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.
It is pointless to continue the discussion when you are not intellectually honest.
well i guess that changes everything then! everyone else see? he solved it.. . now can you stop wondering if she has sex?
Who cares! doesn’t even matter!
No need to discount what you've already thrown in the garbage.
Someone believes Luther perfectly discerns the Word while the Holy Spirit cannot protect the Word from error and that means, "I don't discount any part of the Word". Gotcha.
I understand, folks have to pretend they don't believe Luther is superior to the Holy Spirit while at the same time they insist the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect the Word of God from the inclusion of error. That explains why Christ never mentioned that there were books in the Septuagint that shouldn't be there; He didn't want to embarrass the Holy Spirit. Right?
The doctrine of "Scripture Alone (after we throw some out)" is really just Sola Yourselfa with Self superior to Scripture.
Like everything else Luther taught one "solution" to his little problem of contradicting Scripture led to an even bigger problem, in this case, the implicit belief that the Holy Spirit is imperfect. So, Luther and those who follow Protestantism all elevate their Self to the role of the Holy Spirit leading to the Trinity they really believe in, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Self with the Holy Self creating whatever sort of Father and Son the Holy Self prefers with little regard for what Christ taught.
Self and Self Alone is the endpoint of all Protestantism and the US where Protestantism has always been the overwhelming majority increasingly reflects that endpoint. Consequently, while the nation slides down the toilet the latest trendy new flavors of Protestantism preach hiding under a carefully prepared and stocked bushel basket to await being evacuated when Christ surrenders the Earth to Satan.
Been good watching you dance.
I don’t think you realize that your theology is from a tradition of men that began, at best, 500 years ago.
It isn’t tradition to disagree with a RCC which has placed worldly control in front of devotion to God through faith in what He has provided.
The RCC has provided an outstanding example of how the Adversary will not relinquish what he steals and when it happens again in the future, his condemnation will be indubitably just.
my point is that my faith originates with Christ. plain and simple.
Indeed even the Holy Bible itself, which they at one time claimed to be the sole source and judge of the Christian faith, is no longer held to be divine, but they begin to assimilate it to the inventions of myth.
I would think the catholic church has been the one assimilating a lot of inventions of myth.....
And then we have Paul saying, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.".....nothing in there about needing all that tradition as espoused in the FVC.
Tell you what...I'll stick with Christ and the Bible and you can feel free to add whatever you want to support your non-Biblical traditions.
Enjoyed the dance.
That is not what I asked and you know it. Being deceptive is a telling sign of cults. Are you in one of those ?
Well, if following Jesus Christ of the Bible is a cult, aka Christianity, then I guess I’m in one.
That is not the foundation of the Christian faith. I can read.
Jesus dying on the cross for my sins and building the Church with Christ as the cornerstone is the foundation.
Mary was a woman whom God used to bring about his plans. She was blessed among women, but she was just a normal woman.
You’re hooked on the wrong things. Focus on what the bible actually teaches.
Let’s not change the subject from what you claimed I was dead wrong about.
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”
The still unanswered questions are:
Do you believe in the Incarnation? Do you believe Mary was the mother of our Lord?
How can you say otherwise than Mary is the mother of God Incarnate, the Word become flesh?
The tradition I refer to is sola scriptura.
*facepalm*
It’s right there in the New Testament. God used Mary to give birth to Jesus Christ, who came as a man to die for our sins.
She was a virgin until Jesus was born. Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit, are three different entities, yet they are part of the trinity. You claim Mary was the mother of God, yet God was around long before Mary was. This is the last I will speak of this. You’re not going to change your mind on anything. I’d encourage you to read the bible though.
…exactly what I wrote, twice. How about we stick to that.
Without re-writing or interpreting it, what exactly do you claim I am "dead wrong" about?
Mary is the Mother of Jesus’s humanity. The Trinity has always existed. The Eternal Son has no mother.
>>”How can you say otherwise than Mary is the mother of God Incarnate, the Word become flesh?”
We can break it down into the possible statements you claim is/are dead wrong:
- Jesus is God Incarnate.
- Jesus is the Word become flesh.
- Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Which of these are you claiming to be dead wrong?
I don't see anything wrong with those.
Getting this correct is important in being correct about Christ. The error of Nestorius is one thing that can happen when we get it wrong.
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.