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.
“Third, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, and even if the mother is Mary, the other children need not be biological children. Revelation 12:17 specifically says that the Mother of Christ’s children are “those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.””
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/12/does-psalm-698-proves-that-mary-had.html
Revelation 12:17 (KJ21)
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and he went to make war with the remnant of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 12:17 (ASV)
17 And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus:
Revelation 12:17 (AMP)
17 So then the dragon was furious (enraged) at the woman, and he went away to wage war on the remainder of her descendants—[on those] who obey God’s commandments and who have the testimony of Jesus Christ [and adhere to it and bear witness to Him].
Revelation 12:17 (CEB)
17 So the dragon was furious with the woman, and he went off to make war on the rest of her children, on those who keep God’s commandments and hold firmly to the witness of Jesus.
Revelation 12:17 (CJB)
17 The dragon was infuriated over the woman and went off to fight the rest of her children, those who obey God’s commands and bear witness to Yeshua
Etc.
http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Revelation%2012:17
We do know Mary had kids and usually sex is required for that to happen...Plus, there is not a single thing is the scriptures to suggest Mary didn't have sexual relations with her husband...
Bible wasn’t written in English, try again. That’s what the article is discussing.
Oh, my gosh! I am so moved. Thanks for posting this.
Psalm 69 = Jesus telling Israel his words 1,000 years before. I can show you plenty more messianic psalms if you wish but you would probably refuse to open your eyes anyway.
By the way your revelation scripture is talking about Israel the nation,
You have your right to your or your church’s interpretation.
Yes, that is the problem with using the entire Psalm to refer to Jesus; it would contradict other Scripture and Apostolic doctrine; we can take the verses that other Scripture explicitly attributed to him but have to go no further than that because of this verse.
Up to a point, but past that point, you become your own church.
I mean really, how can thousands of different denominations have different understandings of those clear teachings of the Bible (not to mention all the lone rangers out there who don't really agree with anyone but their spouses, if they have one, once a year) ?
Mark 6:4 But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”
Normal married women have sex, it is the RCC who have made up the evervirgin without biblical proof.
It is talking about the Virgin of Israel, Miriam, who is the elect of Israel, the very Israel of God. You cannot separate her from her son, God with us, nor from her nation, Israel, nor from the holy catholic apostolic church. If you go to heaven, you'll get used to her.
You are saying Psalm 69:5 does not apply where it speaks of "sins" or "guilt" but then for your purposes use Psalm 69:8. This is simply contradictory. No remarks on one being blind needs to be said when the Psalm you are using is not consistent in what you are trying to say.
"5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins (or guilt) are not hid from thee." <---- Doesn't apply, Christ does not sin.
"8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children." <---- Now applies as Christ.
Exactly...That is the definitive statement...It couldn't be more clear...
After Jesus was born, he KNEW HER for the first of many times...
Did Christ take on the sins of humanity or not?
I wouldn’t call the Incarnation “normal.”
And if that is not Jesus speaking who is it?
It is not David
I did not say it does not apply. Those are Christs words.
“And he smoked not ‘til the day he died.”
Guess he had a cig in the morgue.
“Normal married women have sex, it is the RCC who have made up the evervirgin without biblical proof.”
Why leave out every single Orthodox Church? I mean come on.
FReegards
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.