Well, Jerome does cite 4 authors, and unfortunately we do not have their full writings on this matter.have provided evidence that Mary being ever virgin was taught before Jerome. Jerome does say that he got the teaching from a number of people including Polycarp. However, the idea that the brother’s mentioned in scripture are uterine brothers does not show up in writing until later. Each time it does it is refuted as heresy which it is
Not sure anything can be profitable then, save going over Catholic rationale.
So since it is mentioned nowhere all we would get is my opinion against your opinion. I already mentioned where they might have been.he mentioned are the only ones there however where why they weren’t there is debatable. I don’t think a discussion on that would be profitable. Fun but not enlightening.
Who refuted Protoevangelium ? As for the others side, east gate or child birth, I don’t know who said those things but the last was declared heresy. I suspect the others were too.Well, Jerome does cite 4 authors, and unfortunately we do not have their full writings on this matter.
Yes , siblings is refuted, so is Protevangelium for saying Joeph had children from previous marriage, or that Jesus just appeared, some say out of her side, others from the “east gate”. Many say she was not virgin due to child birth of Christ.
post 163:You have a 150 post in this thread. So if you have a rebuttal please share which post.
again, it is refuting parts of the James story: I think Clement of Alexandria affirms its influence but questions its accuracy of facts, that she was born in normal fashion, and not a virgin after birth/because of it. So to Iraneaus,Who refuted Protoevangelium ? As for the others side, east gate or child birth, I don’t know who said those things but the last was declared heresy. I suspect the others were too.
continued in next postThe tradition adopted that point of view–be it the Catholic one, the Orthodox one, or even the Reformation one (with Luther and Calvin)–until the nineteenth century, when Protestant biblical scholars started to question the consensus in the name of the historical-critical method of interpretation. Their views were widely adopted within the Protestant denominations, making of Mary’s perpetual virginity one of the great markers of dissent.
Ancient Greek considers how the family members of a same generation may be related, and distinguishes between an adelphos , “brother,” and an anepsios , “cousin.” Since the New Testament was written in ancient Greek, the sponsors of the Helvidian interpretation argue that wherever the word “brother” is used it refers to a true sibling. They concede that if we can suppose an original Hebrew or Aramaic that preceded the Greek text, we may accept that the New Testament authors felt bound to translate the original Hebrew or Aramaic expression word-by-word into Greek. But when such an original text or fixed expression cannot be supposed, they continue, we need to acknowledge that the authors of the New Testament made the distinction between “brother” and “cousin,” since they were writing in Greek.
The psychological and anthropological reality of speaking and writing in a language of another culture is, however, more complex. I was able to witness it when I was living in Abidjan, the major city of the Ivory Coast, in West Africa. It is today a big city of about four million inhabitants that grew up in a zone originally scarcely populated. The sparse original population was not able to absorb the waves of immigrants coming from all over the former French colonies in West Africa. The only language all these people had in common was French, and French became thus the native language of Abidjan. In most native languages of West Africa, no distinction is made between a “brother” and a “cousin,” whereas such a distinction exists in French. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Abidjan, whose mother tongue is French, who have been raised and educated in French, continue to use the French word for “brother” when they speak of a “cousin.” Using the French word for “cousin” would betray the way they envision social and family relationships. When the people of Abidjan want to specify that “brother” means a true blood sibling, they need to add “same father, same mother” ( même père , même mère ). Full siblings are a particular kind of brothers; they do not constitute the benchmark of brotherhood. The socio-cultural milieu of the authors of the New Testament is Judaism. So, we can accept the idea that, even if their text does not suppose a Hebrew or Aramaic substrate, in their use of Greek words they would naturally convey the way their own Judaic society and culture envision social and family relationships.
yes , but i think article is not sure if indeed there ever was a Hebrew of Aramaic text first…as my later article points out, historians now are going along lines of probability and no longer possibilityThis expresses what I have tried to say in answer to why did they use the word brother when the Greek had a word for cousin.
. Not always John 7:3 Mary is not present.In the NT the brothers of Jesus always appear in the company of Mary, His mother, and never with their parents, a highly unlikely situation,
Not certain of your point.It is highly improbable that two sisters would have had the same name;
Don’t understand what is being said here.Certainly do not understand how this is against Jesus being an only child.If the brothers of Jesus were actually cousins and three of them were among the Twelve, it could not be said, “His brothers were not believers in him” (John 7:5). Jacobs calls this “the crowning difficulty of this hypothesis” (519); efforts at arguing that only some of the brothers did not believe are most unconvincing. Furthermore, throughout the NT the brothers are named as a group quite distinct from the apostles;
The paragraph that followed this statement explained. It is that explanation that I was referring to.The psychological and anthropological reality of speaking and writing in a language of another culture is, however, more complex.
One sentence explanation that the article took a paragraph. Great jobI assume since the Aramaic culture at the time used a generic term for brother then it was natural when translating to the Greek to keep this cultural idiom.
Again, it is a critique on who the brethren were, specifically the cousin theory, as opposed to Joseph’s children theory, and third option, real siblings.Don’t understand what is being said here.Certainly do not understand how this is against Jesus being an only child.
More true if you are writing from an aramaic text, which I really doubt.I assume since the Aramaic culture at the time used a generic term for brother then it was natural when translating to the Greek to keep this cultural idiom.
Correct, nor does it say she took her nephew’s or step children, or “Joseph’s children” or the children of another Mary etc.would just add that nowhere in the NT do we get writing such as Mary took her children ……
or Jesus and his brothers went to their mother