James, Brother of Jesus?

[Gabriel_of_12]

oh ok I think you lost me with these scriptures. Are we on the same thread that James was the brother of Jesus and was mary an prepetual virgin

You have not shown a bible verse confirming Mary was “not” a virgin, without poinsoning and or massacring the text with false claims from the 20th century. All scripture points to her perpetual virginity.

The few scriptures you requested support the perpetual virginity of Mary and Catholic doctrines of Mary. The problem I see with your interpretation of understanding these mysteries of God, is that you look for a literal “statement” from scripture to indicate your Sola Scriptura belief’s. In other words the pages themselves will not reveal these mysteries for a 20th century mindset interpretation, it is by the “Spirit” that the Word of God is revealed. That is why Sola Scriptura is a heresy, because it remains blind to the printed pages of “the bible only”. The reason you cannot see the spiritual realities of the scriptures that I propose to you is because you claim to a false “born again event” that can only take place “from above” (anothen) through “water baptism which saves you now”.

Holding to the pages of the bible (sola scriptura), which the Catholic church gave you from the Holy Spirit limits God to ink on a page. I dont know of any other heresy since Jesus built his church upon Peter, that limits God to a book, printed after the Catholic church was built from Peter. Besides the Catholic church is not going to canonize scripture that teaches contrary to her doctrines of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is something you should think about first, before addressing the Catholic bible books.

There are no scriptures that state what you pretend to believe that Mary had other children from St. Joseph or Marital relations with Mary. I have presented to you scriptures that support Mary’s perpetual virginity and more, from the revelation of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. How can you see Spiritual realities, when you hold to a symbolic spirit of “born again”.

There are no scriptures that state Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph. This is a 20th century false interpretation of scriptural translation. So the next best thing is to visit early church recorded history and view what the early church fathers believed about Mary’s perpetual virginity, you will find them “All Catholic” and labeling those who did not believe in Mary’s virginity “Heretics”. Would you like a sample from these testimonies from antiquity, proving Mary’s perpetual virginity using some of the scriptures I provided for you? So that you can get a Spiritual awakening from the Real Holy Spirit, and not a 20th century invented symbolic spirit.

 

[elvisman]

I was commenting on the quantity assertion…but you mention Dr. Buth. As part of the Jersualem School, it is fair I THOUGHT to say he believes that the author of Matthew has an Aramaic influence but was not originally composed in Aramaic…

No - you were commenting on the age of the scholarship of these books and articles - not the quantity assertion.
I already acquiesed the claim of “most” and changed it to “many”.

I can list more works but the crux of my point on this thread has been the use of the word, “Adelphos”. The Septuagint use of this word was MUCH looser than the strict Greek definition and was used to describe uncles, nephews, cousins and kinsmen - NOT just brothers.

The writers of the NT were students of the Septuagint (as I have illustrated many times) and would have written in that fashion. These were not meant to be business documents and didn**'t depend on the strict use of the Greek which was the lingua franca of commerce - they were theological documents and they knew it.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

(3)
(a) It contradicts the natural meaning of the word “brothers,” when the New Testament has the proper word for cousin (άνεψιός, Col. 4:10, comp. also συγγενής, Luke 2:44; 21:16; Mark 6:4, etc.), and the obvious sense of the passage where the brothers and sisters of Jesus appear as members of the holy family.

Gabriel of 12;
I have seen these arguments debated; I will keep it short; One in the translations (while being transcribed) of the New Testament “strict” painstaking steps were taken as to translate the literal word as best as possible, When it called for cousin from the Greek speaking author with the Greek meaning mindset it was used. So as not to change anything from the Gospels. Thus you have Greek in the new testament giving a proper word for “cousin”, when the letters were from Aramaic, Hebrew thought or Word, the trasliteral took place thus the original language did not change in the translation, which had no word for
cousin from the orginal transcripts so brothers remained Keeping the Word of God unchanged.

