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.
Mother has many definitions. The Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) were not given birth, only the incarnate Son of God was came in the flesh. We’ve already spent too much time with the unimportant subject of Mary. Have a nice day.
To your answer, let’s look at the scripture....Joseph was very upset, look at what is said in Matthew.
Mat 1:18
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
....So to answer this, Joseph would probably not have married Mary had not God been involved.
Let me ask you -— where do you get (Scripturally) the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Mary was favored above all women, but she WAS a woman. She was NOT an angel, or special creation of God.
Praying to Mary, or Joseph is unnecessary because our Lord (Jesus) says pray directly to him (no intercessor required). (John 14:13)
Reasoning from the scriptures keeps us on the right track. If you have some better verses, please let us look at them.
The first question I would like to ask is why is the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary a critical importance to Roman Catholic doctrine? I am sure the Roman Catholic church does not view conjugal marital relations as 'sinful.' Or a disqualifier for some reason to receive the adoration Roman Catholics offer to Mary.
From the article:
Moreover, no Scripture can be produced that absolutely, undeniably, compellingly defeats the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Unless we look at 'until' and wrestle with what the word actually means and what some want it to mean. Until is well Until:
Matthew 1:
24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
'til' (until) 'heos': (G2193): 'till' or 'until'.
Is there really any argument on what 'till' or 'until' means in both our language and the Greek. It means what it says---until which is "up to (the point in time or the event mentioned)."
Other uses of 'till' and 'until' in the Gospel of Matthew are:
So all the generations from Abraham to G2193 David are fourteen generations; and from David until G2193 the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto G2193 Christ are fourteen generations.
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till G2193 it came and stood over where the young child was.
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till G2193 the Son of man be come.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until G2193 John.
Seems 'till' and 'until' are used consistently throughout this Gospel.
Speculation. As I could speculate Jesus Christ was entrusting His mother's care to a known believer. As we see in John's Gospel Jesus' brothers were not early believers in Him. And to be perfectly honest with you...If I had to choose another man to care for my elderly mother in my stead it would not be my brother but a close friend.
I don’t know why you are arguing something I did not say.
I did say: Mary is the mother of God Incarnate, the Word become flesh.
Is this a hard thing for you to acknowledge? A problem in who Mary is often at the root of problems in who Jesus is. This is the actual point and reason the subject IS important.
I am sure this is familiar to you:
V. THE GOODS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CONJUGAL LOVE 1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm)
No where is there any Gospel that suggests that Mary ever had sex.
Well as I indicated in an earlier post, we do have the 'till' or 'until' to consider. Striking because Matthew is being quite clear Joseph DID NOT touch Mary in any 'conjugal' way 'till' Jesus Christ was born. None of the NT writers get into the conjugal actions of Mary and Joseph but leave us with 'till' and 'until' to make it clear she was truly a virgin 'till' the birth of Christ.
That's what we have to operate with. That's all the 'till' or 'until' which should be clear enough. Then we have the accounts of brothers and sisters in the Gospels. One can say cousin or kin all they want but the Greek has words for that too and those words were not used. We could argue all day, cousin, brother, sister, etc. but the 'till'/'until' is pretty clear throughout Matthews Gospel. It literally means UNTIL.
It’s a method used by Jesus Christ Himself when He stated He would build His Church upon the rock God the Father had provided. Likewise, we build our faith not by ourselves or any man, but by what God Provides. His Word is given as our bread, which we intake through fellowship with Him. God the Holy Spirit then processes that via our spirit to sanctify our soul.
The RCC also has the opportunity to obey Him by supporting those with the gift of Pastor-Teacher, instead of constructing worldly counterfeit orders to substitute His Plan for their worldly desires. The more they rely upon Tradition, the less they rely upon God alone and His Plan.
The subject of Mary is not important beyond what the bible says about Mary. That’s very very little and of particular note are the anti-Mary verses which clearly argue against what the RCC has built.
