Is it possible to lose salvation?

[RomeSweetHome]

To this I only say you are a liar!

I only lost to one who refuses to accept the definitions as given and not implied.

Seriously, you are calling others liars on this? You haven't addressed the data that you have been buried with here over the past several weeks of actual Greek usage of the day, or the extraordinarily weighty testimony of history. Instead, you've ignored, obfuscated, raised red hearings, or spouted flat out falsehoods while claiming they were unalterable facts. And then you call other people liars. Matthew 7:2, man. Matthew 7:2.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Evidence just from the pages of Scripture (never mind the overwhelming weight of history):

1. John 19:27, when Jesus gives Mary to John and he takes her as his own mother (eis ta idia), doesn't make historical sense if Jesus had younger brothers from Mary who would have been legally responsible for the widow Mary once Jesus was gone. I've seen attempts to read this as a merely metaphorical account, but I assume you're not that kind of protestant given your other beliefs. I've also seen attempts to spin this as Jesus making moves in light of his brothers' unbelief, but we know that they were very quickly restored after his resurrection, as they became the leaders in the Jerusalem church. Jesus in his ommiscience knew that, of course - no need to give his mother a new adopted (believing) son to care for her the rest of her days if she had other children who also quickly became and remained lifelong believers.

It would make historical sense. As his brothers were still in unbelief He passed on Mary to one at the cross.

But the problems of your theory:

1. Only Lazarus was ever explicitly called the disciple Jesus loved, so in all probabilities it was Lazarus who took in Mary.

2. As John was going to go running around evangelizing and was never married, he had no household (remember he was taken when he was inhis fathers home so he had no home.)

3. And we simply do not know how long it took for James, Joses, Simon, Judah and Jesus' at least 2 half sisters to become believers.

4. Lazarus had a home and was well established, was deeply loved by Jesus, had sisters in his house to care for Mary if he should leave so sorry.

2. Luke 1:34. Mary's response to Gabriel's announcement that she will conceive demonstrates her intent to remain a virgin. As St. Augustine observed about this passage, "This is shown by the words which Mary spoke in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How, says she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin." CHURCH FATHERS: Of Holy Virginity (St. Augustine).

Yeah I read that allegation of Mary. But it doesn't mean that in the least. God is careful and Mary spoke in the present, if she was telling the angel she was to remain a virgin, God would have inspired the perfect tense!

And the argument brought up in two books written by Catholic scholares that she was a virgin serving oin teh temple, is simply a bold face lie! The temple had no "virgin class" in the temple, Jews looked down on women and would not let them in the temple proper.

Against those, you have "brothers" (which, as we've discussed at length already, carried much broader semantic range in the Greek of the NT authors than just biological siblings), and "until" (which, we know from its usage in Matthew itself as well as other passages, does not here carry the connotation that a change happens after the "until" event occurs - as even Reformers like Calvin readily acknowledged, "no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.” [REBUTTED] Top Objections to Mary's Perpetual Virginity)

Yes Adolphos can mean fellow countryman, related by labor or ideology or fellow Christian but in the NT it never meant cousin as I showed you.

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

ἀδελφός​

Transliteration
adelphos (Key)
Pronunciation
ad-el-fos'

Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From ἄλφα (G1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)

Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 1:144,22
KJV Translation Count — Total: 346x
The KJV translates Strong's G80 in the following manner: brethren (226x), brother (113x), brother's (6x), brother's way (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Sorry, but OT usages are so very weak and could refer to facts they were fellow Israelites.

Context matters. And to say that adelphos does mean cousins etc. throws every passage into question! No one with a lick of common sense seeing the Matthew context would think the rabbis were calling :Father, Mother, and then cousins. It takes a l;ot of agonizing biblical twisitng to come to that conclusion.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Good book. Sounds like you didn't read it (at least not in good faith) if that's your takeaway. And not to be rude (sincerely), but as you are one who now admits he doesn't even have the linguistic skills to look up what words are in the septuagint, are you in any position to critique the exegetical and hermeneutical work of others who are obviously more trained than you in the original languages?

