Evaluating the Greek as used in Luke and John in describing Jesus proves the teaching of the roman catholic church regarding the perpertual virginity of Mary is wrong.
This explains why you rarely see the roman catholic appeal to the Greek in this matter.
In the Greek, Luke uses the phrase τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, translated literally as the son of her, the firstborn. In English we would say, her firstborn son.
The key word in this section is πρωτότοκον (prototokos). It means first, pre-eminent; the first among others. It allows for other children to be born to Mary.
Contrast this with John 3:16 where John uses the Greek Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, literally Son the only begotten.
The key word is μονογενῆ (monogenes). It means one and only; one of a class.
We know this is the correct description of Jesus as He is the only Son of God.
However, He is not the only son of Mary. Recall that Luke was a physician who by his own account researched a lot so we would have an accurate account of what happened.
If Luke wanted to indicate Mary had only one child he would have used the phrase John did.
In reading the accounts where the brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned we need to keep the verses in context.
We have the account of Paul in Galatians where he noted he met James, the Lord's brother among others.
These are not cousins of Jesus as the word cousin, ἀνεψιός, is used only in reference to Barnabas's cousin Mark. As Paul had traveled with Barnabas so he would know if he was a cousin or a brother or other relative.
>Mt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.<
"Brethren" (Gk: "adelphos") was a rendering of the Aramaic word for "kin"--which could mean anything from "blood-sibling" (cf. Matthew 4:21, etc.) to "fellow Israelite" (cf. Phillipians 4:8, etc.) No one can simply (and carelessly) "run away" with the English word "brother", and immediately conclude, "Ah! Blood siblings, and fellow biological children of Mary!" Ditto, for Matthew 12.
Here is where the roman catholic departs from the clear reading of the text....allowing the text to interpret itself as it does not fit their agenda.
In Phil 4:8 the text tells us Paul is writing to the church at Philippi. Were fellow believers called brothers and sisters? Yes. And how do we know the difference? CONTEXT IS KEY!!!!!!
Now, in this next passage in Matt, ask the following questions:
Where are they?
Where was Jesus from?
Where did His family live?
Some background on Nazareth will help with this. It was not a big town; rather it was a small village. Estimated population was around 500. The people know each other.
Where was Jesus teaching?
Was his teaching something new; something they'd never heard before?
To show their astonishment what did they ask?
When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56“And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” Matt 13:53-56
Now, after answering the questions and reading the verse in context.....we see Jesus had brothers and sister.
Evaluating the Greek as used in Luke and John in describing Jesus proves the teaching of the roman catholic church regarding the perpertual virginity of Mary is wrong.
:) This must be some rare, idiomatic usage of the word "prove" of which I was not previously aware...
This explains why you rarely see the roman catholic appeal to the Greek in this matter.
You forgot to "harrumph", after saying that; the rules say that broad-brush, self-serving dismissals need to be followed by a good, resounding "harrumph!"... or at least a French sounding guffaw. :)
In the Greek, Luke uses the phrase τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, translated literally as the son of her, the firstborn. In English we would say, her firstborn son.
Of course.
The key word in this section is πρωτότοκον (prototokos). It means first, pre-eminent; the first among others. It allows for other children to be born to Mary.
Of course, it does. My point is that, as opposed to what some on this board have suggested to the contrary, it doesn't REQUIRE (much less PROVE) subsequent biological children of Mary.
However, He is not the only son of Mary.
If you mean that in the mystical sense that all Christians are true sons of Mary (cf. Revelation 12), then I'd agree absolutely; if, rather, you mean this in the biological sense, then you'd have to offer proof of that statement, before it could move out of the "raw opinion" category.
Recall that Luke was a physician who by his own account researched a lot
That's certainly true.
so we would have an accurate account of what happened.
I would hope so! If nothing else, the Holy Spirit--Who is inspiring the Gospel--would make certain of that.
If Luke wanted to indicate Mary had only one child he would have used the phrase John did.
Hold on: he WOULD have (in the absolute sense of having no other valid options)? Or he "was free to choose it, if he wished"? The second is a valid statement; the first is a wild leap from no solid basis (i.e. a raw opinion).
In reading the accounts where the brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned we need to keep the verses in context.
