It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[GodsGrace]

@OzSpen

Oz,

I'd also like to add that in Catholic theology Mary DID NOT experience pain in childbirth. (of Jesus). And that EVEN CHILDBIRTH did not break her virginity. (of course this would have to be the case!)

I think Slick of Carm makes a good point in saying that this is probably due to the CC's high elevation of Mary -- why this elevation is necessary, I have not yet understood.

BTW, some Protestants do not elevate her enough and some even show disdain.
This is also very wrong.

P.S. I just read your article.
Very good! As usual.

 

[twinc]

And he doesn't provide biblical support for his unorthodox doctrine.

you do not provide biblical support for your after - it just is not in the bible but only in your carnal imagination that it follows and must be so - likewise it is not in the bible that Mary had children other than Jesus but that it follows that because Jesus had brothers and sisters they must have been Mary's children - it just does not necessarily follow and cannot and should not be accepted - you even seem to suggest and accept that the Jews knew and accepted that Joseph was not paternal father to Jesus - did you not read the post about Joan of Arc being burnt at the stake - twinc

 

[twinc]

Weakness, why do you put your religion upon them.

God said "go out and multiply" they would only have being doing as requested. And as I said, it changes nothing if they did. Mary played her part as did Joseph. it is irrelevant what they did after, changes nothing, except for those who wish to raise Mary on a pedestal as so many do.

go and multiply - so not just Mary but even more so Jesus did not do as requested - twinc

 

[Marymog]

Weakness, why do you put your religion upon them.
God said "go out and multiply" they would only have being doing as requested. And as I said, it changes nothing if they did. Mary played her part as did Joseph. it is irrelevant what they did after, changes nothing, except for those who wish to raise Mary on a pedestal as so many do.

Hi,

Raise Mary on a pedestal? You mean like God did? I sure would hate to do that.

You do know that even the reformers (Luther, Calvin) believed in her perpetual virginity. It was the men who disagreed with the reformers that started this new tradition. Your belief is about 500 years old. Christianity has been teaching for 2,000 years that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Hi Oz,

Catholics are now saying that perhaps Joseph had children from a previous marriage!
I agree with you on Mathew 1:25. To ignore that verse it quite an undertaking! I've never understood how they explain that one away.

Since you know Greek, I DID read many years ago that it IS very difficult to get either "brothers" or "cousins" from the original manuscripts.

In your experience, is the difference between Brother and cousin more clear, or do we just go by the rest of scripture? For instance, Mathew 13:55-56.

Hi,

Another way to look at that passage, and which we know to be factual, is that Joseph had no relations with Mary before she gave birth. Step one: He took her as his wife Step two: he had no marital relations with her step three: UNTIL she miraculously had a child.

When we interpret that passage we must consider what Matthew was trying to say, not what we want it to say. His intent was not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. Matthew was trying to convey the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. The entire book talks about everything BEFORE they were married. There is nothing in scripture calling Mary anything but a virgin and nothing in Christian historical writings that suggest she was not a perpetual virgin.

No where....I REPEAT...no where in scripture does it say that Mary and Joseph had children. Mary was the bride of God. No where does scripture name anyone BUT Jesus as a child of Mary. The only HISTORICAL Christian writings we have say that Mary was a perpetual virgin and say that Joseph had children from another marriage. Protestants LOVE historical writings when it backs up THEIR beliefs but disregard it when it is opposite of what they believe. The reformers, Calvin and Luther, believed it the perpetual virginity. It was the reformers of the reformers who came up with this new translation of scripture.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Mary,

Thank you so much for your response. However, you have judged me incorrectly with the words, 'I know there is no changing your mind'. This is false. Everything I post on this forum is subject to the Acts 17:11 (NIV) test: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true'.

Because I submit to this Acts 17:11 test, you have picked up something with the word 'until' that I find to be accurate and helpful. Thank you.

I don't believe I was 'twisting' Matt 1:25 with my understanding of 'until', but the example you gave 'I never drank alcohol until the day I died....but I did after I died' is one view (but somewhat illogical). I could give the example of, 'I never shaved the whiskers from my face until my teens'. By this I inferred that I continued shaving whiskers from my face after my teens. Your example was correct. So was mine. Context determines the meaning of 'until'.

This is an inflammatory comment, Mary:

I have a PhD in NT, but that doesn't make me superior as a theologian to the church fathers or you. However, your comment here commits the appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Again, this is inflammatory:

That is a disgusting comparison that involves your disparaging comment about my sexual urges, about which you know nothing.

However, I'm not the only one who concludes that after Jesus birth, Mary and Joseph engaged in marital sexual relations. Let's look at 3 more leading Bible commentators on Matt 1:25.

