Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[empantarhei]

Always good…

perhaps what was meant from empantarhei was that belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

“Belief is required” stated again…

Belief is required. But Catholics take the Word of God in its entirety in order to comprehensively understand the economy of salvation.

This is how Catholics believe that we are saved

No buts needed; there’d be no ‘entirety’ without Jesus.

Agreement again that belief is required…

Yes, as previously stated…

And, in that, you were very Catholic!

And more broadly, Christian, since there are others who believe:

that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

 

[empantarhei]

And, in that, you were very Catholic!

?

 

[PRmerger]

?

I simply meant that each and every time you proclaim a truth, to the degree that it is true is the degree that you are consonant with the Catholic Church.

All truth is Catholic truth.

That’s all I was saying.

 

[Good_Fella]

youku.com/V_Showid_XNDEzNDMwNzgO.html

A blessed and joyous Christmas to all who have participated in or veiwed this thread.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given.
Isaiah 9, 6

PAX

 

[Daganoweda]

That would be interpreting Scripture through Western lenses.

Scripture needs to be interpreted in cultural and political context. Jesus came from the Middle East, he was not a Westerner. He was brought up in a Jewish home. People of that time referred to their ‘first cousins’ as brothers and sisters because** there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for ‘cousin’. **Therefore they are referred to as brother or sister. often two or three families lived in one home or one street and often mingled. That was the language used of the day.

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew.

Another interesting point regarding language is that Jewish graves of that time would be marked as an example “Here lies Joshua first-born son of Magdalene” even if Magdalene had no other sons. Why did they do this? Ancient Jews used the term “first-born” for a specific reason. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20).

Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

What one must remember is the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and there is a distinctly different word for cousin: anepsios; whereas brother is adelphos and sister is adelphē; therefore as written Jesus did indeed have siblings.

 

[Good_Fella]

What one must remember is the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and there is a distinctly different word for cousin: anepsios; whereas brother is adelphos and sister is adelphē; therefore as written Jesus did indeed have siblings.

The Jews who were recorded speaking in Matthew and Mark did not speak in Greek, but in Aramaic.

PAX

 

[Randy_Carson]

What one must remember is the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and there is a distinctly different word for cousin: anepsios; whereas brother is adelphos and sister is adelphē; therefore as written Jesus did indeed have siblings.

Matthew may have been written originally in Aramaic and translated later into Greek.

Even if that is not the case, the Jewish authors were accustomed to using patterns of speech (and thinking) that were part of their native language, and this carried over into how they phrased their Greek sentences.

But rather than replay the entire argument again, would you go back and review the thread from the beginning…this has been covered several times already.

Thanks.

 

[Daganoweda]

The Jews who were recorded speaking in Matthew and Mark did not speak in Greek, but in Aramaic.

PAX

How do you know?

 

[joe370]

What one must remember is the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and there is a distinctly different word for cousin: anepsios; whereas brother is adelphos and sister is adelphē; therefore as written Jesus did indeed have siblings.

Anepsios is used one time in the NT:

“Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him).”

Daganoweda, we also see in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures) the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins, translated as brother (adelphos). As you have mentioned, unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, the Greek language has a separate word for cousin, (anepsios) but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos to translate the word cousins. How do you explain…? It seems that they are used interchangeably…

 

[PRmerger]

What one must remember is the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and there is a distinctly different word for cousin: anepsios; whereas brother is adelphos and sister is adelphē; therefore as written Jesus did indeed have siblings.

Perhaps they were siblings. But not from the womb of Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How do you know?

Because even the NT as we have it is chock-full of Aramaic words: amen, Abba, etc.

Do you believe that the Jews spoke Koine Greek in their homes instead of Aramaic???

 

[joe370]

Perhaps they were siblings. But not from the womb of Mary.

 

[joe370]

Because even the NT as we have it is chock-full of Aramaic words: amen, Abba, etc.

Do you believe that the Jews spoke Koine Greek in their homes instead of Aramaic???

Exactly…

 

[Good_Fella]

How do you know?

We know from early Church sources that Matthew published his gospel for converts from Judaism in their native Aramaic Hebrew tongue. So there was no need for him to substitute brothers for cousins as he could have for Greek readers if in fact the Jews in the crowd were referring to Jesus’ cousins. But since there was no word for cousin in Aramaic, the people in the crowd used “brothers” instead, and the author kept the same idiomatic term for his Hebrew readers. Matthew 13:55 parallels Mark 6:3, so even though the author of this gospel wrote it in Koine Greek, it appears he preserved this semitic idiomatic usage for his Gentile readers. We should note that in Mark’s list of the apsotles (3:13-19) James, the son of Alphaeus (Cleopas) and his younger brothers Judas (Thaddaeus) and Simon are ranked side by side from eldest to youngest just as they are by the Jews in the crowd when referring to Jesus’ brothers. Evidently James, Judas, and Simon (save Joseph) were both apostles and cousins of Jesus. As sons of Alphaeus, they were Mary’s nephews.