Recall St.Jerome had the Hebrew, Greek texts in his possession who himself was recognized by the Jewish community as one with authority in Hebrew/Aramaic who spoke in all three languages which includes Latin. So the Aramaic/Hebrew thought interpretation was transliterated through the Greek, to Latin.

This topic of transliteration from the text existing in the Third, fourth centuries, which the Catholic church possessed in her Vulgate tranlsation, proves from her canon that she would not have allowed St. Jerome to include scriptures that contradict an already belief in Mary’s perpetual Virginity, but that the text was too important to either sway in any way other than the original apostle or author thought and text.

Before I would conclude with one opinion, I would consider both sides to the argument. The Painstaking work of the multiple translations from Greek, Hebrew text (availability) with Aramaic and Hebrew thought (name removed by moderator)uted in the text, is what brings about these debates. That is why Jesus left us with one Church, one faith, and one Lord in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. For from these witnesses of the saints and martrys give witness to the One Truth handed down from Jesus and the apostles. That the blessed Virgin Mary remained a Virgin before Jesus birth, during Jesus birth and after Jesus birth, that is whay Matthew’s Gospel is getting across, supported by the prophets of “who ever heard of such a thing”.

 

[BrianH]

No - you were commenting on the age of the scholarship of these books and articles - not the quantity assertion.

**I already acquiesed the claim of “most” and changed it to "[many

I can list more works but the crux of my point on this thread has been the use of the word, “Adelphos”. The Septuagint use of this word was MUCH looser than the strict Greek definition and was used to describe uncles, nephews, cousins and kinsmen - NOT just brothers.

The writers of the NT were students of the Septuagint (as I have illustrated many times) and would have written in that fashion. These were not meant to be business documents and didn**'t depend on the strict use of the Greek which was the lingua franca of commerce - they were theological documents and they knew it.**

To clarify my original comment was about the quantity…and then in an attempt to list some scholars you mentioned several scholars, whose work I do not have for the most part because they are long since dead. I do not think it is “many”. In fact, the last two you mentioned one does not even support Aramaic primacy but instead reading through “an Aramaic lens” as well as a Hebrew lens I suspect.
As far as the LXX and its use by the NT writers, while it is the consensus that the LXX was used most, we would be remiss if we did not mention the non LXX sources as well. As the good doctor you previously cited certainly would. I would specifically reference the book The Canon Debate once again.
You never did answer how old your library was though…

 

[BrianH]

quote=BrianH;5339144
(a) It contradicts the natural meaning of the word “brothers,” when the New Testament has the proper word for cousin (άνεψιός, Col. 4:10, comp. also συγγενής, Luke 2:44; 21:16; Mark 6:4, etc.), and the obvious sense of the passage where the brothers and sisters of Jesus appear as members of the holy family.

Gabriel of 12;
I have seen these arguments debated; I will keep it short; One in the translations (while being transcribed) of the New Testament “strict” painstaking steps were taken as to translate the literal word as best as possible, When it called for cousin from the Greek speaking author with the Greek meaning mindset it was used. So as not to change anything from the Gospels. Thus you have Greek in the new testament giving a proper word for “cousin”, when the letters were from Aramaic, Hebrew thought or Word, the trasliteral took place thus the original language did not change in the translation, which had no word for
cousin from the orginal transcripts so brothers remained Keeping the Word of God unchanged.

Recall St.Jerome had the Hebrew, Greek texts in his possession who himself was recognized by the Jewish community as one with authority in Hebrew/Aramaic who spoke in all three languages which includes Latin. So the Aramaic/Hebrew thought interpretation was transliterated through the Greek, to Latin.

This topic of transliteration from the text existing in the Third, fourth centuries, which the Catholic church possessed in her Vulgate tranlsation, proves from her canon that she would not have allowed St. Jerome to include scriptures that contradict an already belief in Mary’s perpetual Virginity, but that the text was too important to either sway in any way other than the original apostle or author thought and text.

