T
thetazlord
Guest
The same Greek word can be translated “perfect, completed, justified.” It means the same thing. I use Strong’s Greek concordance, not a particular translation.
Now, back to the OP???
- Status
Now, back to the OP???
T
thetazlord
Guest
Again, I’m saying the “adelphos” exclusively is limited to uterine brothers. Rather, in the context of Mark 6:3 it does, because: a) it’s clear that the unbelieving Jew addressing Jesus is referring to His family unit (father, mother, brothers, sisters); & b) Jesus states that even members of His Own household didn’t believe Him. This would eliminate His step-father & mother, which would only leave His brothers & sisters (adelphos & adelphe) which are not the same as His “syggenes” in in v.4.
Yet, the Greek uses the exact same Greek word to describe Peter’s “brother” Andrew, & Martha & Mary’s “brother” Lazarus. Numerous other examples in the NT can be given too.
Actually, Vatican.va recognizes “syggenis” (with an “i” rather than an “e”) as “cousin” to describe Mary’s relationship to Elizabeth, which is a variation of “syggenes” to refer to relatives.
Again, this is why we have to consult the rest of Scripture to find out that Jesus’ brothers were His half-siblings.
It doesn’t matter. It’s clear that John was their father, which at the very least make them half-brothers, if not full-brothers. The point is that the same Greek word for “brother” is used for their relationship.
No, it’s based on examining EVERY passage of Scripture that discusses these “brothers” of Jesus - which there are many - to eliminate all the other possibilities of who these “adelphos” are. When you do that, you are left with them being half-brothers.
My apologies of my assumption on your religious ID. However, I read the Greek too, and compare it to ALL of the Scripture verses pertaining to Jesus’ brothers, and based on both, Jesus had half-brothers, as well as half-sisters.
Z
zz912
Guest
Oh, so Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were worried about being called heretics by the Catholic Church, that’s why they agreed with the perpetual virginity of Mary.
That’s the story we’re going with today???
P
pablope
Guest
That is right and rightly so…the Church also called Arius, Nestorius as heretics. The Church, being the guardian of truth…do you think it was wrong of the Church to call them heretics?
On Helvidius: Question for you Benhur…why would you take Helvidius over St.Jerome on the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Response of St. Jerome to Hevidius: newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
- I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.
You will notice too that lots of protestant beliefs and arguments against the CC are resurrected heresies…
Then I wonder…why in another thread…you tried refer to yourself as a “catholic”?
B
benhur
Guest
B
benhur
Guest
Don’t tell me .Tell Ambrose and similar folk who Helvidius was responding too. Understand but you might imply one calling is better by your term “soley”.
B
benhur
Guest
Can the inventor of sex/marriage be defiled by it in the best of intentions?
B
benhur
Guest
What made Helvidius a heretic ?
Partly for the same reason you take Jerome over Helvidius, cause you believe the perpetualness yourself (cause CC says so) and I the opposite. But also Jerome was biased towards virginity over marriage , not just for Mary but for all Christians, as the “gold”. Marriage was more like a necessary wood/stubble. Sexual intercourse is unclean hence the ascetisim of Jerome and Ambrose.
B
benhur
Guest
They bit of plenty enough. Dogmas develop over time and so does reformation. Let’s stick to the point ,why was Helvidius heretic ? Was it only Marion doctrine of perpetual virginity ? That is it ?
P
pablope
Guest
E
ericc
Guest
Actually my aim was to make the point that the word adelphos was actually used in the gospels to denote more than uterine brothers. Some people were adamant that the gospels could ONLY refer to uterine brothers until confronted with non-refutable evidence adelphos was used to describe the half-brother of Herod, Philip. You however, are enlightened to discern this fact and that is good.Yes, I’m aware of this, which actually supports that “half-brother” is a legitimately possible meaning to refer to Jesus’ “adelphos.” I’m glad to hear that you are at least acknowledging now that Jesus’ brothers could be His half-brothers!However, other “reputable Biblical scholars” also recognize the alternative meanings of “adelphos,” but they don’t eliminate half-brother because of a preconceived religious belief, but rather they exegetically examine the NT, based on the original Greek, to find out “who” these brothers of Jesus actually are, as well as whether or not Mary “remained” a perpetual virgin after the birth of Jesus. And based on objective exegesis, these “reputable Biblical scholars” have concluded - Scripturally - that the “brothers” of Jesus are His younger half-brothers, which even many ECF’s later concluded for the same reason, Scripturally.
Anyway, I think it is not necessary to argue whether the brethren of the Lord are cousins or half brothers. The Church think it not crucial to make that determination. All it matters is that these are NOT the biological children of Mary because through Tradition, Mary is taught to be EV.
I don’t think “many” ECFs believe Mary is NOT EV. Please share your sources.
B
benhur
Guest
Right. Actually other posters say that about him, but not really sure it is “official”. When was council ?Does it declare anathemas for contrary view ? Was it mandatory dogma ?
I am posting here for “us” not bucking against any council but if the shoe fits…
Yes, ascetics use this all the time and ignore the other end of the spectrum.
I think it is in his response to Jovinianus.