Well as there was no mention of any expertise in any biblical naguages, and I have had a year of Greek and Hebrew, I can say I am on par with Him.

Yes I did read with a critical view. Just as you would if you were aked to read a book condemning Roman Catholicism as a pagan religion.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Seriously, you are calling others liars on this? You haven't addressed the data that you have been buried with here over the past several weeks of actual Greek usage of the day, or the extraordinarily weighty testimony of history. Instead, you've ignored, obfuscated, raised red hearings, or spouted flat out falsehoods while claiming they were unalterable facts. And then you call other people liars. Matthew 7:2, man. Matthew 7:2.

History doesn't mean truth. And we cannot compare OT usage with NT usage. One example is the word atone. It does not mean the same in Greek as in Hebrew and without looking I would suspect in the LXX they used teh Greek word "atone" for the Hebre word atone, though they have two seperate meanings. Especially when Strongs, Kittles 10 volume Greek New Testament, Wuests 4 volume Greek New Testaments, Dobsons Greek primer do not add cousins or any near relative in teh deffinition of adelphos.

And if you wish to keep reminding me of my error on syngenes, feel free.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well as I do not believe what you are saying, I can't find an example, but Mary sister is the fourth person at the cross, and though her name is not mentioned it is Salome. Even your vaunted roman scholars place the comma after Mary's sister and not after Mary, wife of cleophas, that makes it a fourth person.

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, AND his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

WRONG.
There wouldn’t be an “AND” after “his mother” – then a comma - then another “AND” after “wife of Clopas”.

“AND his mother’s sister (comma), Mary the wife of Clopas (comma), AND Mary Magdalene”

Mary, the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus is Mary’s “adelphe”.
Salome was the wife of Zebedee, the mother of James and John.

I didn't prove it- the bible did! And if FAQILED means proven- I agree!

The Bible doesn’t “prove” That Mary had marital relations with Joseph.
It doesn’t even imply it . . .

Well on that I agree. As is proven by Michal when death ended her barrenness for death forbade her from getting pregnant.

Correct.

Neither does Matt. 1:25 prove that Joseph ever had relations with Mary . . .

Now prove empirically that Jospeh did not have intercourse with Mary.

There’s NO such thing as “empirical proof” – only empirical evidence.

Perhaps you shouldn’t use words that you don’t understand – like “empirical” . . .

In Michals case death ended her barren state (death does that 100%) In Jospeh and Mary's case, the normal, natural usual and customary understanding is that Jospeh did not do something until something happened, then with no barriers, He proceeded to do it.
Tell you what, tomorrow at Mass, go to 100 people at random and ask them what this phrase means, " John did not have sex with his wife until after the baby was born (we have to modify it vor humanly they had to have sex to conceive) See what happens and learn something. Jesus did not write to intellectuals and deep philosophers, but to ordinary people, who understand words and their use in ordinary ways!

Unlike a typical rebellious Protestant, I don’t get my theology by taking straw-polls from friends.

No wonder why you’re so confused . . .

 

[Ezra]

Virgins can't masturbate.

have you completely lost your mind?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Not the claim. The claim is that, based on the Gospels, we know of only one Simon in the family of Jesus--the "brother" identified in the gospels. And Hegessipus has this individual in mind given what he says about him. So based on the data, Hegessipus knows of this "brother" of Jesus to be a cousin.

If he had full data, if it was corrupted , etc.etc. Once again James, Joses, Symeon and Judah were very common names.

Show me non -Catholic Greek scholares who define in their linguistics works(like a concordance or lexicon or Greek dictionary) that adelphos can mean cousin, niece, nephew, aunt uncle, then you have a leg to stand on.

