Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

[mcq72]

We are talking specifically about Jesus. I would not expect that we would say that it means siblings as to Jesus. I am not understanding the …only sometimes. Post 28 has a good definition.

I meant only sometimes do I feel negative about folks on the other side of the dialogue, that I get frustrated and think they won’t ever admit “brethren” can really mean brother, as in sibling…and as to Jesus, correct…not sure anyone would care so much except folks are really just trying to propose her perpetual virginity or not.

 

[hope]

I have posted definitions of the Greek word so have others as in post 28. Why you believe that we don’t admit that it can mean brother is surprising. It can mean a sibling but not in this usage. In this usage it does not mean a sibling. Did you read the link I supplied?

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72 . . .

I meant only sometimes do I feel negative about folks on the other side of the dialogue, that I get frustrated and think they won’t ever admit “brethren” can really mean brother, as in sibling…and as to Jesus, correct…not sure anyone would care so much except folks are really just trying to propose her perpetual virginity or not.

mcq72 . . .

I meant only sometimes do I feel negative about folks on the other side of the dialogue, that I get frustrated and think they won’t ever admit “brethren” can really mean brother . . .

WHO here isn’t admitting that “brother” CAN mean “brother” in a uterine sibling sense??

The Hebrew word which would have been used in Jesus’ culture, “ach” or “ah” (Aramaic, a Semitic language variant) meant not only uterine bothers, but cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fellow tribesmen, etc. etc.

• ach = brothers
• ach = cousins
• ach = second cousins
• ach = third cousins
• ach = distant relatives
• ach = fellow tribesmen
• ach = etc. etc.

.

The word “ach” (Hebrew) or “ah” (Aramaic), can mean utering “brother” to be sure, but “brother” in an ancient Hebrew culture had a very wide meaning.

There was no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “cousin” or “distant relative”!

.

Again, “brothers” means a LOT of different things in Scripture.

.

Some New Testament Examples Where (Greek) Adelphos or “Brothers” Are Used And HOW It Is Used . . . .

• Children of the same parents (Mt. 1:2, 14:3)
• Male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23, 7:26, Heb. 7:5)
• People of the same nationality (Acts 3:17, 3:22, Rom. 9:3)
• Any man, a neighbor (Lk. 10:29, Mt. 5:22, Mt. 7:3)
• Persons united by a common interest (Mt. 5:47)
• Persons united by a common calling (Rev. 22:9)
• All mankind (Mt. 25:40, Heb. 2:17)
• The disciples (Mt. 28:10, Jn. 20:17)
• Believers (Mt. 23:8, Acts 1:15, Rom. 1:13, 1st Thes. 1:4, Rev. 19:10)

.

mcq72 . . .

I meant only sometimes do I feel negative about folks on the other side of the dialogue, that I get frustrated and think they won’t ever admit “brethren” can really mean brother . . .

This is really a “feelings-based” position mcq72. It is not an argument.

Someone else could just as easily say . . . .

I meant only sometimes do I feel negative about folks on the other side of the dialogue, that I get frustrated and think they won’t ever admit “brethren” can really mean cousin or second cousin or fellow-tribesman, or some combination when talking about several “brothers”. . .

.

mcq72 . . .

not sure anyone would care so much except folks are really just trying to propose her perpetual virginity or not.

Well think about that argument for a moment mcq72.

If Jesus was conceived and born of a Virgin (and He was), it for all practical purposes . . . . CEMENTS Jesus’ position as True God and True Man. The Messiah.

This is WHY the Church has ALWAYS taught the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and ALL the Fathers affirmed it. Heretics like Cerenthus (Cerinthus) denied it.

As Randy Carson once said . . . . .

So, WHY is it SO important to you to deny this doctrine?

 

[Cathoholic]

Where in the Bible does it call anyone in a biologic sense, . . . the son or daughter of Mary?

Or where in the Bible does Scripture call ANY person in the Bible (other than Jesus, and in a biologic sense) a son or daughter of Mary?

 

[mcq72]

Well think about that argument for a moment mcq72.

If Jesus was conceived and born of a Virgin (and He was), it for all practical purposes . . . . CEMENTS Jesus’ position as True God and True Man. The Messiah.

This is WHY the Church has ALWAYS taught the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and ALL the Fathers affirmed it. Heretics like Cerenthus (Cerinthus) denied it.

As Randy Carson once said . . . . .

Thank you but that’s not perpetual virginity…In fact perpetual virginity helped feed some Gnostic thoughts.

 

[mcq72]

This is really a “feelings-based” position mcq72. It is not an argument.

Someone else could just as easily say . . . .

Correct, was not an argument at all and yes, was in contrast to flip side…and a “feeling” or disposition to be avoided, by both sides.

 

[mcq72]

WHO here isn’t admitting that “brother” CAN mean “brother” in a uterine sibling sense??

No one…

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72 . . .

Thank you but that’s not perpetual virginity…In fact perpetual virginity helped feed some Gnostic thoughts.

I didn’t say THIS taught the Perpetual Virginity.

This addressed your point that I quoted.

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72

Correct, was not an argument at all and yes, was in contrast to flip side…and a “feeling” or disposition to be avoided, by both sides.

False.

It is NOT equivalent on “both sides” and I have already explained why.

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72 . . .

I meant only sometimes do I feel negative about folks on the other side of the dialogue, that I get frustrated and think they won’t ever admit “brethren” can really mean brother . . .

.

Cathoholic in reply . . .

WHO here isn’t admitting that “brother” CAN mean “brother” in a uterine sibling sense??

.

mcq72 . . .

No one…

.

Cathoholic . . .

Then what was the purpose of you bringing it up??