[/quote]
S
spedteacherita
Guest
Wmscott, please take this in love. I am one of those Protestants who have caused you to bang your head so much. I don’t think we’re so close-minded as that we want to “test the spirits” as we are admonished in 1 John 4:1. Over the span of my lifetime I’ve had many different denominations proclaim to me that they “had the Truth” and because of that I’ve learned to carefully “test” the histories and doctrines/dogmas taught by each. I continue to do that now.
Another poster asked why we Protestants throw out the Early Church Fathers and say that they were so long ago we don’t need them. I have just now received the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers and will be excitedly reading and studying them.
I pray God’s precious peace be with you as you interact with us here.
Thank you for taking time to help us understand the Catholic faith.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
You persist in ignoring the rest of what Jesus says there. Since the denotation of αδελφος is broad enough, both in Greek and in biblical Greek, to cover the πατρις and the συγγενεις, they cannot logically be ignored as referents of αδελφοι. Further, even were αδελφοι limited to the people of his οικος, that would not indicate any blood relationship between them and him.
Sorry, but, thus far, you have not demonstrated anything remotely resembling evidence that they were not Joseph’s earlier children or even members of his wider family.
It also uses the same term for all of Joseph’s “brothers”, not discriminating between half and full, for Christian “brethren” who are only metaphorically so, and, as already mentioned, as a direct parallel to συγγενης. All that you are demonstrating here is that the term αδελφος is so broad that it does not imply that they were children of Mary.
Sorry, I thought that you meant Lk 1:58. In Lk 1:36, the Codex Alexandrinus does have συγγενις, which is just a κοινη feminine variant of συγγενης, which the Sinaiticus, Byzantine Majority, and Textus Receptus all have in the same place. It is the same word.
Okay, so post a list of those here, and we can discuss them.
So why do you persist in reading it as if it were English? Neither in Greek as written by Greek authors nor in Greek as written in the NT (nor in Greek as read by the Greek fathers) was it in any way necessary that αδελφοι = συναιμοι συγγενεις.
E
ericc
Guest
Based upon your research on the half-brothers:Yes, I’m aware of this, which actually supports that “half-brother” is a legitimately possible meaning to refer to Jesus’ “adelphos.” I’m glad to hear that you are at least acknowledging now that Jesus’ brothers could be His half-brothers!
Who are the biological parents of:
James the James - Eusibius got that nailed down on to Joseph being the father
James/Joseph/Simon/Jude? How are their parents related to Jesus?
How did you arrive at the half-brothers status for the foursome?
E
Erich
Guest
Post #59 on this thread would seem to indicate that it was not for just a short time only.
H
HelenRose
Guest
I will pray for your journey. I made a similar journey. It is wise to ask questions and try to understand, not only what, but why people believe what they believe.
Like so many things, we all have our own interpretations and history that comes with just being human. Sometimes we give knee-jerk responses because we don’t listen carefully to what a person is really asking. Many people (most certainly not all) pretend to ask about our belief concerning the Blessed Mother. But what they are really doing is trying to cause a fight.
We, as Catholics, must learn that each person who asks about Mary, is a child of Mary. She doesn’t not defend herself in anger or distrust. She simply loves her Son and wants us to love Him as she does.
I would seriously ask that you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is a wonderful source for answering your questions. It has an easy format for searching for particular items. The footnotes are extensive. You will notice that the Bible is the main source of information.
B
benhur
Guest
Read the post .Very interesting. Just disagree in putting the Incarnation in restrictively human terms, as if God had intercourse with Mary, even in a spiritual sense.Yuk? Really ? Forgive me but so pagan ? Hoppefully none of early fathers used such arguments,but then again, ascetisism was formidable, like the Corinthians divorcing so they could be more “spiritual”. Yuk again.
Maybe we should just stick to scripture and discern what “do not touch her until He is born” may mean. Nothing yukky in your view of it or mine.
B
benhur
Guest
Reminds me of how FBI agents fighting counterfeit train. They look at real money til they are blue in the face. Over and over again, they look at the real thing. They do this until they can pass this test. They take a stack of bills and put in a counterfeit one. They must and do spot it immediately, without ever having studied the fake. The imitation just jumps out at them against such a sure and massive knowledge and experience of the real thing.
What we should be is knowledgeable of your position and sentiment, and portray it correctly when dialoguing, and vice versa.
Quite right. Don’t forget passionate, emotional also.
Is that a passionately skewed remark ? Most of what I have to say about Mary is quite catholic, even Catholic, as PR loves to point out in folks.
B
benhur
Guest
It is interesting but I am wondering if His deity really ever touched her physically, even in the womb, unless you think God is made up of Carbon atoms ? Perhaps His divinity was, like our spirits, inside of His human flesh, and all that “touched” Mary was His human flesh. He was fully God inside full man (flesh). Holy flesh yes, but divine flesh ? Don’t think so, at least it had not been glorified yet (as He told Mary M).
One did not have to be "immaculitized to touch something “holy” in Jewish tradition if I am not mistaken. They had purification, sin covering rites, not to mention some being “perfect” (Job).
It is different for us. We are cleansed and His spirit now dwells within us, unclothed by flesh,one spirit touching another, inhabiting flesh. This only happened temporarily and selectively in OT, unlike today (Jesus told the apostles that the HS " is with you now but will soon be in you".)
- Status