Why would the rabbis mention Mary and Jospeh and in context talk about brothers and sisters and not mention the "cousins" parents? That is just poor grammar and utter confusion to prove a point. Especially when they knew the family well. there was no proof that Salome and Joeph and Mary's brothers ands sisters were living in Galilee.

 

[MonoBiblical]

have you completely lost your mind?

Perhaps, I have.

It is a fact that virgins are females and cannot masturbate successfully. It helps when raising daughters.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

All these ae you playing with sentence construction

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Normal usual reading places 4 women at the cross. God is not the author of confusion like you Romanists are. He wouldn't use the word for relative is several places and then swap to the term that means family brothers here. this is a disingenuous ploy of Rome.

Again, repeating things and ignoring the responses you've been given doesn't make those things suddenly true. As was discussed previously, grammatically the best reading is that there are three people identified in John 19:25. The author of John 19 uses the word "kai" between each person he identifies in that passage. "Mary the wife of Clopas" is functioning to describe the person identified as Mary's "sister."

As for God not being the author of confusion, same thing, discussed and answer went unrebutted. The problem isn't God - its modernists' attempt, like yours, to ignore actual Koine usage of the day, the testimony of Scripture, and the historical record.

adelphē (Key)
Pronunciation
ad-el-fay'

KJV Translation Count — Total: 24x

The KJV translates Strong's G79 in the following manner: sister (24x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. a full, own sister
2. one connected by the tie of the Christian religion

1. Bible
2. Lexicons
3. New Testament Greek Lexicon - NAS
4. Adelphe

Adelphe​

ad-el-fay'
Parts of SpeechNoun Feminine

Adelphe Definition​

NAS Word Usage - Total: 25

1. a full, own sister
2. one connected by the tie of the Christian religion

You keep ignoring usage and pulling from generic definitions as if they trump. That's silly, but since it's your game, here's Strong and McClintock again--number 2 after biological sibling is cousin or other relative (excerpting just those, they identify many more non-biological uses of brother).

Brother from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

Brother from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

www.biblicalcyclopedia.com

Brother​

Brother (Heb. אָח [see AcH-]; Gr. ἀδελφός), a term so variously and extensively applied in Scripture that it becomes important carefully to distinguish the different acceptations in which it is used.

1. It denotes a brother in the natural sense, whether the offspring of the same father only (Ge 42:15; Ge 43:3; Jg 9:21; Mt 1:2; Lu 3:1,19), or of the same mother only (Jg 8:19), or of the same father and mother (Ge 42:4; Ge 44:20; Lu 6:14, etc.)

2. A near relative or kinsman by blood, e.g. a nephew (Ge 14:16; Ge 13:8; Ge 24:12,15), or in general a cousin (Mt 12:46; Joh 7:3; Ac 1:14; Ga 1:19), or even a husband.

And then on sister:

Sister from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

Sister from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

www.biblicalcyclopedia.com

Sister
Sister (אָחוֹת, achoth'; ἀδελφή), a term often having, in the style of the Hebrews, equal latitude with brother (q.v.). It is used, not only for a sister by natural relation from the same father and mother, but also for a sister by the same father only, or by the same mother only, or a near relation only (Mt 13:56; Mr 6:3). Sarah is called sister to Abraham (Ge 12:13; Ge 20:12), though only his niece according to some, or sister by the father's side according to others. By the Mosaic law (Le 18:18) it is forbidden to wed the sister of a wife, i.e. to marry two sisters; or, according to some interpreters, to marry a second wife, having one already; literally, "Thou shalt not take a wife over her sister to afflict her," as if to forbid polygamy. Sometimes the word sister expresses a resemblance of conditions and of inclinations. Thus the prophets call Jerusalem the sister of Sodom and of Samaria, because that city delighted in the imitation of their idolatry and iniquity (Jer 3:8,10; Eze 16:45). So Christ describes those who keep his commandments as his brothers and his sisters (Mt 12:50).

