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.
1 Corinthians 7:5
That’s an excellent point and a fact that would have had to been dealt with in scripture if it had been different. Jesus was obviously the first born of Joseph in order to inherit the throne of David.
But the Catholics spit in the face of God.
God says.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God
But the Catholic Church says.
“We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; but they were common to almost all cults” (Catholic Encyclopedia, III, 246.)
Tell us again about “Those who throw out Scripture and instead of Christ put their faith in their own, Most High and Holy Self ”
Sorry, but the whole notion fails the smell test UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY. There are too many twists and contortions you have to go through to accept the “perpetual virgin” tale. Occam’s Razor. She and Joseph were NOT so far apart in age: their lives became as normal as one could expect for the mother of the Messiah. NOT, by the way, the mother of God, as He has no mother or father, being immortal. She was the mother of His Son’s human personae and nothing more, yet the RC church venerates her as the fourth member of the Godhood.
Given that the Bible makes no specific reference either way, by the church’s own word, WHY IS IT SO VITAL TO THEM??? Why do they virtually WORSHIP her? I would LOVE to hear THAT story.
She was a humble servant of God, and favored above all other women because God chose her to bring bring about The fleshly manifestation of God — Jesus!
As such, this does NOT require Mary remain a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus. In other words the divinity of Jesus is NOT attacked by the humanity of Mary. Indeed the divinity of Jesus is derived from the father (God, though the Holy Spirit).
It seems sin is inherited or visited upon the children through the father, not the maternal side. (there are scriptures to this point). Thus since the father is God, Jesus can come into the world sinless. Mary not need be sinless her entire life to be the vessel that bore Jesus. However Mary was indeed a virgin we know at least until Jesus was born. Since the bible indicates Jesus had brothers, we can deduce that Joseph was the father of Jesus’s siblings.
This in no way impugns the nature of Jesus, or Mary.
Which raises another question which has been asked before and never been answered by a Catholic.
Just why is it so important that Mary be perpetually a virgin?
Why is it so important that she never had a normal marriage to her betrothed and never had sex or other children?
Just why is it so important that Mary be perpetually a virgin?
Because we believe it's true, THAT'S what makes it important.
And on what basis is it considered true?
How does the perpetual virginity have anything to do with salvation and Jesus’ death on the cross?
For others,
For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us.
Acts of Apostles 6:14
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2:14
And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Those who start their personal falvor of "Christianity" by throwing out a large portion of the Old Testament can stuff accusations of pagan behavior where the sun doesn't shine since they don't recognize a continuation of Jewish and other Traditions any more than they recognize the authority of the Holy Word of God they throw in the garbage.
But we actually DO have a way of knowing. Scripture says that Jesus:
Unlike the imaginings of some church "fathers", Jesus took on normal human flesh, born as a baby is born, and not as some mysterious "light" that passed through Mary's birth canal without causing pain, bleeding or the loss of her "physical" virgin body state. Yes, she did NOT have sexual relations with anyone prior to the birth of Jesus - which fulfills the prophecy of the Messiah, who would be born of a virgin as a SIGN. But, there is no reason for Mary to have to have remained a virgin for the rest of her life. It is useless arguing over something that cannot be proved nor NEEDS to be.
It only APPEARS like worship to those who do NOT understand the Scriptures.
We are merely Adoring her or Venerating her: NOT worshiping her.
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Only people who are Worshiped; receive our prayers...)
1 Thessalonians 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
FRBTB - I love it!
That’s an excellent point and a fact that would have had to been dealt with in scripture if it had been different. Jesus was obviously the first born of Joseph in order to inherit the throne of David.
NEVER assume that the lack of any testimony in Scripture is a problem for Rome, who can calls things that are not as if they were. As shown, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
When I started studying His timekeeping in the sun, moon and stars in scripture and history, I began to see the whole world as counterfeit.
And how awesome to know as a believer, the Messiah’s life markers in every new moon day, sabbath and feast... just like we should expect from the Word that became flesh...
And then compare it to what the world has set up with its times and laws and holy days and boy, if they havent changed as Daniel said in 7:25
All of us spend too much time looking down at our smart phones and not enough time looking up at His sky in my opinion...
Good enough for Moses and Messiah, it should be good enough for us..
But the command to come out of her, my people is not an easy thing to do when we put so much of our lives in the hands of the world and its systems and pleasures....
Wow. Talk about out-of-context...
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
Act 6:11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
Act 6:12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
Act 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Act 6:14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
Act 6:15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.
(e-Sword:KJV)
Amazing isn’t it? The Catholic distortion of scripture is nothing less then blasphemy. To have to resort to that sort of distortion in an effort to support the Catholic religion speaks volumes.
No, it is not an astonishment, for it has been done before... The whole bit comes right from the Pharisees; who, in their hubris, thought to trump the tradition of Moses with their own traditions. They claimed the authority to even bisect sentences to draw out the 'true' meaning of Torah, even causing their interpretation to be the full and exact opposite of what the sentence said in full.
It is the very definition of wickedness: Twisting the scriptures to obtain a desired result. It is how one gets to subject matter like the OP.
I clearly pointed out with examples until means UNTIL. The 2 Sam 6:23 reference is rendered unto.
A most astute and much needed commentary. Thank you. It is amazing what we learn from children. They are always looking at God’s Creation and they marvel at it. Ah such is the Kingdom!
Throwing out part of the Old Testament is an explicitly anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee dictate.
Neither Christ or the Apostles ever once in any way implied any portion of the Septuagint shouldn't be accepted as the inspired Word of God.
If that's the "whole bit" you mean you've hit upon the easiest way to identify modern day Pharisees, they obey anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees and throw out portions of His Holy Word to avoid the Truth contained in those portions of Scripture.
Pharisees didn't like how clearly those portions of Scripture laid out exactly what Christ and the Apostles taught and early Christians practiced.
Luther knew The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded preached, taught, and practiced exactly the same way the early Christians did and so he resorted to the same elimination of Scripture as a means to hide his evasions of the Truth.
People who prefer Pharisees and Luther to Christ will one day hear, "I never knew you" from the very same Jesus Christ they imply is a liar by pretending the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error.
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.