PAX

 

[Good_Fella]

We know from early Church sources that Matthew published his gospel for converts from Judaism in their native Aramaic Hebrew tongue. So there was no need for him to substitute brothers for cousins as he could have for Greek readers if in fact the Jews in the crowd were referring to Jesus’ cousins. But since there was no word for cousin in Aramaic, the people in the crowd used “brothers” instead, and the author kept the same idiomatic term for his Hebrew readers. Matthew 13:55 parallels Mark 6:3, so even though the author of this gospel wrote it in Koine Greek, it appears he preserved this semitic idiomatic usage for his Gentile readers. We should note that in Mark’s list of the apsotles (3:13-19) James, the son of Alphaeus (Cleopas) and his younger brothers Judas (Thaddaeus) and Simon are ranked side by side from eldest to youngest just as they are by the Jews in the crowd when referring to Jesus’ brothers. Evidently James, Judas, and Simon (save Joseph) were both apostles and cousins of Jesus. As sons of Alphaeus, they were Mary’s nephews.

I should add that the Gospel of Mark is a literary composition, and diction does function as a literary device. When Mark Twain tells the story of Huckleberry Finn, his diction is typical of the speech of a southern American boy during a particular time and in a particular region of the United States (“But by and by, pap got too handy with his hick’ry.”). But the author never intended to write his book only for American people of the south at that time. He meant to have his story published for the entire nation and the world for generations to come.

PAX

 

[joe370]

We know from early Church sources that Matthew published his gospel for converts from Judaism in their native Aramaic Hebrew tongue. So there was no need for him to substitute brothers for cousins as he could have for Greek readers if in fact the Jews in the crowd were referring to Jesus’ cousins. But since there was no word for cousin in Aramaic, the people in the crowd used “brothers” instead, and the author kept the same idiomatic term for his Hebrew readers. Matthew 13:55 parallels Mark 6:3, so even though the author of this gospel wrote it in Koine Greek, it appears he preserved this semitic idiomatic usage for his Gentile readers. We should note that in Mark’s list of the apsotles (3:13-19) James, the son of Alphaeus (Cleopas) and his younger brothers Judas (Thaddaeus) and Simon are ranked side by side from eldest to youngest just as they are by the Jews in the crowd when referring to Jesus’ brothers. Evidently James, Judas, and Simon (save Joseph) were both apostles and cousins of Jesus. As sons of Alphaeus, they were Mary’s nephews.

PAX

Even in my non-catholic days this made good practical sense. I think that it is logical to assume that eventually the individual books of the bible were translated/transliterated with the intention of importing the Jewish idioms into the Greek format, exactly as they were used when the teachings were being transmitted orally, (as you mentioned) i.e. each individual writer attempted to use the exact Hebrew word, e.g. brother, as opposed to using *adelphos *in one instance and anepsios in another, and in the process, (probably not realizing that it would be an issue hundreds of years later) making it difficult for later generations to discern, without the proper historical context. Thank God Jesus continues to ineffably guide His church into all truth. How is this any different than the Trinity, (which does not explicitly state that the Son and the HS are one or that the Father and the HS are one) other than the fact that protestants, choose to embrace it. For some reason the topic of Mary rubs some protestants the wrong way.

 

[Good_Fella]

Even in my non-catholic days this made good practical sense. I think that it is logical to assume that eventually the individual books of the bible were translated/transliterated with the intention of importing the Jewish idioms into the Greek format, exactly as they were used when the teachings were being transmitted orally, (as you mentioned) i.e.** each individual writer attempted to use the exact Hebrew word, e.g. brother, as opposed to using *adelphos ***in one instance and anepsios in another, and in the process, (probably not realizing that it would be an issue hundreds of years later) making it difficult for later generations to discern, without the proper historical context. Thank God Jesus continues to ineffably guide His church into all truth. How is this any different than the Trinity, (which does not explicitly state that the Son and the HS are one or that the Father and the HS are one) other than the fact that protestants, choose to embrace it. For some reason the topic of Mary rubs some protestants the wrong way.

Yes, when Mark wrote his gospel for Gentile Christians, he took for granted that it would be understood by all Christians, in accord with the oral tradition, that the “brothers” of Jesus meant his cousins and apostles. Nor could the author have ever conceived the thought of something like the Protestant Reformation happening 1500 years later and the rise of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian movement after that as Christendom continued to splinter into countless independent denominations.