Douay-Rheims Bible
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

This is consistent with the above.

Catholic Public Domain Version
And standing beside the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

As discussed above, not the best rendition, considering there is no "kai" in the text of John 19:25 before reference "Mary of Cleophas."

And we dealt with that. Even little children realize that once death occurs, women cannot have children. The renderinf of that passage to people with a bare minmum of knowledge says that Michal was barren to the time of her death. Maybe you need to getg a biology book.

Still playhing ignorant, I see! When that was written, no one knew where Moses' grave was. Sad you do not know how to understand your mother language.

You miss the point. Usage shows that Matthew 1:25, in context, does not speak to what Mary and Joseph did after Jesus was born. This is Calvin's point: "This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." That last sentence seems particularly apt.

You have completely failed to prove Joseph and Mary were not obedient jews and had sex after jesus, and that the people in Mark are not His half brothers and sisters. All you present to teh table is conjecture, hypothesis and retranslating basic grammatic knowledge.

What you lack in substance you certainly make up for in mudslinging and misdirection. Still, I wish other Catholics on here wouldn't fire back in the same tone and spirit. But you fabricate the very text of Scripture while calling your fabrications "unalterable facts" and ignore the grammar of the original text, doing so even in this very post, and then you sit in judgment about others' "basic grammatic knowledge." I'd think it was self-parody if you didn't seem so sincere.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Again, repeating things and ignoring the responses you've been given doesn't make those things suddenly true. As was discussed previously, grammatically the best reading is that there are three people identified in John 19:25. The author of John 19 uses the word "kai" between each person he identifies in that passage. "Mary the wife of Clopas" is functioning to describe the person identified as Mary's "sister."

As for God not being the author of confusion, same thing, discussed and answer went unrebutted. The problem isn't God - its modernists' attempt, like yours, to ignore actual Koine usage of the day, the testimony of Scripture, and the historical record.



You keep ignoring usage and pulling from generic definitions as if they trump. That's silly, but since it's your game, here's Strong and McClintock again--number 2 after biological sibling is cousin or other relative (excerpting just those, they identify many more non-biological uses of brother).

Brother from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

Brother from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

www.biblicalcyclopedia.com

Brother​

Brother (Heb. אָח [see AcH-]; Gr. ἀδελφός), a term so variously and extensively applied in Scripture that it becomes important carefully to distinguish the different acceptations in which it is used.

1. It denotes a brother in the natural sense, whether the offspring of the same father only (Ge 42:15; Ge 43:3; Jg 9:21; Mt 1:2; Lu 3:1,19), or of the same mother only (Jg 8:19), or of the same father and mother (Ge 42:4; Ge 44:20; Lu 6:14, etc.)

2. A near relative or kinsman by blood, e.g. a nephew (Ge 14:16; Ge 13:8; Ge 24:12,15), or in general a cousin (Mt 12:46; Joh 7:3; Ac 1:14; Ga 1:19), or even a husband.

And then on sister:

Sister from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

Sister from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

www.biblicalcyclopedia.com

Sister
Sister (אָחוֹת, achoth'; ἀδελφή), a term often having, in the style of the Hebrews, equal latitude with brother (q.v.). It is used, not only for a sister by natural relation from the same father and mother, but also for a sister by the same father only, or by the same mother only, or a near relation only (Mt 13:56; Mr 6:3). Sarah is called sister to Abraham (Ge 12:13; Ge 20:12), though only his niece according to some, or sister by the father's side according to others. By the Mosaic law (Le 18:18) it is forbidden to wed the sister of a wife, i.e. to marry two sisters; or, according to some interpreters, to marry a second wife, having one already; literally, "Thou shalt not take a wife over her sister to afflict her," as if to forbid polygamy. Sometimes the word sister expresses a resemblance of conditions and of inclinations. Thus the prophets call Jerusalem the sister of Sodom and of Samaria, because that city delighted in the imitation of their idolatry and iniquity (Jer 3:8,10; Eze 16:45). So Christ describes those who keep his commandments as his brothers and his sisters (Mt 12:50).



