JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[Lanman87]

What is the reference that someone call Mary an "ever virgin" circa 110? You may have put it in the thread somewhere but this thread is now 19 pages long so it would probably be quicker just to repost/relink the source.

Bump

 

[Josiah]

Waiting for atpollard (and others) to prove the Greek word "adelphos" MUST mean "shares the same biological mother."

I gave the definitions in koine Greek dictionaries (but you ignored) so let's see if that's the obvious meaning of the word in the NT?



Let's see how the word is used in the NT...
Prove that in each case, "Brother" means "share the same biological mother"
In each case, the word is the Greek "adelphos"

Matthew 12:49-50

Matthew 5:22-24

Matthew 7:3-5

Matthew 18:15, 21, 35

Acts 22:13

1 Corinthians 1:1

1 Corinthians 5:11

1 Corinthians 8:11,13

1 Corinthians 16:12

2 Corinthians 1:1

2 Corinthians 2:13

Ephesians 6;21

Philippians 2:25

Philemon 16

1 Peter 3:12

2 Peter 3:15

Revelation 1:19


Brother, there are many, many more. In all the above, is the meaning obviously, "share the same biological mother?" Indeed, this word is very common in the NT and very, very rarely does it apply to people who share ANY biological parent. In secular Greek, soldiers called each other "brother." The word adelphos CAN mean "shares the same biological mother" but FAR MORE OFTEN in koine Greek (and in the Bible) it does not indicate sharing either parent. You cannot prove Mary had lotsa sex and kids just because there are persons called "adelphos" of Jesus. Nope. It's a baseless apologetic.





.

 

[Lanman87]

Waiting for atpollard (and others) to prove the Greek word "adelphos" MUST mean "shares the same biological mother."

Many words, both in Greek, English, and many languages have multiple meanings. Can you prove "adelphos" DOESN'T mean "shares the same biological mother". No you can't.

All we can do is look at the context of who is talking, who is being talked about, and what is being referenced to form a "most logical" conclusion of the correct meaning of a word that can have multiple meanings. Short of having the person who wrote it down in front of you to ask which meaning they meant for it to be, there is no "proof" one way or the other. All we can have are inferences based on context and normal use cases.

You can usually tell from context if someone is calling someone "brother" in a figurative way. Even in modern English, if we have a particularly close friendship with someone we may call them "Brother". Or if they are a fellow believer in Christ we may call in each other "Brother" and "Sister" (which was the practice of my rural Baptist upbringing).

Now if you take a look at where the New Testament refers to Jesus's "Siblings". It almost always refers to a close familial relationship.

Take for instance Mark 6:3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?' And they were offended at him.

In this context Jesus is being ridiculed in His hometown. They are basically saying "Who does he think he is?" "He isn't any better than the rest of us". He is a carpenter, His mom is Mary, and we know his brother and sisters.

I believe the text says "Brothers" and means "Brothers". The usage seems to indicate brothers and there is a better Greek word for "cousins" or "relatives" (συγγενής or suggenes) that would the writers would have used to indicate someone not of immediate family.

That leaves the possibility that James, Joses, Judas, Simon and the sisters are step brothers and sisters. Which is a more reasonable explanation if you believe in the perpetual virginity.

However, one of the issues with "tradition" in this regard is that there is no set tradition on who James and the rest are. Some say that they were step-siblings from an earlier marriage of Joseph. Some claim they are cousins, which was popularized in the 4th Century by Jerome.

Traditions tells us who they were not (Children of Mary) but it doesn't tell us who they are. I think I'll just go with the Bible and call them Brothers and Sisters.

 

[Josiah]

Many words, both in Greek, English, and many languages have multiple meanings. Can you prove "adelphos" DOESN'T mean "shares the same biological mother". No you can't.

It CAN mean "shares the same mother' (although rarely does). It NEED NOT mean that (indeed, rarely does it even indicate that EITHER biological parent is shared).

THEREFORE, it cannot be argued that because someone is referred to as "brother" ergo they have the same mother.... That argument only is possible if that's the only meaning and usage of the word.... which it is not (as I proved).... indeed, it RARELY has that meaning and usage.



.

 

[RichWh1]

Is "fratres"= to or likened to brethren?
Male only?