 

[mcq72]

This addressed your point that I quoted.

not sure i follow…i said perpetual virginity drives interest in who brethren were…, you said virgin birth shows fully man fully God and was universal and why church teaches perpetual virginity…seems like you agree, that because the church teaches perpetualness, then or therefore brethren must be cousins, and not siblings.

 

[mcq72]

It is NOT equivalent on “both sides” and I have already explained why.

ok , but not sure what you mean

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72 . . . .

seems like you agree, that because the church teaches perpetualness, then or therefore brethren must be cousins, and not siblings.

Why would I agree with that?

What if Joses was a second cousin and Jude was a first cousin?

I agree with no such premise.

I just state what the Church teaches and leave it at that.

CCC 500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157
The Church has always understood these passages as NOT referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.
In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158
They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

(Emphasis mine)

"Close relations" is what the Church teaches.

 

[mcq72]

Then what was the purpose of you bringing it up??

you would have to start at beginning or backtrack a bit to see why it was posted

 

[mcq72]

then why is my opinion wrong that the “brethren” discussion is driven by a predisposition to perpetualness or not ?

That is, would it really matter if Mary was not perpetual virgin, “brethren” could fit all three theories, irregardless if she had other children or not (for cousin or step brother theories).

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72 . . .

would it really matter if Mary was not perpetual virgin, “brethren” could fit all three theories, irregardless if she had other children or not (for cousin or step brother theories).

Yes. It would really matter.

If YOU don’t think it matters, just affirm what the Church teaches.

As for me? It matters.

 

[mcq72]

what i am saying is that it would not matter so much who the brethren were if it were not for predisposition, for or against , her perpetual virginity

 

[mcq72]

yes . read article Brothers and Sisters of Jesus-His cousins

thank you…had some new stuff…it did affirm that church affirms/teaches Protevangelium in regards to her being virgin during, thru birth (not normal birth, remained “intact”) 3rd canon Lateran Council, though not affirming Prot. Joseph’s children…again, some fathers state belief that the birth was “normal”…there are a few fathers that credit Prot. for belief in such ever virgin (physical) understanding…

has interesting twist, to combat or address issue we bring up, that doctrine solidified during ascetic stage of church history, by citing those against perpetualness don’t believe in celibate priesthood…which is funny because it still does not address how such a celibate priesthood developed (the first church certainly did have married priests) so kind of like calling the big kettle calling the small pot black ( both anachronistic, but at least later reformers went back to first century background, which is fair, cause that is where ever virginity is claimed to be from). …and while giving evidences for belief that brothers are cousins, he simply states, “In early centuries (before Jerome) Mary was always understood to be virgin” (ever))…which is really what is in dispute, but shows why I say all this fuss over brethren is really due to substantiating her virginity, or not . That is, we enter with predispositions that color our search for truth on who the brethren are.

I did find a few articles that allude to ways of describing cousins in Hebrew and Aramaic by using circumlocution, that is not having one word but two or three to be concise, like “my mothers sister 's daughter”…some Arabic languages kin to Aramaic, have it down to two words.

on another note from different article citing a Catholic historian (Meier) who says Josephus in his writings definitely used Greek word for cousins 12 times, and was certain that when he used brethren then for James , it meant sibling. That is, Josephus did not let his culture color his historic writings in terms of brethren cultural nuance that we have discussed.

 

[mcq72]

If YOU don’t think it matters, just affirm what the Church teaches.

well my bad communicating . Should have said would this brethren thing have garnered so much attention, if not for ever virginity thing.

Of course everything in scripture should be studied and has a right understanding to be sought after. I would rather study the brethren thing by itself first , and then let the chips fall where they may, as to possible ever virginity. I mean it is possible she had marital relations just never had another child. But like another author cited, possibilities are one thing, but probabilities is better. Of course all teachings from scripture should be cohesive. And all teachings (tradition) should be scriptural. (fact is some fathers cite non scriptural sources for some understanding of her perpetualnness, especially during the birth, and her vow etc.)

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72 . . . . .

what i am saying is that it would not matter so much who the brethren were if it were not for predisposition, for or against , her perpetual virginity

This is a partial truth.

The reason I have a “predisposition” regarding the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is it is TRUE.

You have not presented one argument to support otherwise here. Not one.

I have given you (numerous times) the Church’s teaching. The same Church that canonized which books belong in the Bible that you are attempting to use to (unsuccessfully) refute this truth.

mcq72 . . . . .

what i am saying is that it would not matter so much who the brethren were if it were not for predisposition, for or against , her perpetual virginity

You just got done telling me what I thought.

You just got done telling me that it at least seemed that I thought the “brethren” MUST be cousins.

Here is what you said . . .

seems like you agree, that because the church teaches perpetualness, then or therefore brethren must be cousins, and not siblings.

That is part of WHY “the brethren” can’t be stated as “cousins”. The Church doesn’t state that (again see CCC 500 that I have quoted several times here). And the Church’s Bible does not say it either.

So I am not going to attempt to defend something (brethren = cousins) that the Church does not definitively teach.

Look. It matters not to me if you think they are cousins or not.

The only think I know definitively is WHO these “brethren” were NOT.

These “brethren” are NOT uterine siblings of the Lord.

Do I take the Church’s authority over you? Yes!
Do I take the unbroken teachings of the Fathers over you? Yes!
Do I take the evidence I see in Scripture supporting the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary over you? Yes!

There is no evidence anywhere for this invention of the Blessed Virgin Mary being anything other that a Perpetual Virgin.

I asked you earlier (but you did not answer).

What is your problem with this doctrine? Why have you wasted so much time and effort attempting to deny 2000 years of Christian doctrine? (I just don’t get this.)