Yes, as I said. Your earlier comment was that “Mark, Luke & John specifically use the Greek words for “relatives” & “kinsmen” rather than “adelphos,” when referring to non-uterine relationships.” Since the Bible also uses αδελφος for non-uterine relationships, the half-brothers mentioned above, αδελφος did not mean only a uterine relationship.
That wasn’t my point. My point was that if the Gospel writers wanted refer to Jesus’ “brothers” as something other than uterine siblings, they could have used other Greek words that they themselves use in the Gospels for “relatives” & “kinsmen” (syggenes), “cousins” (anepsios or syggenis - with an “i”), such as Mark, Luke, John, & later Paul uses these available Greek words.
Look again at what? I commented that it is in Mark 6, not mentioning the verse, in regard to your claim that "The Gospel writers, as well as the apostle Paul, use different & specific Greek words for “relatives,” “cousins,” & “kinsmen,”. The word translated as “relatives” and “kinsmen” and apparently “cousins” there is just one term: συγγενης.
Yeah, you commented that “adelphos” is used in Mark 6, but what I getting across was that it’s used in
verse 3, while “syggenes” is used in
verse 4 to refer to Jesus’ “relatives” not His “brothers.” Keep in mind that in both verses that Mark is quoting people - an unbelieving Jew in v.3 & Jesus in v.4. So, if Mark (quoting Jesus) in v.3 was simply referring to Jesus’ “relatives” like he is in v.4, he could have simply used “syggenes,” like he did in v.4, instead of “adelphos.” Likewise, if Jesus’ “brothers” were actually his “relatives,” Mark could have simply used “adelphos” in v.4, like he did in v.3. Rather, Mark used a
different & separate Greek word in v.3 than he did in v.4, which would have been unnecessary if he was talking about the same kind of “relatives” of Jesus in the two verses.
Since 6:3 uses the broad term αδελφοι and the diaeresis in 6:4 has πατρις and συγγενης and οικια, it is singularly illogical to assume that αδελφος means one of those three and not the others.
Refer to my above comments. Although “adelphos” can refer to broader groups of non-uterine individuals, in the context of Mark 6:3, he’s more specifically referring to the members of Jesus’ “household” along with Jesus’ step-father & mother. Exegetically, Mark 6:3 is addressing a family unit (Jesus’ step-father, His mother, His half-brothers, & His half-sisters), not Jesus extended family and/or kinsmen.
Reread the link. It is not a dogma for the Orthodox. This is why individual Church Fathers disagreeing with the belief in her virginity is not problematic within Orthodoxy.
And it’s because of the ECF’s disagreeing is why Christendom doesn’t “universally” agree that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, because Scripture neither explicitly states that, nor supports it. All Scripture states is that the mother of the Messiah (which turned out to be Mary) was to be a virgin during her pregnancy & at His birth, which is what both Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:25 states. Nothing in either passage says anything, nor implies, that Mary “remained” a virgin after His birth. This has to be “read into” Scripture. However, Scripture “does” support that after the birth of Jesus, Mary did
not retain her virginity & that Mary & Joseph consummated their marriage & had children together like a normal Jewish couple who would have obeyed the Law of Moses to “be fruitful & multiply.” In the absence of any command from God or an angel to “refrain” from consummating their marriage & having children together, there is no Scriptural reason to believe otherwise.
It neither “supports” nor “contradicts” this: it simply fails to address the topic.
Actually, Scripture doesn’t support it (that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth). But you only find this out when you examine ALL of the related passages in Scripture, not just “some” of them.
Sorry, but Scripture never says that. There is no such “fact” in evidence, and your repeated attempt to impose an English-language conception of “uterine brother” onto αδελφος contradicts not only the Greek usage of the term but the biblical Greek usage of the term.
Not true. James & John were uterine “brothers” & the exact same Greek term “adelphos” is used to describe their relationship. Same with Peter being the “adelphos” of Andrew, & Lazarus being the “adelphos” of Martha & Mary. I understand that “adelphos” doesn’t always mean uterine brother. I’m not making the assumption it does. That’s why you have to examine “all” the related verses in Scripture to find out “who” these “brothers” are, rather than simply “dismiss” that the “adelphos” of Jesus does not refer to uterine brothers, simply because one’s preconceived religious view says otherwise. When you begin with the Word of God, rather than beginning with the religious view, you’ll discover that Scripture actually supports that they are Jesus’ half-brothers, and not any other relationship.
In linguistic terms, in terms of what Scripture alone says, it is possible for the αδελφοι mentioned to have been Mary’s other children. However, it is certainly not necessary for native-speaking Greeks to take it that way, as demonstrated by the fact that so very many of them have not.
Agreed, so that’s why you have to examine every relevant passage of Scripture that deals with Jesus’ “brothers” to discover that they are Jesus’ half-brothers, which unfortunately, space here doesn’t allow.