Before I would conclude with one opinion, I would consider both sides to the argument. The Painstaking work of the multiple translations from Greek, Hebrew text (availability) with Aramaic and Hebrew thought (name removed by moderator)uted in the text, is what brings about these debates. That is why Jesus left us with one Church, one faith, and one Lord in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. For from these witnesses of the saints and martrys give witness to the One Truth handed down from Jesus and the apostles. That the blessed Virgin Mary remained a Virgin before Jesus birth, during Jesus birth and after Jesus birth, that is whay Matthew’s Gospel is getting across, supported by the prophets of “who ever heard of such a thing”.

I am curious about your Greek speaking author statement. Are you saying that Matthew, Mark, and John are more Greek speaking than Hebrew speaking? Just not sure exactly what you mean and perhaps you would elaborate.
In your view as well, why did the crowd yell the names of these four men and not their parents in Matthew and Mark? Would it be customary to leave their parents out when speaking about the Holy Family and if so; why? Were they more significant than their parents?
Assuming the Latin perspective when asking you these questions, if you have the Greek perspective the answer would be clear.
[/quote]

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No - you were commenting on the age of the scholarship of these books and articles - not the quantity assertion.
I already acquiesed the claim of "most" and changed it to “many”.

I can list more works but the crux of my point on this thread has been the use of the word, “Adelphos”. The Septuagint use of this word was MUCH looser than the strict Greek definition and was used to describe uncles, nephews, cousins and kinsmen - NOT just brothers.

The writers of the NT were students of the Septuagint (as I have illustrated many times) and would have written in that fashion. These were not meant to be business documents and didn**'t depend on the strict use of the Greek which was the lingua franca of commerce - they were theological** documents and they knew it.

Elvisman … why don’t you cite some these examples of passages from the Septuagint you keep eluding to? At least that would provide a better basis for discussion (forgive me if you already did – I didn’t read the entire thread).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE= I am curious about your Greek speaking author statement. Are you saying that Matthew, Mark, and John are more Greek speaking than Hebrew speaking? Just not sure exactly what you mean and perhaps you would elaborate.

Gabriel of 12;
Sure; It is believed the entire new Testament came down to us in Greek; What I am saying is that Matthew, Mark, and Johns Gospels are believed to be transcribed into Greek from the orginal language and mindset from the apostles unchanged. St. Jerome loyal to the pope of Rome, did not wish to include the Deuterocanonical books because he did not have the Hebrew counterparts to them inorder to transliterate them. This indicates that St.Jerome had original pieces of the Gospels, from which St.Jerome who was fluent in speech and understanding of both Hebrew and Aramaic translated his Greek text with the Hebrew/Aramaic understanding into his Vulgate (latin).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;

Because you posted no scriptural verse here; I would assume you are maybe referencing Mark 6:2 and following?
2 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
3
Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

You pose an interesting question? Jesus answers your question in verse 4: Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.”
5
So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, 5 apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them.
6
He was amazed at their lack of faith. He went around to the villages in the vicinity teaching.

Now the Jews from his province were all astonished at Jesus teachings and wisdom, their question from a Hebrew mindset from the locals sets the stage in asking two questions at the same time, who is the name of Jesus teacher?, which the origins of Jesus powers is God. and where did He get this wisdom from? The content coming from Hebrew origin naming Jesus “as the son of Mary” is an insult. Jews by custom were always known by their father’s name “son of Joseph”. This uncommon naming of Jesus “son of Mary” and not his father, does not lend that knowledge of Joseph’s death is made nor of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but the mocking or insult of Jesus, coming from the Hebrew custom and mindset recorded in Greek.

In conclusion; The naming of family members of Jesus and Mary’s tribe indicates another insult to injury by Hebrew standards not Greek lifestyle in denying Jesus of any status as a prophet or divine, by revealing that Jesus is just a known carpenter, of whom all his tribal members are made known. Coming from a Hebrew mindset and custom labels Jesus and Mary’s tribal members as brothers and sisters, where no word for cousin is mentioned here mainly because there is no word for cousin here, in referencing tribal members and relatives as brothers and sisters.

