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.
That is what it says alright. It very troubling to think how that must of felt.
If you will recall in Genesis 3, Satan twisted the words God spoke to Adam and Eve. He did the same thing when he was tempting Christ.
I believe what Jesus said...word for word. I also believe we were given the Bible so that we can search all of the Scripture for the proper interpretation of the Bible. We let the Bible interpret the Bible.
This way we don't build denominations on one verse theology interpretations as some have done with Matthew regarding Peter.
An interesting Bible study on Peter is very revealing in conjunction with the word rock as used in Scripture.
It is interesting to read the accounts in Mark and Luke regarding the same event recorded in Matthew. In these two other accounts, the exchange between Christ and Peter regarding the keys, rock, etc are not mentioned.
However what is recorded in all three accounts is Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God.
This is not to diminish the account in Matthew, but the main point in all three accounts is Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God.
When you combine this with the use of the word rock you will come to the conclusion that the rock upon which Christ is building His church is Peter's confession....not Peter himself. That is what the Bible is emphasizing.
Peter does assume a leadership role in the early church and no one denies that. The keys Christ gave him was the opportunity to be a leader in the early church....and this Peter did very successfully as we see at Pentecost and later.
There were other leaders in the church as well so Peter was not the only leader. As you read Acts you will see James, Phillip and others in a leadership role.
But we also see Peter stumble in the New Testament.
Later in the NT Paul had to chastise Peter as he had stopped eating with the Gentiles.
In Peter's own writings he referred to himself as a bond-servant of God. In Acts, anytime someone was healed, Peter was very clear to give the credit to Christ and not take any of the credit.
There is a lot more on this, but you can do the research yourself. I believe if you do an honest Biblical search on Peter and the rock, you will come to the conclusion that the church was built upon Peter's confession and that the rock is Christ.
The Apostles appointed successors. They are the men chosen to have the fullness of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. They exist in an unbroken line through today. The Apostolic succession is the heart of Our Lord’s promise to us that the Church would prevail.
You appear to deny that the Apostles had the authority to appoint successors. Is that what you believe?
I don't doubt what you believe, but could you show us in the scriptures where anyone had the power to appoint successors?
Love your crazy strawmen!
Psalm 69:5 counts for sure, and you don’t get to change it to suit your fancy.
I guess you’re always thinking of food?
.
Easter: the goddess of fertility, who is worshipped on the first sunday after the vernal equinox, by rapeing virgins.
Christmas: the day they offered the children born to the raped virgins on the fire of Molloch.
These days were not chosen by accident, these were Constantine’s most revered days.
.
Yes, and all of that contributed to the truth the Scripture taught. So which denominations do you say the adversary is using to twist the words God spoke ?
I believe what Jesus said...word for word. I also believe we were given the Bible so that we can search all of the Scripture for the proper interpretation of the Bible. We let the Bible interpret the Bible.
There are thousands of denominations and sub-denominations who differ on how "the Bible interprets the Bible." For example, what is your eschatology ? Are you pre-millenial, pre-tribulation ? It must be simple to figure that out by letting the Bible interpret the Bible, right ? There are many other areas where the thousands of church groups disagree; are you the only one who is correct ? Which one is that ? I'm sure we would all want to be with the one who interprets the Bible correctly.
This way we don't build denominations on one verse theology interpretations as some have done with Matthew regarding Peter.
It was the Protestant Re-formation that based its doctrine on invalidating the logical interpretation of Matthew 16 so as to justify to themselves why they were rebelling against the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope. Did any non-heretical group in history prior to the Re-formation interpret Matthew and the rock like the Protesters ? Do you seriously believe the truth was hidden for some 1500 years until Martin Luther created a denomination ? If so, why is not his the only other denomination ?
An interesting Bible study on Peter is very revealing in conjunction with the word rock as used in Scripture.
The world has studied this in the original languages for almost two millenia; do you seriously think you have discovered something new that others have not already known ? If you are a Protestant you deny Peter is the rock. If you are Orthodox you see the scripture plainly indicates he is.
