J
joseie
Guest
Ok.,I will then put as below:
(1) Scripture does not say that Jesus had no brothers or sisters.
(2) Scripture say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.It can be due to language or traslation error,according to Church.
- Status
(1) Scripture does not say that Jesus had no brothers or sisters.
(2) Scripture say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.It can be due to language or traslation error,according to Church.
E
ericc
Guest
That is true. Scriptures is silent on many many other topics as well. But we all know silence has never been a sound argument.
Scriptures in the original language (Aramaic/Greek) do not indicate that Jesus had maternal blood brothers/sisters or not. The choice of words by the Scripture authors do not support such conclusion. Protestant and Catholic scholars have conceded that it is not possible to conclude basing off the original language and thus we hardly hear of any further developments on this topic for quite a while. (As far as I know)
Translations are not inspired so let us not go there. We will be arguing whose translations are better till the cows come home.
Adelphoi/sungenes etc are just generic descriptions of relations.
I thought this topic has been debated a million times to the death but somehow it always get resurrected from time to time with the same arguments all over again.
The Church has always proclaimed that Mary is Ever Virgin. Anyone who subscribed to the first 7 Church Councils proclamations must also accept that Mary is Ever Virgin. No cherry picking please. Reformer Fathers also agree. Hence to disagree with Mary’s EV one must conclude that stance is a fairly recent novel position based purely off translations. Unless one has NEW information about Mary being not EV, it is just dishonorable to make up such claims. That was why there was such a big hoohah about the Jesus tomb couple of years ago and gnostic writings claiming otherwise. Fortunately, sensationalism do have short lives.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
There is a word for cousin meaning “offspring of my parent’s sibling” in Aramaic, just to be clear.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Well, just to continue to flog a dead horse. True, as far as scripture’s translation is concerned. Thus interpretation can vary.
Interpretation of Sacred Scripture however has to be done together with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium. That will decide matters, otherwise it will only be groping in the dark, never knowing whether it is really correct or not.
E
ericc
Guest
I’d would love to know what that word is. Don’t keep us hanging there.
J
joseie
Guest
Too sad.You mean the correctness or otherwise of what is said in the scriptures will be decided by Tradition, Magesterium etc?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
bar-dod (male cousin); bat-dod (female cousin). Modern Hebrew uses similar terms.I’d would love to know what that word is. Don’t keep us hanging there.
P
patrick457
Guest
Literally translated of course, bar / bat-dad is ‘son/daughter of an uncle’. The Hebrew equivalent is ben / bat dod (cf. Leviticus 25:49 ’ō-ḏōḏō ’ō ḇen-dōḏō yiḡə’ālennû “or his uncle (dōḏ) or his ḇen-dōḏ may redeem him”; Jeremiah 32:8 ḥănamə’ēl ben-dōḏî ‘Hanamel my ben-dōḏ’; Esther 2:7 esətēr baṯ-dōḏō kî ‘Esther, his baṯ-dōḏ’). As far as I’ve seen, Arabic - another Semitic language - also employs similar constructions: e.g. ibn / bint 'amm ‘father’s brother’s son / daughter’.
I think what’s being asked is whether Aramaic and/or Hebrew has a technical word for cousin a la ancient Greek anepsios, modern Greek xaderfos (exadelfos) or English ‘cousin’. Frankly, ben / bat dod is a circumlocutory phrase.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I think you’ve misunderstood the notion of circumlocution. A circumlocution tends to obfuscate or euphemize the referent. In this case, the Aramaic expression really couldn’t be much more exact. (And with the usage of a maqqef, it really is one word.)
This aspect of the Catholic apologetical argument about the brothers of Jesus typically asserts that the Palestinian Aramaic culture simply had no available means of expressing the familial relationship that we usually call “cousin” in English. That’s not the case. It’s a simple expression (two syllables), there are numerous attestations, and the expression is used without any difficulty in modern contexts as well.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Yep. That way you are assured to get the correct interpretation of the Scripture, otherwise you will get it all wrong.
Thus you have to have the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium.
I know it is sad for Christians who do not have the Sacred Tradition and Magisterium; they are just groping in the dark, the blind leading the blind.
J
joseie
Guest
I am not talking about (name removed by moderator)retatation but only about the correctness of what is written in the scriptures.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Not so sure what you mean by interpretation and correctness. Can you elaborate? Look like the same thing.
Do you mean the canon of the Scripture (by correctness)?
E
ericc
Guest
Why is it sad? It has always been that way, long before the Bible was compiled. The Jerusalem Council was a great example. The decisions of the Ecumenical Church Councils were largely based off Traditions.
