Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

[hope]

If it was plain, than it would not have been discussed for centuries. If those mentioned were siblings, than you would not have scripture giving Mary to John as there would have been not need. You would not have scripture of brothers giving advice to Jesus as that would have gone against their culture. Scripture would have said a son of Mary not what it does which is The son of Mary. You would not have other scripture that uses brother to not mean a sibling.

 

[mcq72]

My post was response to saying that “nowhere in scripture does it state… other children”…when in fact it does state "brothers and sisters ".

It plainly states that. What apparently is not so plain is what that means. Scripture does not plainly state cousins, nor half brethren, though it may be implied, but not plainly .

As to Mary being given to John is no better understood if their had been cousins or half brothers.

As to brethren giving advice, well not so sure it was advice but a mocking of sorts, and was their culture so refined and obedient that only older brethren could mock younger brethren?

As to brethren meaning cousins or half brothers…yes quite possible, but no more possible than to mean brother…i mean they did have other words for cousin, and certainly the Greek language was not deficient that it could not describe half or step brother.

 

[hope]

When I say that there is no scripture that state other children I mean that there is no scripture that states Mary has any other children. You did not address that scripture calls Jesus The son of Mary not A so

As to Mary being given to John is no better understood if their had been cousins or half brothers.

This makes no sense. Jewish law required sons to take care of his mother. If the oldest son was dead, than it would fall to the next child. I am not understanding what you are trying to say here. Scripture is plain that Jesus is an only child when it records that Jesus provided for His mother by making John her son.

Not a mocking but certainly they did not believe in Him but that would not change the fact that they speak as someone younger. Yes it would be more likely that older brethren would mock younger brethren than younger mocking older.

It isn’t a matter that Greek has words for it but rather you are talking about a range of relationships. Families weren’t nuclear. You would have had cousins, uncles, aunts all living in the same household. Remember that it is quoting neighbors. The people are saying who is this Man? We know His family. We know His brothers (they did not have a word for anything else}, sisters. Now the person who is writing is quoting what they said. The writer would not then change it to cousins aunts and uncles for that is not what the people said even though that is what they really were.

 

[mcq72]

You did not address that scripture calls Jesus The son of Mary not A so

It also states Jesus is the brother of James, when apparently James had other brothers (Joseph and Simon)…does not say " a brother of James"…seems like "the article is just the literary style ( not just any son, or any brother, but specifically this particular brother, this particular son), using it for both the son and the brother, not necessarily meaning singular in either .

 

[mcq72]

This makes no sense. Jewish law required sons to take care of his mother…You would have had cousins, uncles, aunts all living in the same household.

and if not the sons , the next of kin, as i think Ruth portrays. So that would seem to include any half brothers or cousins, the two other explanations for “brethren”, would be next in line to care for Mary. So for one to propose no brothers due to Mary being given to John, would also mean no cousins or half brothers …again, if all in same household .

So my point being Mary being given to John has nor bearing on just who are the “brethren” of Jesus.

 

[hope]

You are conflating two different Jewish customs. Naomi was forced, because of her poverty, to sell off her husbands property. The next of kin by law was allowed to redeem the property. Boaz was not the next of kin, the next of kin however declined and Boaz stepped in to buy the property but it came with the duty to marry Ruth. The first child would be considered the child of her husband.
There was no duty for any one else but the sons to take care of the mother. That is why Jesus had to provide for His mother as she had no other sons. If there had been any other sons, Jesus would not have an obligation to provide for His mother. Cousins and step brothers would not have this obligation. Jesus did not have half brothers. He might have had step brothers which is what some people believe. Your point is not based on the culture or the laws of Jews. The very fact that Jesus gave Mary into John’s care shows that Jesus had no siblings.

 

[hope]

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:
Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.”
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother.
My point is that Mary is not ever identified as mother to anyone but Jesus.

Jesus is the brother of James,

Where? Scripture that I know says that James is the Lords brother.

 

[po18guy]

Differences in latitude, differences in attitude. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin. As always, something is lost in the translation.

For a quick refresher on the ancient Hebrew language, read Tobit chapters 7 and 8. We see that a man married his “sister” - which meant a woman from the same tribe (of the twelve tribes). This is much the same outside of the western world to this day. Brothers and sisters are those of your city, area, nation. We in the insular west have difficulty with this concept, but the rest of the world accepts it far more easily, as it is also their practice.

In fact, read the entire book of Tobit - you can do it in one sitting. It is amazing, fascinating, heartfelt, very human, might just bring tears and is a standout book in the OT.

 

[hope]

You never answered which Church Fathers denied Mary being ever virgin, etc. Please don’t just give a name but an actual documented quote.

 

[mcq72]

. Origen’s Commentary on Matthew in Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume IX. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html.

I will have to look this up myself,also

 

[mcq72]

I thought early writings have been discussed…Tertullian, Victorinus, Helvidius, Origen…yet I believe all these are unanimous with virgin birth…not sure why you question or believe that her perpetual virginity was unanimous at beginning of church history, and that they did not have discussions from differing viewpoints on this matter as we do today, even here on CAF.

