N
Nicea325
Guest
Amen elvisman! Some will never see it due to pride!
- Status
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Hi elvisman
Here is what I found out about the Greek word Adelphos.
Adelphos literally means, the sharing of the womb.
Adephos- from 1 (as a connective particle0 and Delphus
the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote [much like 1]: KJV–brother.{Taken from Strongs}
Now as we can see the word Adelphos comes from the word womb. This places his brothers and sisters as coming from the same womb that Jesus came from.
Now
we do have a Greek word for Relative. Luke 1:36 says, “Even Elizabeth your RELATIVE is going to have a child…”
The Greek word “relative” sometimes translated cousin is the word “suggenes.”
Suggenes- A relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman: KJV-- cousin, kin (-sfolk, -smen).
Notice the word sugGENES has the word “genes” which can mean brother and sister, but can also mean any relative that shares genes with you.
C
Contarini
Guest
I’ve never heard that it was an official Roman title. I have heard that it may have been a pseudonym/honorific used by Luke to describe a prominent Gentile “God-fearer.” In other words, if “Theophilus” was the person’s given name then he was most likely a Hellenistic Jew, I’d think. But I don’t think that’s evidently true.
Edwin
R
rev_kevin
Guest
This is what I found out about Theophilus.
Name of a person or an honarary title to whom Luke and Acts are addressed. Most scholars agree that both Luke and Acts where originally written in Koine Greek and that Theophilos means friend of God or (be)loved by God or loving Godin the Greek laungage. In English Theophilos is also written “Theophilus” both a common name and an hororary title among the learned Roman and Jews of that era. Their life would coincide with the writing of Luke and the author of Acts, sometime between 60-110 A.D. bepending ofn which ;tradition one subscribes to.
E
elvisman
Guest
Some scholars feel that the title "most excellent" Theophilus was referring to a Roman official-turned-Christian convert. However, they are in the minority.
Most scholars believe him to be a Jew.
E
elvisman
Guest
Hey, RevKev -Hi elvisman
Here is what I found out about the Greek word Adelphos.
Adelphos literally means, the sharing of the womb.
Adephos- from 1 (as a connective particle0 and Delphus
{Taken from Strongs}
Now as we can see the word Adelphos comes from the word womb. This places his brothers and sisters as coming from the same womb that Jesus came from.
Now
we do have a Greek word for Relative. Luke 1:36 says, “Even Elizabeth your RELATIVE is going to have a child…”
The Greek word “relative” sometimes translated cousin is the word “suggenes.”
Suggenes- A relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman: KJV-- cousin, kin (-sfolk, -smen).
Notice the word sugGENES has the word “genes” which can mean brother and sister, but can also mean any relative that shares genes with you.
We had this conversation in another thread about Mary’s virginity earlier this year.
Your research is fine - HOWEVER, just as in our earlier exchange, you purposely omit all of the information about all of the other uses for the word, "Adelphos". This is a common tactic by those trying to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity. The problem is - you can’t simply discount all of the Scriptural evidence that supports the Catholic position. One blindingly clear example of the use of this word that sinks your argument is in Acts 1:15. Here, Luke writes about the 120 Adelphos gathered together. These are obviously not uterine brothers.
This, coupled with the glaring fact that there is not a single line of Scripture or one solitary Church tradition that says Mary bore any other children.
In light of this, Protestants cannot present a cohesive argument to the contrary.
In short - if you can’t prove it - you lose.
Case closed.
E
elvisman
Guest
I already addressed this.
Read posts 78 & 83.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
John 2:12
John 7:1
Acts 1:14
Galatians 1:18
1 Corinthians 9:4
All have to do with Jesus’ brothers.
E
elvisman
Guest
They sure do - in the broader sense, that is (kinsmen, cousins, other relations).
NONE of those verses have anything to do with children of Mary - not ONE.
You lose.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Prove it don’t.
G
guanophore
Guest
All this being moot, since Matt. was written in Aramaic. Dont you think the Apostles would know if Mary had other Children? Why did they pass on to us that she did not? How could they have missed out on this important family factoid?Hi elvisman
Here is what I found out about the Greek word Adelphos.
Adelphos literally means, the sharing of the womb.
Adephos- from 1 (as a connective particle0 and Delphus
{Taken from Strongs}
Now as we can see the word Adelphos comes from the word womb. This places his brothers and sisters as coming from the same womb that Jesus came from.
Now
we do have a Greek word for Relative. Luke 1:36 says, “Even Elizabeth your RELATIVE is going to have a child…”
The Greek word “relative” sometimes translated cousin is the word “suggenes.”