This insult to injury of Jesus by his own tribal members includes all by the mention of "And are not his sisters here with us".

From this statement are we to assume then that those insulting Jesus publicly are his blood brothers and sisters also? No, they are all brothers and sisters from the same tribe as Jesus and Mary. To make matters worse, “They took offense at him” confirms the Hebrew custom (not a greek custom), when one Tribal member is in question, all participate in the activity including his tribal brothers and sisters.

There is a much more subliminal message here, of which I did not address to this particular text.

 

[jpaul1953]

Was a first marriage mentioned in the Bible? Wasn’t James called the son of Z? Or is it a different James you’re talking about?

Keeping the relationships in the Bible straight is a full-time job.

The apostles James and John (brothers as we know brothers) were the sons of Zebedee, the same father.

The James considered to be Jesus’ natural brother by many Protestants is James the Righteous who basically lead the early Church in Jerusalem. St Peter was with him for a good while until he left for Rome with his wife Perpetua and became Bishop of Rome (our 1st Pope).

The readings do list James as a brother along with Jude, but as explained Aramaic did not have a word for cousin. He most likely was a cousin of Jesus since most extented families lived together in little sections of villages and would grow up as close as brother.

I stick with one point though. If Jesus had any natural brothers and sisters, then Jesus would have insulted them terribly when He bestowed His mother to the Apostle John (son of Zebedee) at the Cross. Jesus would have allowed His brothers and/or sisters to take care of His mother Mary and would have just told His mother, also at the Cross, to live with her children and maybe tell John to make sure Jesus’ brothers/sisters take care of His mother. This makes sense to me.

Protestants do counter this point by saying Jesus’ brothers/sisters were not followers of Christ so he didn’t want His mother with them. That is just plain silly. Mary believed, didn’t she? Was he not concerned about His siblings souls, because He would want His mother to be with His siblings so she could bring them around to the truth.

jpaul1953

 

[freedomwriter]

BrianH;5342818:

Gabriel of 12;

Because you posted no scriptural verse here; I would assume you are maybe referencing Mark 6:2 and following?
2 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
3
Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

You pose an interesting question? Jesus answers your question in verse 4: Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.”
5
So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, 5 apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them.
6
He was amazed at their lack of faith. He went around to the villages in the vicinity teaching.

Now the Jews from his province were all astonished at Jesus teachings and wisdom, their question from a Hebrew mindset from the locals sets the stage in asking two questions at the same time, who is the name of Jesus teacher?, which the origins of Jesus powers is God. and where did He get this wisdom from? The content coming from Hebrew origin naming Jesus “as the son of Mary” is an insult. Jews by custom were always known by their father’s name “son of Joseph”. This uncommon naming of Jesus “son of Mary” and not his father, does not lend that knowledge of Joseph’s death is made nor of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but the mocking or insult of Jesus, coming from the Hebrew custom and mindset recorded in Greek.

In conclusion; The naming of family members of Jesus and Mary’s tribe indicates another insult to injury by Hebrew standards not Greek lifestyle in denying Jesus of any status as a prophet or divine, by revealing that Jesus is just a known carpenter, of whom all his tribal members are made known. Coming from a Hebrew mindset and custom labels Jesus and Mary’s tribal members as brothers and sisters, where no word for cousin is mentioned here mainly because there is no word for cousin here, in referencing tribal members and relatives as brothers and sisters.

This insult to injury of Jesus by his own tribal members includes all by the mention of "And are not his sisters here with us".

From this statement are we to assume then that those insulting Jesus publicly are his blood brothers and sisters also? No, they are all brothers and sisters from the same tribe as Jesus and Mary. To make matters worse, “They took offense at him” confirms the Hebrew custom (not a greek custom), when one Tribal member is in question, all participate in the activity including his tribal brothers and sisters.