 

[hope]

Did you believe that the link to a commentary on Origen supports your view? Here is a quote from your link and the same quote from a different source. As you can see, they are quite different.

“The Book [the Protoevangelium ] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” ( Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

The Book of James,”5265 that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,”5266 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.

I thought early writings have been discussed…Tertullian, Victorinus, Helvidius, Origen…yet I believe all these are unanimous with virgin birth…not sure why you question or believe that her perpetual virginity was unanimous at beginning of church history, and that they did not have discussions from differing viewpoints on this matter as we do today, even here on CAF.
I thought early writings have been discussed…Tertullian, Victorinus, Helvidius, Origen…yet I believe all these are unanimous with virgin birth…not sure why you question or believe that her perpetual virginity was unanimous at beginning of church history, and that they did not have discussions from differing viewpoints on this matter as we do today, even here on CAF.

You were asked to the Church Father who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity. You never answered.

 

[Cathoholic]

What conclusions are drawing from Origem mcq72?

I went back and read the chapter before and the chapter you cited.

All Origen is talking about here is the Jewish people who rejected Christ denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother.

We know that from Scripture (John’s Gospel), at least in my opinion.

We know that from the Talmud.

We know that from common sense (they are not going to affirm the Blessed Mothers Perpetual Virginity and subsequently DENY Jesus’ Divinity).

I don’t understand why you are citing Origen here.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hope . . .

You were asked to the Church Father who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity. You never answered.

Good point Hope.

There aren’t any Fathers that DENY the Perpetual Virginity of Mary so I don’t know how anybody is going to be able to present these phantom “fathers” denials.

 

[mcq72]

@ mcq72 perhaps you would like to explain to me why a married woman would ask how she and her husband would have a baby?

don’t understand your question…she was betrothed at the time of announcement, being much more than "engaged’’, but less than consummated as on wedding night. Feel her reaction is for surety of a virgin birth by God’s doing. A vow of chastity , or perpetual virginity would have also sufficed but no mention of it. her mention of not knowing a man is logical, making it plain that she is willing and obedient, even immediately, save the need for a “father” which may have been up to a year or more away.

 

[mcq72]

You were asked to the Church Father who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity. You never answered.

I may have to say no “Church Father” said so, at least by capitalized ''father". I certainly wrote “father”, but not sure any would qualify as “Father” if they indeed differ with future findings of church. So Helvidius and Victorinus may have been bishops, and Tertullian theologian who later ran a muck but not sure the CC would now call them “Chruch Fathers”. Am I wrong in saying these three would put forth a non perpetual virgin Mary,( and I understand if you would consider them not to be Fathers) ?

 

[mcq72]

What conclusions are drawing from Origem mcq72?

I went back and read the chapter before and the chapter you cited.

All Origen is talking about here is the Jewish people who rejected Christ denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother.

We know that from Scripture (John’s Gospel), at least in my opinion.

We know that from the Talmud.

We know that from common sense (they are not going to affirm the Blessed Mothers Perpetual Virginity and subsequently DENY Jesus’ Divinity).

I don’t understand why you are citing Origen here.

I agree that upon reading the quote not sure how some would read Origen as writineg something contrary to what he wrote elsewhere, but some do…I reread a few more times and i can see how it seems Origen is saying Jesus had actual brothers from the quote, ch 17.

 

[hope]

@ mcq72 perhaps you would like to explain to me why a married woman would ask how she and her husband would have a baby?

Wow this is from two months ago.
First of all they were married but not yet living together. Her mention of not knowing man is illogical. If a woman were to be told that she was going to have a baby and she is about to marry her reaction would not be oh but I don’t know man. It certainly would not be my reaction. It would be yeah Joseph and I are going to have a son. So why would a woman who is legally married ask the question she did?

 

[hope]

I don’t know certainly not Tertullian . Helvisius was disputed by Jerome. I don’t think he is considered a church father any way. As you say there is no “Church Father” who was considered orthodox

 

[mcq72]

you say “about to marry”, yet we are not sure the time period, could have been more than a year away, further you take away the amazement of just what kind of child this was to be, one would be dumbfounded and the only way back to some assemblage of reality was to the how, and so she utters it. Also some render the reading, "which is being conceived "…Not sure we want to be presumptuous, or that Mary was, about her her future relations to Joseph , and how he would take all of this, yet she knew it takes two to tango, and considered it(Joseph, the “man”)…

Under ordinary circumstances your question is valid, but this was not ordinary. I mean the angel mentions nothing of the marriage, nor of Joseph here. mentions nothing about being set free from any vow of chastity (something most Jews did not do, much less enter marriage with such a vow). She took things as they were, in an unconsummated marriage, possibly still a far off…she was definitely in the present, and quite overwhelmed, and assumed nothing on the angels’s understanding .