going by, not the family of blood ties.
Not into whack a mole. Still the same question:
“Mary is the mother of God Incarnate, the Word become flesh.”
You still stay false?
Telling other posters what they "know" is a form of mind reading and therefore is "making it personal."
Yours is the religion that claims Mary didn't endure any pain during childbirth...That alone disqualifies her from being the Woman in Rev. 12...
While Mary was a woman and she bore the one who it is said will rule with a rod of iron, Mary is not the only one who is said to be a woman who would bore a man child who will rule with a rod of iron...
And nothing else is this discourse about the woman could possibly apply to Mary, the mother of Jesus...So it has to apply to the other one which fits the bill for the rest of the discourse...
Pretty simple for the person who searches the scriptures for the answer instead of that popular, faulty commentary, your catechism...
And I would say there are some who place more faith in "tradition" than the words of Christ and the apostles as recorded in the Bible.
I do not discount or throw out any part of the Word. I believe the Word. I study the Word to know it better. I study the Word and seek the Holy Spirit's guidance to help identify false teachings.
My studies indicate that a large part of catholic teaching is not Biblical; it is often taken out of context, it is often twisted to wring out a meaning not intended by the Bible.
When the Bible doesn't give support for what catholics teach, they resort to tradition as told by man which does not in any way carry the same authority as the Bible.
Why do people bow before the Pope? When Cornelius bowed down before Peter, Peter told him to get up for he was just a man.
From Catholic Answers:
Should Catholics kneel before a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary? After all, in Scripture Peter rebuked Cornelius for kneeling before him. The passage in question states: "When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I too am a man’" (Acts 10:25–26). The act of kneeling does not always mean that the person kneeling is performing an act of worship. Catholics kneel in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary to show her respect and honor and to pray for her intercession; they are not kneeling to worship her.
Another example of a man-made concept regarding praying to Mary which is no where supported in the New Testament.
As I said earlier and will repeat again...I follow Jesus Christ who died on a cross for my sins...past, present and future. My faith and hope and trust are in Him and Him alone. Not the pope. Not Peter. Not Paul. Not Mary, Not any of the early or later church fathers. Not Luther. Not my pastor. Not my parents who dragged me to church when I was a kid.
Based on His Word and His Word alone my sins have been forgiven. He is the final offering for all sins. There is nothing I can do to earn my way into Heaven nor is there anything I can do to earn my way out of Heaven based on what He did on the Cross. We have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise as a down payment for our redemption. I find no where in the Bible where we are ever unsealed.
Based on His Word and His Word alone I can approach the Throne of Grace anytime, anyplace for any reason. This would include just to talk.
I do not need to go to a priest for forgiveness as he cannot forgive my sins. Only Christ can as Peter noted in Acts and as did all the other writers of the New Testament. We have no instances in the New Testament where Peter ever said, "I forgive your sins." We do have a bunch though where he notes sins can be forgiven through faith in Christ.
There is no New Testament teaching on indulgences, penance, etc.
If we do as Paul commands us to do we are to search the Scriptures and compare to what we are being taught. If the teaching doesn't square with God's Word and His Word alone, the teaching is wrong. Plain and simple and clear as day.
Well, that's enough theology for tonight.
Been good chatting with you.
nope...established around 33 AD
There are a lot of shortcomings in this article, but one of the worst is that it just ignores a very important question. Suppose the New Testament writers really did mean Jesus’ actual brothers. What word, then, could they use to mean that? Is there some other word that meant that, and only that? Otherwise we seem to be left with two words, one usually meaning cousin or more distant kin folk like that, and the other used primarily but not exclusively for brother, but both must be interpreted in this case as “cousin,” according to Catholicism. Since this word for brother can be used for brother, and there is no other word for brother mentioned, the Catholic church can’t draw definite conclusions from this part of their argument, as this article tries to do. That would be like saying “brother” can’t mean one’s actual “brother.”
I don't know...There's not much to be said about it...It seems Jesus wasn't all that emotionally attached to his mother or siblings...He put a lot more stock into the people who followed him as the Messiah than those of his own flesh and blood...
>>”That part of Jesus ..”
There have been those throughout history who split Christ, the Incarnation.
When someones make mistakes on who Mary is, they inevitably make mistakes about who Christ is. They veer off into heresies such as Nestorianism.
Repeating history is not a matter of hate or love...It's history...
There's no way to make a mistake biblically on who Mary is...It's that unbiblical, Catholic definition of Mary that will mess with your head and your theology...
Another dodge.
>>”There’s no way to make a mistake biblically on who Mary is.”
Some seem to have found a way. Denying the scripture that the Word became flesh, born of a woman.
Do you still say it is false that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, the Word become flesh?
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.