PAX

 

[joe370]

Yes, when Mark wrote his gospel for Gentile Christians, he took for granted that it would be understood by all Christians,** in accord with the oral tradition, that the “brothers” of Jesus meant his cousins and apostles.** Nor could the author have ever conceived the thought of something like the Protestant Reformation happening 1500 years later and the rise of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian movement after that as Christendom continued to splinter into countless independent denominations.

PAX

 

[jrtrent]

Yes, when Mark wrote his gospel for Gentile Christians, he took for granted that it would be understood by all Christians, in accord with the oral tradition, that the “brothers” of Jesus meant his cousins and apostles.

Or possibly step-brothers. Christians who believe that Mary was ever virgin have more than one theory to account for the “brothers” and “sisters” mentioned in scripture. As this excerpt credited to Catholic Answers says, “If we accept the theory put forth in the Protoevangelium of James and accepted by many in the early Church, Jesus’ brothers would be stepbrothers, sons of Joseph but not of Mary. . . It is certainly possible for Catholics to believe that Joseph did not have children of his own. In this case, the brothers of Jesus could be other relatives, such as cousins.” catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6956

Joe370 noted that “For some reason the topic of Mary rubs some protestants the wrong way.” If the 25 pages or so of comment in this thread is typical, it isn’t the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary that rubs people the wrong way. After all, many Protestants share this belief and, based on commentaries from several Protestant traditions, most would at least acknowledge it as a possibility. What may rub people the wrong way is when Catholics purport to prove one or more of their points from scripture when in fact they are offering just one possible interpretation (e.g., the oft-repeated claim that there were just two apostles named James) or when they claim that the belief that Mary and Joseph had children of their own necessarily denigrates Mary, Joseph, and/or Jesus.

Catholics can rightly state that Mary was ever virgin by simply saying that this is what their church teaches, and can offer, as the Catholic Answers excerpt above indicates, more than one way to counter those who think the Bible “proves” that Mary had other children. To go beyond that seems to me a parallel to the OP’s original complaint, “It seems to me the documentation of the various interpretations of the references to Jesus’s “brothers” in the New Testament would mean that, at the most, the churches would be teaching the various theories and not asserting that Jesus had brothers as a fact.”

 

[joe370]

Or possibly step-brothers. Christians who believe that Mary was ever virgin have more than one theory to account for the “brothers” and “sisters” mentioned in scripture. As this excerpt credited to Catholic Answers says, “If we accept the theory put forth in the Protoevangelium of James and accepted by many in the early Church, Jesus’ brothers would be stepbrothers, sons of Joseph but not of Mary. . . It is certainly possible for Catholics to believe that Joseph did not have children of his own. In this case, the brothers of Jesus could be other relatives, such as cousins.” catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6956

Joe370 noted that “For some reason the topic of Mary rubs some protestants the wrong way.” If the 25 pages or so of comment in this thread is typical, it isn’t the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary that rubs people the wrong way. After all, many Protestants share this belief and, based on commentaries from several Protestant traditions, most would at least acknowledge it as a possibility. What may rub people the wrong way is when Catholics purport to prove one or more of their points from scripture when in fact they are offering just one possible interpretation (e.g., the oft-repeated claim that there were just two apostles named James) or when they claim that the belief that Mary and Joseph had children of their own necessarily denigrates Mary, Joseph, and/or Jesus.

Catholics can rightly state that Mary was ever virgin by simply saying that this is what their church teaches, and can offer, as the Catholic Answers excerpt above indicates, more than one way to counter those who think the Bible “proves” that Mary had other children. To go beyond that seems to me a parallel to the OP’s original complaint, “It seems to me the documentation of the various interpretations of the references to Jesus’s “brothers” in the New Testament would mean that, at the most, the churches would be teaching the various theories and not asserting that Jesus had brothers as a fact.”

Agreed! Also, from the scripture alone perspective (speaking as a former non-catholic) there is simply no way to know one way or the other, making it impossible for a sola scriptura advocate to speak in an authoritative capacity. It’s pure speculation. From the catholic perspective we do see some convincing arguments that exists outside the pages of sacred scripture coming from those folks who lived closest to the apostolic age. For example:

Ignatius of Antioch, (third Bishop of Antioch and student of John the Apostle) lived somewhere between AD 50 and AD 120, as per scholars, and he believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna lived somewhere between AD 69 AD 155; he too was a successor and student of an apostle, namely John, and he believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Irenaeus was a 2nd century Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul and an ECF/apologist. As a student of Polycarp, his writings were prolific in the development of catholic theology, and he too believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Another ECF/apologist was Justin Martyr; he lived somewhere between AD 100 and AD 165; he is regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos in the 2nd century, and he too believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.