There is a much more subliminal message here, of which I did not address to this particular text.

Wow all that writing and you still don’t make any sense. The idea that mary was a perpetual virgin is directly contradicted by the biblical account. Matt 1:25 we read that Joseph "kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a Son. The word UNTIL implies that normal sexual relations between Joseph and mary took place following the birth of Jesus. Greek scholars agree that the term adelphos should be taken in its normal sense of a literal brother. Read 69:8 since verse 8 is a messianic reference to Christ’s alienation “to my mothers son’s,” mary most definitely had other children besides Jesus. Also since there was a Greek word for cousins (anepsios), don’t you think the biblical writers would have used this word instead of the Greek word adelphos for brothers when referring to James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas Matt 13:55-57

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;5342818:

Gabriel of 12;

Because you posted no scriptural verse here; I would assume you are maybe referencing Mark 6:2 and following?
2 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
3
Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

You pose an interesting question? Jesus answers your question in verse 4: Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.”
5
So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, 5 apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them.
6
He was amazed at their lack of faith. He went around to the villages in the vicinity teaching.

Now the Jews from his province were all astonished at Jesus teachings and wisdom, their question from a Hebrew mindset from the locals sets the stage in asking two questions at the same time, who is the name of Jesus teacher?, which the origins of Jesus powers is God. and where did He get this wisdom from? The content coming from Hebrew origin naming Jesus “as the son of Mary” is an insult. Jews by custom were always known by their father’s name “son of Joseph”. This uncommon naming of Jesus “son of Mary” and not his father, does not lend that knowledge of Joseph’s death is made nor of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but the mocking or insult of Jesus, coming from the Hebrew custom and mindset recorded in Greek.

In conclusion; The naming of family members of Jesus and Mary’s tribe indicates another insult to injury by Hebrew standards not Greek lifestyle in denying Jesus of any status as a prophet or divine, by revealing that Jesus is just a known carpenter, of whom all his tribal members are made known. Coming from a Hebrew mindset and custom labels Jesus and Mary’s tribal members as brothers and sisters, where no word for cousin is mentioned here mainly because there is no word for cousin here, in referencing tribal members and relatives as brothers and sisters.

This insult to injury of Jesus by his own tribal members includes all by the mention of "And are not his sisters here with us".

From this statement are we to assume then that those insulting Jesus publicly are his blood brothers and sisters also? No, they are all brothers and sisters from the same tribe as Jesus and Mary. To make matters worse, “They took offense at him” confirms the Hebrew custom (not a greek custom), when one Tribal member is in question, all participate in the activity including his tribal brothers and sisters.

There is a much more subliminal message here, of which I did not address to this particular text.

That does not address why the “tribal custom” (please provide source for beliefs about this being a custom) ignores his uncles.

It also appears that this exegesis runs into a problem in its parallel verse in Matthew; where there is no slight but a slightly different way of remembering it. Both ways list a bunch of cousins but no uncles?

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him

.

The reading of the text as I see it is they were appaled at his presumption of importance. Why? He is a carpenter. The son of Mary; Joseph long dead by now. However, one oral tradition does refer to him as the carpenter’s son; there is no reason to think that his divine origins was believed or talked about (he certainly never mentioned it in any surviving documents or oral traditions). They are talking about his family. But not his uncles? I think the problem is almost insurmountable for a cousin interpretation. A biological brother or step-brother possibility are the only options I believe fit.

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman … why don’t you cite some these examples of passages from the Septuagint you keep eluding to? At least that would provide a better basis for discussion (forgive me if you already did – I didn’t read the entire thread).

Here you go:
In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” (Adelphos), even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the “brother” (Adelphos) of his uncle Laban.
Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren (Adelphos),” the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

 

[elvisman]

You never did answer how old your library was though…

100 years old . . .