I read the article as well. It is interesting the author left out an important piece of Scriptures:
Matthew 1:
24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.
25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.(DRA)
An important point the author should have addressed? No?
According to Holy Scripture, Mary is the mother of God Incarnate, the Word become flesh.
If, as you say, what the bible says about Mary is important, I would think this would an important - and easy - thing for you to acknowledge.
ANd the question remains. Jus tWHY is it so important to Catholics taht Mary be perpetually virgin?
The prophecy about her was that a virgin would conceive and bear a son.
That happened and is still valid even though she did not remain a virgin perpetually.
The other issue is the whole Catholic mentality about sex. They way they exalt virginity and chastity as preferable when even God said that it was not good for man to be alone, shows there is some kind of warped thinking about sex that is not Scriptural.
Christ did not teach sola scriptura. Nor does the doctrine pass it’s own test. It is unscriptural and can only be declared by someone not using scripture alone. It’s a tradition that began with Luther.
When did conjugal marital relations become something sinful? I dunno...Even Jesus said a man leaves his parents joins his wife and the two become one flesh. I believe 'cleave' was used in the older language. Seems to me a blessing from God not sinful.
Did I miss the author explaining away the Latin Vulgate? Must have missed that. Seems St. Jerome understood 'brother' meant 'brother':
Mark 6:3:
nonne iste est faber filius Mariae frater Iacobi et Ioseph et Iudae et Simonis nonne et sorores eius hic nobiscum sunt et scandalizabantur in illo
Of course if 'cousin' or 'kin' was to be exact Jerome had the following to choose from:
• patruelis, -is, m./f. paternal cousin
• sobrinus, -i, m. maternal boy cousin
• sobrina, -ae, f. maternal girl cousin
But Jerome did not.
So you see the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary as a matter of salvific faith and such we will be judged on such beliefs or lack of?
Do you think the apostolic historical documents (Acts), and epistles in which assemblies are instructed in matters of righteousness fail to mention this most important Roman Catholic doctrine is a major omission by the apostles?
Just because Christians don't bow to a statue of an image of Mary, light a candle or recite prayers does not mean we don't call her blessed.
But your words are very familiar as in similar comments were made by Fr Ladis J. Cizik of EWTN:
In the Koran, the holy name of the Blessed Virgin Mary is mentioned no less than thirty times. No other woman's name is even mentioned, not even that of Mohammed's daughter, Fatima. Among men, only Abraham, Moses, and Noah are mentioned more times than Our Lady. In the Koran, Our Blessed Mother is described as "Virgin, ever Virgin." The Islamic belief in the virginity of Mary puts to shame the heretical beliefs of those who call themselves Christian, while denying the perpetual virginity of Mary. Make no mistake about it, there is a very special relationship between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Moslems! (http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/olislam.htm)
Seems if you want a religion to cozy up to which will share your extra-scriptural practices you may want to mosey on down to the local mosque instead of trying to 'convert' the sweaty Prot pastor in polyester who keeps preaching the Gospel. You know...the Gospel...That IS in the Scriptures. Check it out.
So I guess you should purchase a Qur'an and investigate your adorations. The Muslims approve!
Nor did Christ teach the perpetual virginity of His mother Mary.
Christ did not have to "teach" sola scriptura." He IS the Word made flesh. He taught from Scriptures and it is was what He opened the minds of his disciples as we see in Luke 24.
Can you point me to the Catholic Bible commentary which identifies the woman of Revelation 12 as Mary.
LOL, I expected a bit better from you. Nice twist of words. So marriage is now death? You been hanging around Rodney Dangerfield much?
Try again. Until means well until.
St Jerome did too!:
Mark 6:3--
nonne iste est faber filius Mariae frater Iacobi et Ioseph et Iudae et Simonis nonne et sorores eius hic nobiscum sunt et scandalizabantur in illo
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.