The word in the Greek for brother is adelphos or adelphoi (pl) Frater is Latin!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RichWh1]

That's latin.
Not greek.

So is Frater! Latin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pinacled]

So is Frater! Latin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally frat(er)nity was Latin far as I can see. After Greco Roman culture merged in a collegiate caste system the uses of this term was altered.

 

[atpollard]

Josiah,

You are missing the point that I keep making. You are arguing with me about how I should translate the Greek word and crying foul at the meaning of the English word that every team of translators that has ever translated the Greek has used.

My point is that all of the expert translators from all languages that I know of and all time periods, including translators that had access to other words in other languages, all chose to translate that particular Greek word used in that particular context as “male relatives sharing a biological parent” (“brothers” in English). I am not claiming that I am more of an expert on translating Koine Greek than you or they, I am merely questioning whether YOU are more of an expert than those that translated the early manuscripts into the Latin Vulgate or the team that translated the Greek into Spanish.

Why is it no translation agrees with your knowledge of what the original author “really meant” ... that “brothers” meant “cousins”? Why are John, Luke and James all trying to deceive us into believing that James was the brother of Jesus?

 

[Josiah]

crying foul at the meaning of the English word

Brother, one possible meaning of a modern English word is irrelevant. The Bible was not written in modern English.

But brother, even in modern ENGLISH, the word 'brother" does not mean exclusively "shares the same mother." EVEN IF the Bible was written in modern American English.... even if all pastors and theologians since the First Century have studied modern English in order to understand the message of Scripture... even then, your point is wrong... my brother, not even in modern English is that the exclusive meaning of the word.

Brother, TRANSLATORS are limited to words available in the language.... and that word may well have a someone different meaning or different connotations. Have you ever heard the expression, "Something got lost in the translation?" It may be that the word here in Japanese may have somewhat different possible meanings or implications or connotations than a certain Greek word.... but a translator into Japanese may be limited in choices available to him.


Brother, I gave you the definitions from a Greek dictionary. I showed you ways the word is used in the Bible itself - and you KNOW that's not "shares the same mother."


Brother, the very same verse says that Jesus is the SON of Joseph.... now a common meaning here would be that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. But you don't believe that... "son" here has nothing whatsoever to do with biology. So why must "brother" mean biological? Why do you insist "son" has nothing to do with biology but "brother" MUST mean biology? According to you, every translation in English is wrong to translate "wios" as "son" because Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph - the word is not used in that sense?

 

[Lanman87]

It CAN mean "shares the same mother' (although rarely does). It NEED NOT mean that (indeed, rarely does it even indicate that EITHER biological parent is shared).

THEREFORE, it cannot be argued that because someone is referred to as "brother" ergo they have the same mother.... That argument only is possible if that's the only meaning and usage of the word.... which it is not (as I proved).... indeed, it RARELY has that meaning and usage.



.

I believe the context indicates that they are brothers. Whether they are biological brothers or step brothers isn't specified. But it certainly seems like the usage indicates that they are biological brothers. Pointing out Jesus, Mary, and His brothers lumps them all together as related in any normal usage/conversation.

If I was standing in a room with my mother and siblings and someone walked in and said, "This is lanman87, this is his mom, and these are his brother and sisters". You would assume, under normal circumstances, we are biological siblings from the same mother.

 

[atpollard]

Brother, one possible meaning of a modern English word is irrelevant. The Bible was not written in modern English.

But brother, even in modern ENGLISH, the word 'brother" does not mean exclusively "shares the same mother." EVEN IF the Bible was written in modern American English.... even if all pastors and theologians since the First Century have studied modern English in order to understand the message of Scripture... even then, your point is wrong... my brother, not even in modern English is that the exclusive meaning of the word.

Brother, TRANSLATORS are limited to words available in the language.... and that word may well have a someone different meaning or different connotations. Have you ever heard the expression, "Something got lost in the translation?" It may be that the word here in Japanese may have somewhat different possible meanings or implications or connotations than a certain Greek word.... but a translator into Japanese may be limited in choices available to him.


Brother, I gave you the definitions from a Greek dictionary. I showed you ways the word is used in the Bible itself - and you KNOW that's not "shares the same mother."