 

[Tanner9188]

The only reference to cousin used in the NT is in Colossians 4:10, the Greek word is anepsios, which is a noun masculine and means “cousin”. Nowhere else in the NT is the word cousin used, nor is there an example of the term brother being used as cousin, as far as I can see. The term in Greek is “adelphos” is used for brother and can mean used in a variety of contexts:

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

However; in Matthew 1:18 states: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child * by the Holy Spirit.” The Greek word for “came” is “synerchomai”, which is used in one of 2 ways:

1. to come together
   1. to assemble
   2. of conjugal cohabitation
2. to go (depart) or come with one, to accompany one

The context and use here should be obvious to all and the plain reading of Scripture that being related to the marriage covenant, the “conjugal cohabitation” is the meaning here.

Then add the use of “before”, tells us in no uncertain terms that they did come together as husband and wife, which when related to Matt 4:18 “Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.” We know that Peter and Andrew are blood brothers…I don’t know anyone who has ever questioned that.

Then go to Matt 12:47 "Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” (Luke 8:20 is parallel passage) - we know it wasn’t His disciples, they were already with Him.

Also, Matt 13:55 "“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

In addition Galatians 1:19 states “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”

In light of the plain reading and use of Greek terms, you can drawl your own conclusion based on the evidence. My conclusion is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations, which would honor God’s command concerning the marriage covenant.

 

[Mickey]

My conclusion is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations, which would honor God’s command concerning the marriage covenant.

And my conclusion as an Orthodox Christian, is in agreement with the Sacred Tadition of the Holy Church. Jesus’ “brothers” are half brothers and St Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ.

 

[elvisman]

The only reference to cousin used in the NT is in Colossians 4:10, the Greek word is anepsios, which is a noun masculine and means “cousin”. Nowhere else in the NT is the word cousin used, nor is there an example of the term brother being used as cousin, as far as I can see. The term in Greek is “adelphos” is used for brother and can mean used in a variety of contexts:

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
7. his brothers by blood
8. all men
9. apostles
10. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

However; in Matthew 1:18 states: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child * by the Holy Spirit.” The Greek word for “came” is “synerchomai”, which is used in one of 2 ways:

1. to come together
2. to assemble
3. of conjugal cohabitation
4. to go (depart) or come with one, to accompany one

The context and use here should be obvious to all and the plain reading of Scripture that being related to the marriage covenant, the “conjugal cohabitation” is the meaning here.

Then add the use of “before”, tells us in no uncertain terms that they did come together as husband and wife, which when related to Matt 4:18 “Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.” We know that Peter and Andrew are blood brothers…I don’t know anyone who has ever questioned that.

Then go to Matt 12:47 "Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” (Luke 8:20 is parallel passage) - we know it wasn’t His disciples, they were already with Him.

Also, Matt 13:55 "“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

In addition Galatians 1:19 states “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”

In light of the plain reading and use of Greek terms, you can drawl your own conclusion based on the evidence. My conclusion is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations, which would honor God’s command concerning the marriage covenant.

This has all been address if you go back and read the posts.
The Greek word, “Adelphos” has been discussed as well as the word “Anepsios” and the Septuagint and NT usages of these words.

**As for Matt. 1:18 - the Greek used here sunerchomai can mean,
****1. to come together
2. to assemble
3. of conjugal or domestic cohabitation
4. to go (depart) or come with one, to accompany one

Since they were not yet living together when she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, it could mean any part of #1, #2 OR #3.

 

[BrianH]

And my conclusion as an Orthodox Christian, is in agreement with the Sacred Tadition of the Holy Church. Jesus’ “brothers” are half brothers and St Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ.

I really think that IF someone was Sola Scriptura, the most natural reading supports the Protestant view. I wonder if the Orthodox or Catholic agree with that?
I personally believe that if tradition is thrown in; the Greek view is certainly plausible.

