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, its 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 Lords 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 doesnt make any sense.
Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isnt 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? Lets 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords brother (Gal 1:19: dealt with above). Its true that Scripture doesnt 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 Marys 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.
"Sorry Joseph; not tonight. I have this darn headache still..."
Every year Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went.
Mary could have at LEAST had a hand-maiden to give to Joseph: ala Genesis 30:1-24.
Would Catholic-lite satisfy your desires in this regard??
The inverted five-ponted star was first displayed on the exterior of an LDS temple in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840s.
One of the foremen who helped to build the Nauvoo Temple recorded what the emblems on its exterior represented. He said,
Are you guys STILL arguing about whether Mary had sex WITH HER HUSBAND or not????
To quote a famous modern politician “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?”
Those who throw out Scripture and instead of Christ put their faith in their own, Most High and Holy Self generally have a single verse for every occasion as if the entire Word of God doesn't apply to them, only the verses they like as they choose to apply those verses.
"Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass."
- Matthew 24,35
Of course, Christ didn't mean that people shouldn't throw out portions of Scripture they don't like, right??
As always, the Dog goes "Bow Wow", the Cow goes, "Mooo", and the Protestant goes, "that's what Scripture says but that's not what it means".
Which much relies on straw men, arguments from silence and creative extrapolations.
While the Holy Spirit is careful in characteristically recording notable exceptions to the norm, even of lesser characters, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), devotion (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, long age and celibacy (Anna), absence of parents, sinlessness (of Christ is stated at least thrice), yet Marian lifelong sinlessness and virginity are not, but are read into the text based upon the fallacious idea of necessity, or possibility.
Wouldn't this string of logic then infer that God did not exist until Mary gave birth to him?
No, not at all, not to us today; but you are experiencing the same thing that faced Christian theologians in the first century.
We have the Most Holy Trinity. The Trinity and Monotheism existing together. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, yet one God.
This question is what the early Christological heresies were all about. How could this be? God incarnate, coming into the finite world, yet still the infinite God?
How can this be? Yet it is. God became incarnate, the Word became flesh, born of a woman. This we know.
Now, how do we Christians deal with this - and the One True God.
We cannot deal with it by denying the reality of the Incarnation. We cannot say it didn't happen, that the Word did not become flesh born of a woman and dwelled among is. He had a mother and her name was Mary. The incarnation really happened. We cannot say it did not and remain Christian.
We must start from here.
This is to revisit the early Church and the heresies of who Christ is. We revisit this again on this thread.
I appreciate your reply and hope you do see the point here and why it is important.
And that's the point of the example: the use of "until" does not mean she did afterward; any more than its use in your example means Joseph had sexual relations with Mary afterward.
I've given examples in scripture and in use today where it did not carry the meaning you give it.
And who was Jesus?
It makes a HELL of a lot of difference to a CATHOLIC!
Well; Scripture records that a 'closed womb' is a curse from GOD; and we all KNOW that Mary was (is) blessed; thus the question for Catholicism to answer is WHY didn't Mary have any more children as you have taught all these years.
You just described the catholic church's teaching. Except they go further and add to the Scripture as evidenced by what the FVC has written along with the notions of praying to Mary as noted in the catechism as an example.
I could go on with additional non-Biblical beliefs of the RCC but I think we've about covered those enough on this thread. I would encourage all to read the catechism and see if it squares away with the Bible.
If it doesn't, you know which one you need to follow, and which one you need to discard.
My hope is that all will come to the saving knowledge of faith through the shed blood of Christ.
This will be my last post on this thread.
Which is for the same reason car thieves cannot find a police station. The facts are that,
Marriage is described as cleaving" and becoming one. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6)
Israel knew nothing of a marriage that was not consummated between two persons who could procreate, nor does the NT.
Under the New Covenant celibacy is only advocated in the context of being single. (Mt. 19:10-12; 1Cor. 7:8)
Paul actually instructs the married to have sexual relations, and restricts abstinence in marriage to only a period of fasting, and then to come together again. (1Cor. 7:3-5)
Thus a marriage in which their is no "cleaving" would be a very notable, and as far as Catholicism is concerned, very important. Yet while the Holy Spirit characteristically records extraordinary exceptions to the norm among its characters, from the age of Methuselah to the strength of Samson to the number of toes of Goliath, to the diet of John the Baptist, to the supernatural transport of Phillip, to the signs of an apostle, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to the prolonged celibacy of Anna, to the sinlessness of Christ, etc., He says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin. And instead what He does teach weighs toward the norm.
Except in rare instances "heōs" ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Matthew 1:25) indicates a terminus and a change, or allowing for that..
Instead of any teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin, ,we have many texts which refer to Mary having other children. (Mat_12:46,48, Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40,47, Mar_16:1; Luk_24:10; Joh_19:25; Gal_1:19) Likewise Psalms 69:8 states, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children." Adelphos* (brethren) often refers to biological siblings, and while it need not do so, there is no justification for excluding it as meaning so.
If "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne. The second theory that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).
Jason Engwer states , Luke uses the word "supposedly" to describe Jesus' relationship with Joseph (Luke 3:23), but doesn't use any such terminology to describe Jesus' relationship with His brothers and sisters, but repeatedly chooses the term "brother" to describe Jesus' siblings, even though he understood the difference between a "relative" and a "brother", even distinguishing between the two within a single sentence. (Luke 21:16).
There is simply no need for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, unless martial relations are sinful or necessarily denoting inferior virtue, as some CFs erroneously held , contra. Heb. 13:4)
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. '
More propaganda. Besides the reality that it is estimated we only have a small portion of all that so-called church "fathers" wrote,
Basil stated that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).
As Engwer also notes, Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was "as yet a virgin" (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
"To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, 'she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;'" (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Tertullian comments:
Tertullian: "...indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband." (On Monogamy, 8)
To marry after she brought forth Christ denotes consummation, the formal expression of marriage, (Mt. 19:5) as it is certain Joseph took Mary to wife before the Lord was born, but "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." (Mt. 1:24,25) And in so doing Tertullian sees Mary as representative of both ideals, of continence and monogamy.
Not quite, but if they followed some CFs then they would see it as sinful, or as denoting inferiority.
Seems 'till' and 'until' are used consistently throughout this Gospel.
I have myself studied this, and found that except in rare instances "heōs" ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Matthew 1:25) indicates a terminus and a change, or allowing for that.
Why not, since Rome placed things in history that are not there, even making use of forgeries . Like father, like son.
Why do you think Rome treats Scripture with contempt by presuming all NT pastors (which are never called "priests") - except a few converts - have the gift of celibacy/continence, while 1Tim. 3 and Titus 1 shows marriage as being the normative state, as if even was among apostles and those who were not could become so, (1Cor. 9:5).
And being a husband and father is even invoked as a positive preparation for pastoral ministry, not impugned as a hindrance. For personal devotion and holiness celibacy is advantageous, and would be for a traveling minster as Paul, but so would never having to wash or eat. However, necessity requires such, and Scripture indicates being a husband and father is a necessity for the normal pastorate.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:4-5)
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5)
why?
if she did, how is that different?
If she didn’t, how would that change anything?
Because the Catholics believe that Jesus miraculously passed through Marys body with no pain,no placenta and no need to cut the cord leaving Mary an intact virgin.
and what if he didn’t?
what actual difference would that make?
and since we have no way of ever actually knowing, is arguing about it nothing but a pointless waste of time?
Rome has based a LOT of DOCTRINE on Mary’s PERPETUAL virginity.
As to WHY; damned if I know!
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.