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.
I have no strong opinion about this, but it seems to me that Matthew 1:25 at least suggests it. It would be odd to say that Joseph refrained from having sex with Mary until after the birth of Jesus, if he continued to refrain afterward as well. If he never consummated the marriage, then that's what it would make sense to say.
“That he had siblings indicates Mary did not remain a virgin.”
No, first it is most likely — as the article lays out in easy to read english - that the original text used the word that can easily translate, and in context does translate as “cousin” not “brother”. Even if he had siblings, they could easily have been from a prior marriage by Joseph.
Since it was accepted truth for the first aeon and a half of the Christian Era that Mary was a Virgin, I accept the Church view and reject the heretical proddie view.
That's just it. In the Bible, I can understand the arguments about brothers versus cousins. And I can understand the argument about the verb where "Joseph didn't know his wife until she gave birth". Either way, perpetual virgin or virgin until she gave birth but not after, they both can be argued from the Biblical passages.
But I can't understand throwing out the heresy word. A heresy is a belief against a core doctrine of the Christian faith. Read the creed, Jesus was "born of the virgin Mary". There is no core doctrine about what happened with Mary afterwards. It's not about Mary...
Additionally, the angel told Joseph not to worry about taking Mary as his bride. If the marriage was never consummated, was it really a valid marriage? So Joseph could have asked for an annulment?
But either way, it does not impact my salvation.
Nope. James. The brother of Yashua. Matthew 13:55 - doesn’t say cousin. Says brother. Not brother in Christ, but brother. Also mentions His sisters.
Limbo by Sister Mary Ada, OSJ
The ancient grayness shifted
Suddenly and thinned
Like mist upon the moors Before a wind.
An old, old prophet lifted
A shining face and said:
“He will be coming soon.
The Son of God is dead;
He died this afternoon.”
A murmurous excitement stirred
All souls.
They wondered if they dreamed –
Save one old man who seemed
Not even to have heard.
And Moses, standing,
Hushed them all to ask
If any had a welcome song prepared.
If not, would David take the task?
And if they cared
Could not the three young children sing
The Benedicite, the canticle of praise
They made when God kept them from perishing
In the fiery blaze?
A breath of spring surprised them,
Stilling Moses’ words.
No one could speak, remembering
The first fresh flowers,
The little singing birds.
Still others thought of fields new ploughed
Or apple trees
All blossom-boughed.
Or some, the way a dried bed fills
With water
Laughing down green hills.
The fisherfolk dreamed of the foam
On bright blue seas.
The one old man who had not stirred
Remembered home.
And there He was
Splendid as the morning sun and fair
As only God is fair.
And they, confused with joy,
Knelt to adore
Seeing that He wore Five crimson stars
He never had before.
No canticle at all was sung
None toned a psalm, or raised a greeting song,
A silent man alone
Of all that throng
Found tongue
– Not any other.
Close to His heart
When the embrace was done,
Old Joseph said,
“How is Your Mother,
How is Your Mother, Son?”
You just can’t refrain from the name calling. What, are you 12? I will not participate in discussions with you. Have a good night.
I would suggest you go back and re-read your thread title. Then you might discover who is really hung up on the 'sex act'.
I happen to believe that the 'sex act' was created by God as a way for a husband and wife to celebrate their covenant with each other and God. There is nothing wrong or dirty or unpure about it. It is what God intended.
You beat me to it. In verse 20, the angel of the Lord says, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife”.
It’s not written in English either.
That is why the Roman Catholics will follow their cult into the jaws of hell!
They call Scripture quotes heretical and use derisive language to define those who believe the Scripture unto Salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ, as led by His Holy Spirit!
Cults always declare they hold the truth, but rat poison is 90% food, and 10% poison that kills!
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
Matthew 1:19-25
Note also how it refers to Jesus specifically as Mary's "firstborn" - not 'only born'.
Exodus 13:13
“Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.”
So are we saying we know the firstborn donkey had brother and sister donkeys?? Or was that how the language was used?
” The “first-born of the poor” signifies the most miserable of the poor ( Isaiah 14:30 ). The “church of the first-born” signifies the church of the redeemed.
The destruction of the first-born was the last of the ten plagues inflicted on the Egyptians ( Exodus 11:1-8 ; Exodus 12:29 Exodus 12:30 ). “
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/first-born/
Maybe First-Born has a rather expanded meaning.
Yeah it kind of blows away the whole argument. This is why we can’t have nice things, guys.
Exactly. The angel was very clear in calling Mary most blessed among women. I don't believe that being a wife to her husband took anything away from that.
*sigh* You know it’s we Jews that brought Christianity to the world. And we we’ve been tormented, abused and murdered over the centuries for it. I don’t care what you believe about what you believe, be it in any language you prefer. If Mathews writes that James was the brother of Yashua then he was the brother. You can interpret that any way you wish it doesn’t alter the fact.
Also, in Hebrew culture, Joseph and Mary were considered “married” when they were betrothed and were allowed conjugal visits before they actually lived together as man and wife.
This is why Joseph considered “divorce” when he found out Mary was with child. Because Joseph knew he had not slept with Mary, God sent an angel to tell him of what had happened and to warn him to take the child to Egypt, as the Lord knew many were already looking for the coming Messiah.
This quirk of Hebrew law about couples sleeping together also was the reason no one questioned Mary's pregnancy as anything out of the ordinary (though her sister in law Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist, obviously knew something was up when her baby leapt in her womb when Mary came near.)
Finally, Mary was in the upper room at Pentecost.
This showed that she knew
1. that she was a sinner just as the rest of us
and
2. She understood that the Old Covenant had passed away with the tearing of the Temple Curtain before the Holiest of Holies when her Son died on the Cross nearby at Calvary.. Mary understood her life and her Son were the sign of the coming Messianic Age of the New Covenant.
Mary knew that she needed to await the infilling of the Holy Spirit, as the Old Covenant was over, and so she awaited the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises of Pentecost — as Peter quoted the Jewish Prophet Joel:
“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
your young men shall see visions:
For Peter to have full understanding of why Joel's prophecy was happening that day at Pentecost meant that Peter had overcome all of his troubling experiences with the Lord, when the Lord was on earth.
Right after Jesus commended Peter for saying He was the Christ (flesh and blood hath not revealed that to you, but the Father in Heaven) Jesus rebuked Peter strongly for being a mouthpiece of Satan.
This was because Peter was thinking it was not good for Jesus to go to the Cross, and Jesus rightly saw that Satan was making Peter think like a man in the flesh, not the way the Father would think.
At Pentecost, Peter understood it all, why Jesus rebuked him as he spoke for Satan (BTW, there goes the idea that Peter was the first “pope” as he was obviously not infallible!) and understood that the Cross was at the apex of all history. Peter as well as Mary understood that they had been part of the transitioning of Old Covenant to the New Covenant and looked forward to that Messianic Age when instead of men having to be outwardly conformed to the Law, “the Lord would write the Law on their hearts”.
Mary's presence in the upper room with the disciples signifies much more than we realize. It is so cool!
I would think so, Luke 1:48, "all generations shall call me (Mary) blessed".
The Canticle of Mary, Luke 1:48 etc. really does tell all, “All Generations Will Call Me Blessed”, yes, so all religions that purport to be Christian should but they simply don’t unless once caught out on this issue, grudgingly acknowledge it.
The clear meaning of this scripture speaks for itself. Anyone that wishes to persuade people that Mary and Joseph remained celibate for years and years have the burden of proof (not the other way around). In fact we are explictly warned not to make up scripture.
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.