Suggenes- A relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman: KJV-- cousin, kin (-sfolk, -smen).
Notice the word sugGENES has the word “genes” which can mean brother and sister, but can also mean any relative that shares genes with you.
G
guanophore
Guest
Definitely Jesus had close kin - brethren- that were near relatives. None of them came from the womb of Mary.
You are still left with explaining how the Church got this wrong for 1800 years…
How is it that God was so weak, and disinterested, that He was unable to correct this misunderstanding? Why did He allow the Apostles to pass on such an error?
And if such a glaring error existed, how can anything the Church taught be trusted? How can the canon of scripture be trusted, since it was composed by those who believed the Apostolic Teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary?
G
guanophore
Guest
It is not possible to prove a negative, Rev.
The faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles is that Jesus was the only child or Mary. These other relatives are children of another Mary, described in the holy scriptures as the “sister” of the mother of our Lord.
If you are brave enough to get into the history of your faith, you will find that this is a modern evangelical innovation.
E
elvisman
Guest
Sorry pal - the onus is on YOU to prove that Mary had other children.**
**It is up to YOU to prove that the Church was wrong for over 1700 years.
As Guanophore noted - you can’t prove a negative and it’s not up to us to do so.
Tell me something, Kevin – who was the last surviving Apostle?
This IS relevant so please respond.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You know what is puzzling?
Either Mary’s virginity status after the birth of Christ doesn’t mean anything, or it does.
If it doesn’t, then why did the Church ‘bring it up?’ If it doesn’t matter, why was it taught one way for so many years? What possible purpose (a nefarious one if the teaching was, as some protestants claim, wrong) did it serve? And if it doesn’t matter, why don’t protestants dismiss us with a shake of the head and “you people are arguing over nothing important”?
But if it DOES matter, then its truth or falsity becomes very important. And of course, then the consistency and the reasoning etc. become important. Either the Church (and again, for WHAT purpose would they LIE on this when it MATTERS?) lied or it didn’t. If it did, then where is the consistent teaching ‘against’ for the first 1500 years? If it matters, then it must have been taught and the false teaching ‘repudiated’, else Scripture is wrong about the Spirit guiding us or that Christ will make sure that we will hear the truth that has been written and given through oral tradition.
But if it just ‘crops up’ by those ‘protesting’ Christian truth, and indeed, not even by the FIRST protesters who actually UPHOLD perpetual virginity of Mary–well, then it looks like one of those ‘different gospels’ we were warned against, doesn’t it?
Either Mary’s virginity status after the birth of Christ doesn’t mean anything, or it does.
If it doesn’t, then why did the Church ‘bring it up?’ If it doesn’t matter, why was it taught one way for so many years? What possible purpose (a nefarious one if the teaching was, as some protestants claim, wrong) did it serve? And if it doesn’t matter, why don’t protestants dismiss us with a shake of the head and “you people are arguing over nothing important”?
But if it DOES matter, then its truth or falsity becomes very important. And of course, then the consistency and the reasoning etc. become important. Either the Church (and again, for WHAT purpose would they LIE on this when it MATTERS?) lied or it didn’t. If it did, then where is the consistent teaching ‘against’ for the first 1500 years? If it matters, then it must have been taught and the false teaching ‘repudiated’, else Scripture is wrong about the Spirit guiding us or that Christ will make sure that we will hear the truth that has been written and given through oral tradition.
But if it just ‘crops up’ by those ‘protesting’ Christian truth, and indeed, not even by the FIRST protesters who actually UPHOLD perpetual virginity of Mary–well, then it looks like one of those ‘different gospels’ we were warned against, doesn’t it?
E
elvisman
Guest
Excellent point.
D
Dokimas
Guest
If the doctrines you hold so dear about the wonderful woman we know as Mary, are so important, why are they not in the NT? Why do we need to wait many yrs after the NT was penned to hear about many of these ideas? Paul would have know the importance if they are true. Luke surely would have know and written about such an important issue.
Maybe the reason it’s important to discuss these things is that if you are incorrect, then too much of you time is spent thinking about something that’s not true which takes away from things important to be meditated on. Just a thought.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thank you.Excellent point.
M
mark_a
Guest
Rev,
Except for:
Maronite, Syriac, Malankarese, Chaldean, Syro–Malabarese, Albanian, Belarussian/Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Czech, Krizevci, Greek, Hungarian, Italo–Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian Catholics
AND all the Orthodox,
no one believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity!!
L
Loboto-Me
Guest
Don’t forget that some non-catholic religions also believe
- Status