This is consistent with the above.



As discussed above, not the best rendition, considering there is no "kai" in the text of John 19:25 before reference "Mary of Cleophas."



You miss the point. Usage shows that Matthew 1:25, in context, does not speak to what Mary and Joseph did after Jesus was born. This is Calvin's point: "This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." That last sentence seems particularly apt.

What you lack in substance you certainly make up for in mudslinging and misdirection. Still, I wish other Catholics on here wouldn't fire back in the same tone and spirit. But you fabricate the very text of Scripture while calling your fabrications "unalterable facts" and ignore the grammar of the original text, doing so even in this very post, and then you sit in judgment about others' "basic grammatic knowledge." I'd think it was self-parody if you didn't seem so sincere.

The current LXX has poor "Koine" grammar. And you haven't shown any usage for biological cousins; but you have found Jesus' extended definition which he gave the early church: the adopted tekna who would soon be uioi of God.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Well as there was no mention of any expertise in any biblical naguages, and I have had a year of Greek and Hebrew, I can say I am on par with Him.

A year of Greek and Hebrew! Explains a lot. Just enough to get some hubris, nowhere near enough to know the languages, as all the evangelical seminarians I've ever known liked to crack.

 

[GodsGrace]

A year of Greek and Hebrew! Explains a lot. Just enough to get some hubris, nowhere near enough to know the languages, as all the evangelical seminarians I've ever known liked to crack.

Not going to join this conversation because I don't understand why it's so important to know exactly who was at the foot of the cross.

But, just out of interest, I looked into it a little using Google.
Trying the Catholic sites.
I can't get a definitive answer and trying to figure it out, for me, is just too complicated.

But I like and trust Steve Ray and here's what he said:

Right, but these are the women. There’s names, Mary. That’s a very interesting passage that says so this, by standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Now, you could see the way it’s written in the Greek that there’s four women there or three women there. You could read it as, among them are Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of James. So that could be Mary, Jesus’s mother. But then there’s these other women, too. And there’s a confusion as to how many there were.

But we know that some of these women followed him. And Luke is the one that tells us this, that they followed him through those three years of ministry in the Galilee area, and they took care of all of his needs. They took care of what he needed food, they took care of his clothing. They ministered to him along the way.

source: Every Spirit and Person at the Foot of the Cross

I also read it in different versions and also in Italian which helps me a lot at times...
but in this case it did NOT clarify.

(what helps me a lot at times?
1. reading it in different versions AND in Italian.
2. reading it in Italian.
Same problem...
reply: In Italian)

So it seems as though we cannot be adamant about the number of Mary's at the Cross.

Is it known if the ECFs mentioned this??

 

[GodsGrace]

@RomeSweetHome

Just look at the first few versions on biblehub....
looks like we just can't be certain...


New International Version
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
3 or 4

New Living Translation
Standing near the cross were Jesus’ mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary (the wife of Clopas), and Mary Magdalene.
3

English Standard Version
but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
3 or 4

Berean Standard Bible
Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother and her sister, as well as Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.
4

Berean Literal Bible
Now His mother, and the sister of His mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, had been standing by the cross of Jesus.
3 or 4....more like 3


How could this possibly be debated??

 

[RomeSweetHome]

It would make historical sense. As his brothers were still in unbelief He passed on Mary to one at the cross.

But the problems of your theory:

1. Only Lazarus was ever explicitly called the disciple Jesus loved, so in all probabilities it was Lazarus who took in Mary.

2. As John was going to go running around evangelizing and was never married, he had no household (remember he was taken when he was inhis fathers home so he had no home.)

3. And we simply do not know how long it took for James, Joses, Simon, Judah and Jesus' at least 2 half sisters to become believers.