It is interesting to read the accounts in Mark and Luke regarding the same event recorded in Matthew. In these two other accounts, the exchange between Christ and Peter regarding the keys, rock, etc are not mentioned. However what is recorded in all three accounts is Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God. This is not to diminish the account in Matthew, but the main point in all three accounts is Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God. When you combine this with the use of the word rock you will come to the conclusion that the rock upon which Christ is building His church is Peter's confession....not Peter himself. That is what the Bible is emphasizing.
Anytime someone says "xyz, but" they are trying to subtily undermine "xyz." The Keys of the Kingdom and the Apostolic Authority to bind and loose that Jesus gave to Peter (and his Apostolic brethren) are critical for the next two thousand years of history; they are not just incidental.
Peter does assume a leadership role in the early church and no one denies that. The keys Christ gave him was the opportunity to be a leader in the early church....and this Peter did very successfully as we see at Pentecost and later.
Subtily diminish, and here comes the denial:
There were other leaders in the church as well so Peter was not the only leader. As you read Acts you will see James, Phillip and others in a leadership role. But we also see Peter stumble in the New Testament. Later in the NT Paul had to chastise Peter as he had stopped eating with the Gentiles. In Peter's own writings he referred to himself as a bond-servant of God. In Acts, anytime someone was healed, Peter was very clear to give the credit to Christ and not take any of the credit. There is a lot more on this, but you can do the research yourself. I believe if you do an honest Biblical search on Peter and the rock, you will come to the conclusion that the church was built upon Peter's confession and that the rock is Christ.
The holy catholic apostolic church is built on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus being the chief cornerstone, not on Peter's confession:
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Okay, you are saying it pertains to Jesus then??
editor-surveyor wrote:
Easter: the goddess of fertility, who is worshipped on the first sunday after the vernal equinox, by rapeing virgins.
Christmas: the day they offered the children born to the raped virgins on the fire of Molloch.
These days were not chosen by accident, these were Constantine’s most revered days.
Amazing the putrid hate that is allowed here. Just amazing.
Psalm 69:5
O God, Thou knowest my foolishness, and my sins are not hid from Thee.
So Jesus would never say “my sins are not hid from Thee” because Jesus simply did not Sin.
Since all of Psalm 69 is a first person narrative; it means that we are now saying 69:8 is about Jesus but the whole Psalm is in the first person.
“8 I am a foreigner to my own family,
a stranger to my own mother’s children;”
Same person speaks in 69:8 who speaks in verse 69:5.
Litany of Humility
Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (1865-1930),
Secretary of State for Pope Saint Pius X
O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being loved...
From the desire of being extolled ...
From the desire of being honored ...
From the desire of being praised ...
From the desire of being preferred to others...
From the desire of being consulted ...
From the desire of being approved ...
From the fear of being humiliated ...
From the fear of being despised...
From the fear of suffering rebukes ...
From the fear of being calumniated ...
From the fear of being forgotten ...
From the fear of being ridiculed ...
From the fear of being wronged ...
From the fear of being suspected ...
That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I ...
That, in the opinion of the world,
others may increase and I may decrease ...
That others may be chosen and I set aside ...
That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...
That others may be preferred to me in everything...
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…
Yes, those days are putredly hateful!
.
But without the printing press, Bibles would really be few and far between in the year 800 AD. It wouldn’t be like going to the store and buying a paperback book. No, already you can see, there were missionaries going into Asia Minor or wherever.
The rest is a matter for apologetics, interesting in itself.
>> “And what were the apostles and disciples preaching?” <<
.
The gospel of the kingdom.
Salvation through righteousness, made possible by Yeshua’s perfect sacrifice.
The very same gospel preached by Moses, and Yeshua.
.
>> “But without the printing press, Bibles would really be few and far between in the year 800 AD.” <<
.
But that is why there were synagogues, where the scriptures were set out to be read.
Remember, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
.
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.