Brother, the very same verse says that Jesus is the SON of Joseph.... now a common meaning here would be that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. But you don't believe that... "son" here has nothing whatsoever to do with biology. So why must "brother" mean biological? Why do you insist "son" has nothing to do with biology but "brother" MUST mean biology? According to you, every translation in English is wrong to translate "wios" as "son" because Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph - the word is not used in that sense?

You are missing the point that I keep making.

 

[atpollard]

Brother, one possible meaning of a modern English word is irrelevant. The Bible was not written in modern English.

But brother, even in modern ENGLISH, the word 'brother" does not mean exclusively "shares the same mother." EVEN IF the Bible was written in modern American English.... even if all pastors and theologians since the First Century have studied modern English in order to understand the message of Scripture... even then, your point is wrong... my brother, not even in modern English is that the exclusive meaning of the word.

Brother, TRANSLATORS are limited to words available in the language.... and that word may well have a someone different meaning or different connotations. Have you ever heard the expression, "Something got lost in the translation?" It may be that the word here in Japanese may have somewhat different possible meanings or implications or connotations than a certain Greek word.... but a translator into Japanese may be limited in choices available to him.


Brother, I gave you the definitions from a Greek dictionary. I showed you ways the word is used in the Bible itself - and you KNOW that's not "shares the same mother."


Brother, the very same verse says that Jesus is the SON of Joseph.... now a common meaning here would be that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. But you don't believe that... "son" here has nothing whatsoever to do with biology. So why must "brother" mean biological? Why do you insist "son" has nothing to do with biology but "brother" MUST mean biology? According to you, every translation in English is wrong to translate "wios" as "son" because Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph - the word is not used in that sense?

Thank you for again refuting an argument that I am not making.

 

[Josiah]

I believe the context indicates that they are brothers. Whether they are biological brothers or step brothers isn't specified.

Then it cannot be argued that these ARE biological children of Mary BECAUSE the koine Greek word "adelphos" is used of them. THAT IS MY POINT. The apologetic that they must be children of Mary because the word "adelophos" is used is wrong.

I have never argued that it's not POSSIBLE. I've not even argued it's not LIKELY. I've simply pointed out the claim that THE BIBLE STATES they are biological children of MARY is wrong.

And I've placed this into historic context. The Bible does not say if Mary ever had sex or other children. It's biblically POSSIBLE but not biblically stated. The Bible is silent. Either way. BUT, I've noted, Tradition is not. We have nothing, no other belief, until about 1800 ... all Christians believed She remained a virgin and had no other children. Does that make that belief true? As I have repeatedly posted, no - but that is the universal, ancient,consistent faith of Christians. Do we know that Matthew is Scripture? No, but that is the universal, ancient, consistent faith of Christians. Do we know Jesus never married or had kids? No, but we know the universal, ancient,consistent belief of Christians. There ARE things we don't know from words in a collection Tradition believes is Scripture... and I hold it's good to consider that Tradition. But as I said, I don't regard this as critical..... why some American Evangelicals are SO VERY motivated to speak about the intimate relations of this couple.






.

 

[RichWh1]

Josiah

It can be argued; it just cannot be proven beyond a doubt
Besides I think that Mary probably did marry Joseph and became his wife and bore other children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Josiah

It can be argued; it just cannot be proven

Exactly. And that's been my point for nearly 400 posts....


Those claiming that the Bible states Mary married and had lotsa sex and kids are... well.... just plain WRONG. The Bible states no such thing. Yes, modern English translations use an English word (unheard of in Biblical times) which could IMPLY such but "imply" is not state and no one in the First Century knew, spoke or wrote English. What a modern English word MAY imply is, to be blunt, irrelevant.

Those who insist that She married, had lotsa sex and other kids do not stand on Scripture. The same can be said of those who claim the opposite.

Now, it must be noted that there is very strong, very ancient, very universal Tradition (belief) unchallenged until the 19th Century (and then by radical liberals intent on denying the Virgin Birth and divinity of Our Lord). And that Tradition was that She did NOT have sex or other children. Is this proof of anything? Of course not! But it should be noted. Just as when we ask if Paul's Epistle to the Romans is Scripture, we have not one word concerning that in the Bible BUT we have very strong, very ancient, very universal Tradition (belief) that it is. The very Bible you and I look to is embraced as Scripture based on Tradition.... just as is the belief that Mary remained a virgin. To me, Tradition must not simply be tossed aside (unless we also want to toss aside Scripture and many things we hold - including that Jesus never married or had sex, an issue not addressed in Tradition's Bible).