4. Lazarus had a home and was well established, was deeply loved by Jesus, had sisters in his house to care for Mary if he should leave so sorry.

This is confused. The point stands whether the beloved disciple was John or someone else. Jesus, omniscient, wouldn't have given his mother to an adopted son for life if Jesus had other biological brothers, soon to be leaders of the church, who would be there to care for her (and legally obligated to do so).

Yeah I read that allegation of Mary. But it doesn't mean that in the least. God is careful and Mary spoke in the present, if she was telling the angel she was to remain a virgin, God would have inspired the perfect tense!

This does not make any sense, grammatically or textually.

Grammatically, the perfect tense generally would speak to past and present state of affairs without necessary regard to the future ("I have not known man/a man."). The use of the present tense here, however, speaks to all three. In Daniel Wallace's work (evangelical Greek scholar), in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, the "customary (habitual or general) present" tense - a "quite common" usage, he notes - speaks of an "ongoing state," meaning the action was true in the past, is true in the present, and will remain true in the future. Luke 18:12 is another example of this, where the Pharisee says that he "fasts" (present active indicative, just like Mary's response to Gabriel) twice a week, meaning he did so in the past, is currently doing so, and intends to do so in the future - its his custom or practice.

Textually, your/the anti-Catholic reading makes no sense. Gabriel speaks to Mary in the future tense, that she "will conceive." And Luke just told us that Mary is betrothed, meaning at some point soon (in a conventional marriage) she'd consummate. Hearing that she will, in the unspecified future, conceive would be great news and, if a surprise, only because Mary would have been concerned about being barren. But her reaction is "How will this be/happen" (again, future tense), "since I know not [a] man"? Her response is speaking not only to a past and present state of affairs but also a future intended one.

And the argument brought up in two books written by Catholic scholares that she was a virgin serving oin teh temple, is simply a bold face lie! The temple had no "virgin class" in the temple, Jews looked down on women and would not let them in the temple proper.

Yes Adolphos can mean fellow countryman, related by labor or ideology or fellow Christian but in the NT it never meant cousin as I showed you.

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

ἀδελφός​

Transliteration
adelphos (Key)
Pronunciation
ad-el-fos'

Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From ἄλφα (G1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)

Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 1:144,22
KJV Translation Count — Total: 346x
The KJV translates Strong's G80 in the following manner: brethren (226x), brother (113x), brother's (6x), brother's way (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Sorry, but OT usages are so very weak and could refer to facts they were fellow Israelites.

This is classic begging the question, for of course if the gospels writers use brother to speak of cousins or other relatives (like the historical record shows), then the NT does use brother for cousin/other relative! And the idea that LXX usages are "weak" is bizarre, at best, given how central the LXX was to the NT authors (given their preference for quoting it). And "could" is substituting for a meaningful response, given usages like 1 Chronicles and Tobit provided previously.

Context matters. And to say that adelphos does mean cousins etc. throws every passage into question! No one with a lick of common sense seeing the Matthew context would think the rabbis were calling :Father, Mother, and then cousins. It takes a l;ot of agonizing biblical twisitng to come to that conclusion.

Sure, context matters. And again, question begging. As has already been discussed at length, the context we have, textual and historical, shows that the "brothers" here were not biological siblings born by Mary. No agonizing or twisting, just accepting the whole counsel of scripture and the corroborative historical record!

 

[RomeSweetHome]

If he had full data, if it was corrupted , etc.etc. Once again James, Joses, Symeon and Judah were very common names.

If I understand your argument, your position is that we can handwave away the history we have, in favor of conjecture, because the history is inconvenient. Motivated reasoning, to say the least - stop accusing the Church of doing what you're acting out in real time here.

Show me non -Catholic Greek scholares who define in their linguistics works(like a concordance or lexicon or Greek dictionary) that adelphos can mean cousin, niece, nephew, aunt uncle, then you have a leg to stand on.