 

[Mickey]

I really think that IF someone was Sola Scriptura, the most natural reading supports the Protestant view. I wonder if the Orthodox or Catholic agree with that?
I personally believe that if tradition is thrown in; the Greek view is certainly plausible.

I understand what you are saying Brian. But I am not able to answer your question. For me, Sacred Tradition is not an option that can be left out. And sola Scriptura, in my view, does not exist. Sacred Tradition interprets Sacred Scripture.

 

[freedomwriter]

The only reference to cousin used in the NT is in Colossians 4:10, the Greek word is anepsios, which is a noun masculine and means “cousin”. Nowhere else in the NT is the word cousin used, nor is there an example of the term brother being used as cousin, as far as I can see. The term in Greek is “adelphos” is used for brother and can mean used in a variety of contexts:

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

However; in Matthew 1:18 states: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child * by the Holy Spirit.” The Greek word for “came” is “synerchomai”, which is used in one of 2 ways:

1. to come together
   1. to assemble
   2. of conjugal cohabitation
2. to go (depart) or come with one, to accompany one

The context and use here should be obvious to all and the plain reading of Scripture that being related to the marriage covenant, the “conjugal cohabitation” is the meaning here.

Then add the use of “before”, tells us in no uncertain terms that they did come together as husband and wife, which when related to Matt 4:18 “Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.” We know that Peter and Andrew are blood brothers…I don’t know anyone who has ever questioned that.

Then go to Matt 12:47 "Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” (Luke 8:20 is parallel passage) - we know it wasn’t His disciples, they were already with Him.

Also, Matt 13:55 "“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

In addition Galatians 1:19 states “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”

In light of the plain reading and use of Greek terms, you can drawl your own conclusion based on the evidence. My conclusion is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations, which would honor God’s command concerning the marriage covenant.

Whew Thank you, I have been trying to get people to understand the same thing.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Brian,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I really think that IF someone was Sola Scriptura, the most natural reading supports the Protestant view. I wonder if the Orthodox or Catholic agree with that?

I don’t actually. The most natural reading in that case would be pre-loaded by cultural understanding. In other words, terminology is pregnant with meaning because of what we bring to it, but not necessarily what the author brought to it so long ago and far away. Meanings of terms do change over time and over borders.

Which is why Protestants take the position they usually do. To northern Europeans a brother is usually someone who shares a mother, and if not, the distinction is declared. That is not necessarily true for these people of the eastern Mediterranean region 1900 years ago.

To modern Indonesians, Syrians or Nigerians the obvious reading could be quite different.

Another thing to remember is that scriptural accounts were oftentimes written in a manner that suggests that some details were not included because everyone probably knows the background already. Or that it is not as important to begin with.

For instance, we might read something about Ronald Reagan that never mentions he was a Republican, because the author assumes everyone knows that, or never mentions that he was once a union leader, because the author assumes it is not important enough to mention!

Two thousand years from now people could be arguing about those details but who would guess it from where we stand today?

I personally believe that if tradition is thrown in; the Greek view is certainly plausible.

This is the difficulty.

WE do not have any evidence.

But tradition does not arise in a vacuum (so to say). The earlier a tradition is first recorded the more difficult it would be to fictionalize (distort the facts, in other words).

The tradition which is recorded in the proto-Gospel of James is not perfect evidence, but it pre-dates Nicea and is a fully formed complex of circumstances surrounding the Holy Family (as we describe it these days). It has a greater likelihood of agreeing with the common understanding of second century Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians of the eastern Mediterranean than anything we can bring to the table today, so far removed and burdened with other issues we are trying to support.

One of the reasons Orthodoxy is attractive to persons like myself is the high regard for tradition, and the earlier the tradition the better. I want to be as close as I can be to the first century Christian mindset.

So if I have to choose between a second century eastern Mediterranean recorded legend, a sixteenth century European polemical argument or a twentieth century north American pre–conceived notion I will go with the oldest opinion over the most obvious to me.