Right. Let's just be careful not to substitute "personal opinion" for "context". (I'd also gently add that any non-Catholic, sola-Scriptura-believing people who try to talk about "context" are necessarily "going beyond what is written" (cf.1 Corinthians 4:6) when they do so... and their efforts are neither infallible nor strictly Biblical; it's mere guesswork and probabilities... which is fine, if one is not trying to prove an opponent wrong "decisively", thereby.
We have the account of Paul in Galatians where he noted he met James, the Lord's brother among others.
Right... just as we have the account of St. Mark, who indicates plainly that the "James" being mentioned in Galatians 2 is the brother of Joseph (or Joses, in some translations), the son of another Mary. (See my previous comment, to that effect.)
These are not cousins of Jesus as the word cousin, ἀνεψιός, is used only in reference to Barnabas's cousin Mark.
By that argument, Abraham and Lot must be siblings... since the word used in the Greek (Septuagint) version of Genesis 13:8 is "adelphos"... the fact of Abraham being Lot's UNCLE notwithstanding... right?
No... "adelphos" is used in a variety of ways in the NT (and in the Greek OT), as I mentioned earlier. Aside from this, your statement is an argument from silence (i.e. "it didn't say [x]; therefore, [x] isn't true"), which is invalid. Had the text specifically said that they had the same biological mother, or that they were biological siblings, etc., THEN you would have a solid case. As it is, such an idea is simply wishful thinking.
[paladinan]
"Brethren" (Gk: "adelphos") was a rendering of the Aramaic word for "kin"--which could mean anything from "blood-sibling" (cf. Matthew 4:21, etc.) to "fellow Israelite" (cf. Phillipians 4:8, etc.) No one can simply (and carelessly) "run away" with the English word "brother", and immediately conclude, "Ah! Blood siblings, and fellow biological children of Mary!" Ditto, for Matthew 12.
[eagleone]
Here is where the roman catholic departs from the clear reading of the text....allowing the text to interpret itself as it does not fit their agenda.
Mm-hmm. We'll see... and I'd gently invite anti-Catholic-Church people to be judged by that same standard.
In Phil 4:8 the text tells us Paul is writing to the church at Philippi. Were fellow believers called brothers and sisters? Yes. And how do we know the difference? CONTEXT IS KEY!!!!!!
:) ...and multiplication of exclamation points (or all-caps) does not substitute for proof. Just saying.
Now, in this next passage in Matt, ask the following questions: Where are they?
[etc., followed by quote of Matthew 13]
Now, after answering the questions and reading the verse in context.....we see Jesus had brothers and sister.
We see that Jesus had people who were addressed as brothers and sister; absent any other information, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that these might refer to siblings. But we *do* have other information:
1) We know, beyond all doubt, that the Bible text (when in Greek) uses the term "adelphos" (and adelphe, adelphoi, etc.) to mean siblings, cousins, nephews, uncles, distant kin, and fellow Israelites.
2) In no case does the Bible ever identify these "brethren of the Lord" as children of Mary. Go check, if you disbelieve.
3) The Hebrew culture of the time makes any portrayal of younger brothers "lording it over" an elder brother extremely suspect (cf. John 7:3-4).
4) Had there been other surviving siblings of Jesus who were children of Mary, it would have been bizarre (and an affrontery, actually) for Jesus to entrust the care of Mary to John (cf. John 19:26-27).
5) The Church Fathers portray the matter of Mary's perpetual virginity as
conclusive and unquestioned, with nary a peep from anyone who allegedly "objected to the unbiblical teaching". That's certainly not a positive proof, in and of itself... but given the complete lack of anything solid from the anti-Catholic-Church side, it's rather more weighty.
6) If Jesus had other brothers, then where *were* they during the time when Jesus was missing for 3 days (at age 12)? Given that Mary is apparently not 9-months-pregnant when searching, it would imply that, if Jesus *were* to have other biological siblings, they would all be less than 18 years old when Jesus began his ministry... and that Mary refrained from having children for a rather long time (at least 12 years).
7) If people want to get picky about specific words: why did Mark 6:3 address Jesus as "THE Son of Mary", as opposed to "*a* son of Mary"? Hardly conclusive, but... just for the record.
There's quite a bit more, on that point; but that should do, for now.