Strong and McClintock provided a bit ago.

Why would the rabbis mention Mary and Jospeh and in context talk about brothers and sisters and not mention the "cousins" parents? That is just poor grammar and utter confusion to prove a point. Especially when they knew the family well. there was no proof that Salome and Joeph and Mary's brothers ands sisters were living in Galilee.

Not poor grammar (in the sense of wrong usage) in the day, especially if they were speaking in Aramaic and the Greek authors of the NT were transliterating.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Not going to join this conversation because I don't understand why it's so important to know exactly who was at the foot of the cross.

But, just out of interest, I looked into it a little using Google.
Trying the Catholic sites.
I can't get a definitive answer and trying to figure it out, for me, is just too complicated.

But I like and trust Steve Ray and here's what he said:

Right, but these are the women. There’s names, Mary. That’s a very interesting passage that says so this, by standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Now, you could see the way it’s written in the Greek that there’s four women there or three women there. You could read it as, among them are Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of James. So that could be Mary, Jesus’s mother. But then there’s these other women, too. And there’s a confusion as to how many there were.

But we know that some of these women followed him. And Luke is the one that tells us this, that they followed him through those three years of ministry in the Galilee area, and they took care of all of his needs. They took care of what he needed food, they took care of his clothing. They ministered to him along the way.

source: Every Spirit and Person at the Foot of the Cross

I also read it in different versions and also in Italian which helps me a lot at times...
but in this case it did NOT clarify.

(what helps me a lot at times?
1. reading it in different versions AND in Italian.
2. reading it in Italian.
Same problem...
reply: In Italian)

So it seems as though we cannot be adamant about the number of Mary's at the Cross.

Is it known if the ECFs mentioned this??

I am happy to not be "adamant" about this. Though I stand by the grammatical points discussed--the best reading based on the grammatical structure of the text is three people. The point is not just to make the case for that reading, though - it's that interlocutors on this thread repeatedly mock the Catholic reading as violating "basic grammar" and engage in other mudslinging of that mold while ignoring the grammar over and over on the very same issues!

As for ECFs, I know Jerome read John 19:25 this way in his work against Helvidius, for just one example.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am happy to not be "adamant" about this. Though I stand by the grammatical points discussed--the best reading based on the grammatical structure of the text is three people. The point is not just to make the case for that reading, though - it's that interlocutors on this thread repeatedly mock the Catholic reading as violating "basic grammar" and engage in other mudslinging of that mold while ignoring the grammar over and over on the very same issues!

As for ECFs, I know Jerome read John 19:25 this way in his work against Helvidius, for just one example.

The mud slingers sling mud whenever they can.
And best to keep away from history...something might be learned that is uncomfortable.

Will look into this some more in the morning.
Jerome is a good lead.
Hahn, Bergsma?

In my first reading I tended to go with three.

Will bow out now.
Good night.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

And if you wish to keep reminding me of my error on syngenes, feel free.

I only do so because you repeatedly insist on berating, demeaning, mudslinging, and accusing others of what you are guilty of (several times over now just in this conversation). Stop doing that, and Ill let this go. But as long as you insist on continuing, I will continue to remind that you couldn't be bothered to look up the words of the text before claiming something as "unalterable fact" that was obviously and inexcusable false.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

The mud slingers sling mud whenever they can.
And best to keep away from history...something might be learned that is uncomfortable.

Will look into this some more in the morning.
Jerome is a good lead.
Hahn, Bergsma?

In my first reading I tended to go with three.

Will bow out now.
Good night.

Not sure where Hahn and Bergsma stand on it, candidly, though Hahn sounds agreeable with Jerome in Hail Holy Queen. If you learn more specifically, please share, would love to hear their takes on this passage specifically.

 

[Ezra]

Perhaps, I have.

It is a fact that virgins are females and cannot masturbate successfully. It helps when raising daughters.

i guess you taught them about masturbating