J
joseie
Guest
What I mean by sad is this:The bible was written to be read and understood directly by common people of that time and was not meant to be first interpreted by experts and then to be circulated along with their expert opinion.For this reason it was written in a simple and direct way. 6 days written was meant to be 6 days, Mother meant mother, brother meant brother…- that is it.Subsequently over a perod of time different groups started to interpret the otherwise simple verses to suit their line of thinking or to avoid embarrassment as the verses were seemingly against some subsequent scientific truths,and put a seal that those who are going by the direct meaning of the verses ignoring their writ are groping in darkness and are against God etc.They will invent so many lame excuses,find fault with the language,translation, etc.Poor scripture writers!They will be tuning in their grave seeing the attempt to twist and complicate the simple verses and meaning they wrote and meant !
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Definitely not.
It was not meant to be understood by common people who did not have any knowledge of the belief of the apostles, the Church.
That is what we thought later or today. The situation for the early Christians was definitely different than it was, say one thousand five hundred years later.
Today, of course it did not make sense that the common people could not understand the Bible. But that is today, not the early Christians, who probably did not know how to read, except for those privileged few – the Pharisees, priests and the lawyers of the law.
Another thing, the Church which decided the books to be included in the Bible, would know what was written. The basis for them to select the books also based on what was written.
We need to keep intact those reasons for selecting the books that made up the Bible. The Church knew because she was the producer of the Bible. In other word, she was the contemporary of the authors of the Bible.
The Church having existed earlier than the Bible would have in her possession the belief and the knowledge of the apostles, and then from that basis the books in Bible were chosen and compiled.
I am sorry, but your deduction is modern days thinking which does not reflect anything about the Bible at all.
Like I said in my earlier post, there is no mystery in the Bible; it was understood by the Church when she compiled it. Any new understanding of it is saying the Church did not understand the Bible which she wrote and compiled. And that is of course not the way it was.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Correction:
… she (the Church) was the contemporary of the authors of the NT of the Bible.
E
ericc
Guest
Not true. See Acts 8:26-40. The Ethiopian Eunuch would be a highly educated person is his days. Secondly, you are reading translations and you need to understand the genres of the books in the Bible to appreciate its intent. You bring great harm to yourself if you privately interpret Scriptures.
A lot of issues can be avoided if the scholarship starts with the original language and understand the intent of the authors. The intent of the authors can be discerned by the practices and traditions of those early Christians and the Church . If you are reading the Bible like a story book for ordinary folks, you will confuse yourself tremendously and may harm yourself intellectually or even spiritually.
E
ericc
Guest
It still isn’t a word to denote cousin. It is a description of the relationship between 2 individuals. And the description define they are cousins. When you use a dictionary, the meaning of cousin is given as “child of an aunt/uncle”. You are doing it in reverse.
All we have is adelphoi and that word by itself is non-conclusive.
I have mentioned previously that Reformer Fathers accepted Mary EV. Mary EV is declared in the early Church Councils with no dispute whatsoever. For neo-Protestants to deny this fact is indicative of a novel invention purely for the sake of Protestant apologetics. If the Reformer Fathers didn’t teach Mary is non-EV, it must have been invented by someone recently. And with no evidence to back it up other than playing a word game.
po18guy
Well-known member
Oh, the twisting and semantic torture that one must go through in order to be sufficiently “not Catholic.” Catholics and all Christians: Open your complete 73 book bibles to the Book of Tobit and have a read. Did a man really marry his sister? Yes, and no. “Sister” or “Brother” were anyone from your same tribe, of the twelve tribes of Israel. Uterine? AYKM? God’s revealed truth is not discovered via perusing a Greek dictionary. What if Mary had twins? Did the wrong one die? This ‘other children’ anti-Catholic obsession is ridiculous. To demonstrate that, I am ridiculing it.
And, what is the spirit that drives this condemnation, this “commonization” of the most blessed woman to ever exist? No, that woman is certainly not Eve! She was not created by Christ to give her flesh to Him for the salvation of mankind.
What spirit drives this recent and sudden post-reformation disdain for her?
I take note that demons never dare to insult Mary during exorcisms. Have they duped others into this?
And, what is the spirit that drives this condemnation, this “commonization” of the most blessed woman to ever exist? No, that woman is certainly not Eve! She was not created by Christ to give her flesh to Him for the salvation of mankind.
What spirit drives this recent and sudden post-reformation disdain for her?
I take note that demons never dare to insult Mary during exorcisms. Have they duped others into this?
A
abucs
Guest
Wasn’t Lot, the nephew of Abraham, also referred to as Abraham’s brother in Hebrew (related to Aramaic)?
answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/a-lot-of-relationships/
answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/a-lot-of-relationships/
- Status