And I'll add again, yet again, yet once more.... frankly, I don't know why modern Evangelicals (almost exclusively American and Canadian Evangelicals) are SO interested in Mary's intimate life with Joseph. Why do they care so very, very, very much? To denounce 1800 years of solid, ancient, ecumenical faith (indeed, more solid than what books make up the Bible)? Why the profound need to insist Mary had sex? What drives that intense need they feel to insist on that?


IMO, truth matters. Honesty matters. If we make dogmatic insistences - especially that so profoundly contradict such solid, ancient, ecumentical faith - that requires more than weak eisegesis of ENGLISH words and personal feelings about what most adults do and don't do. Perhaps we disagree.



Blessings


Josiah




.

 

[Lanman87]

Then it cannot be argued that these ARE biological children of Mary BECAUSE the koine Greek word "adelphos" is used of them. THAT IS MY POINT. The apologetic that they must be children of Mary because the word "adelophos" is used is wrong.

Yes, but the context, under normal usage, does imply that Mary is the mother of them all. As I said, "If I was standing in a room with my mother and siblings and someone walked in and said, "This is lanman87, this is his mom, and these are his brother and sisters". You would assume, under normal circumstances, we are biological siblings from the same mother."

That is why so many people assume that they were the children of Mary. It is the normal meaning of the context in which it is written.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, but the context, under normal usage, does imply that Mary is the mother of them all.

Well, perhaps, in English.....

But that's different that insisting (quite dogmatically) that the Bible states Mary had lotsa sex and kids.

See post 395.

so many people assume that they were the children of Mary.

Well, for only the past 200 years, almost exclusively among American and Canadian "Evangelicals." But you know what they say about the word "ASSUME" (LOL).

And again, I think it appropriate to bring Tradition into the discussion. As I note in post 395 (and elsewhere). I don't think that should just be automatically ignored (without placing what is Scripture into peril and MANY other things).




.

 

[atpollard]

.

 

[Lanman87]

Well, perhaps, in English.....

It is my understanding that it does in the Geek as well.

The entire argument to support "Tradition" is that Brothers and Sisters doesn't really mean "Brothers and Sisters". That was the argument of Jerome in the 4th Century and it is still the argument of "Traditionalist" today.

From what I can tell the Marian Traditions, including ever-virgin, started sometime in the 2nd Century as a folk tale/legend that was written down in the Protoevangelium of James and spread among a few churches. The notion was later given more credence as Theologians speculated that Mary was the "New Ark". Those two things, plus the idea that sex, even married sex, is a necessary evil to procreate sort of fused together to form the Marian doctrines of Ever-Virginity and the Immaculate Conception.

Because sex, even in marriage, was considered a "necessary evil" it was unthinkable that Mary, The Mother of God, would engage in such practices or have any sin in her whatsoever, including original sin. Hence the tradition of Mary being an "Ever Virgin" and the "Immaculate conception" So what started out as a legend had turned into "Tradition" by the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

That is kind of ironic because in Jewish culture married sex was considered holy and sacred and children were considered blessings from God. Having more children would have shown Mary to be "highly favored" in Jewish culture. And if she had remained celibate after the Birth of Christ, she wouldn't have been a very good Jewish wife.

 

[Josiah]

It is my understanding that it does in the Geek as well.

Nope. See post 382. Actually RARELY in koine Greek does the word mean "shares the same mother" or even "shares any biological parent."

The entire argument is that Brothers and Sisters doesn't really mean "Brothers and Sisters".

No. Not at all. My "argument" is that "adelphos" does NOT only or necessarily mean "shares the same biological mother," The claim I'm responding to in this regard is the claim that the modern English word "BROTHER" can imply the same mother ERGO it's a dogmatic fact that Mary had lotsa sex and kids because it is noted that Jesus had "brothers." I have disagreed with that apologetic;.


See posts 395 and 397






.