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary supports the point you have made:

25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS—The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Mt 12:20); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before." (See on [1205]Mt 13:55, 56).​

Albert Barnes' notes on this verse state,

Knew her not - The doctrine of the virginity of Mary before the birth of Jesus is a doctrine of the Scriptures, and is very important to be believed. But the Bible does not affirm that she had no children afterward. Indeed, all the accounts in the New Testament lead us to suppose that she did have them. See the notes at Matthew 13:55-56. The language here evidently implies that she lived as the wife of Joseph after the birth of Jesus.​

What do Matt 13:55-56 (NIV) state? '55 ‘Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?’

How does Expositor's Greek Commentary interpret Matt 1:25?

Matthew 1:25. καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν … υἱόν: absolute habitual (note the imperfect) abstinence from marital intercourse, the sole purpose of the hastened marriage being to legitimise the child.—ἕως: not till then, and afterwards? Here comes in a quæstio vexata of theology. Patristic and catholic authors say: not till then and never at all, guarding the sacredness of the virgin’s womb. ἕως does not settle the question. It is easy to cite instances of its use as fixing a limit up to which a specified event did not occur, when as a matter of fact it did not occur at all. E.g., Genesis 8:7; the raven returned not till the waters were dried up; in fact, never returned (Schanz). But the presumption is all the other way in the case before us. Subsequent intercourse was the natural, if not the necessary, course of things. If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding.—υἱόν: the extended reading (T. R.) is imported from Luke 2:7, where there are no variants​

Matt Slick of CARM provides a good explanation of how 'until' can have different understandings. See: Mary's virginity and Matt. 1:25.

Thank you for correcting me on this one. I've given one understanding of 'until' and missed the other. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. I have to agree with some of these commentators who state that whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or if she had children or no children to Joseph, has no impact on the church's major doctrines.

I urge you not to presume with your responses and not to be inflammatory in how you express your view.
Oz

Hi Oz,

I should have stated that you and others were distorting Matthew 1:25. I apologize.

I stated 'I know there is no changing your mind' because you recently wrote a very long dissertation on your blog about this exact same thing. You did a very good job of covering all the objections I could ever bring up. Therefor, I know there is no changing your mind OR I could have said, There is no objection I can bring up that you haven't already covered.

I appreciate you patronizing me. (Please don't take that as a inflammatory remark)

Mary

 

[Marymog]

That doesn't answer what I wrote.

Matt 1:25 (NLT) states, 'But he [Joseph] did not have sexual relations with her [Mary]
until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus'.

Joseph did have sexual relations with Mary but it was after the birth of Jesus.

Oz

Hi Oz,

As we know Matthew1 sets up Jesus genealogy and ends with the birth of Jesus. It talks about everything before Jesus was born. Matthew2 then goes into life after Jesus was born (Matthew 2:2).

When we interpret that passage, Matthew 1:25, we must consider what Matthew was trying to say, not what we want it to say. His intent was not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ because he does that in Matthew2. Matthew was trying to convey the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before she got pregnant and they had no relations while she was pregnant all the way up to His birth. For anyone to suggest Matthew spends the entirety of Matthew1 talking about everything before Jesus birth and then he quickly throws in a quick BTW.....Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus birth...is not exegeting scripture properly.

To exegete it the way you and others suggest would mean that Matthew was saying, Joseph took her as his wife (current), but had no marital relations with her (current) until she had borne a son (future) and he named him Jesus (current).

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

This is what happens when men "lean on there own understanding" and religion gets into it and its all screwed up Well dome mankind, cant get anything right.

It does not matter if she had children after Jesus, it is irrelevant does not change a thing, but teh devil loves christians arguing over things that matter not, because he knows we are ignorant and proud, should I add foolish into the mix.

2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Hi mrhealth,

If it doesn't matter why are you chiming in? Did the devil get you to join the argument? The argument that doesn't matter....

Curious Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi,

Another way to look at that passage, and which we know to be factual, is that Joseph had no relations with Mary before she gave birth. Step one: He took her as his wife Step two: he had no marital relations with her step three: UNTIL she miraculously had a child.

When we interpret that passage we must consider what Matthew was trying to say, not what we want it to say. His intent was not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. Matthew was trying to convey the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. The entire book talks about everything BEFORE they were married. There is nothing in scripture calling Mary anything but a virgin and nothing in Christian historical writings that suggest she was not a perpetual virgin.

No where....I REPEAT...no where in scripture does it say that Mary and Joseph had children. Mary was the bride of God. No where does scripture name anyone BUT Jesus as a child of Mary. The only HISTORICAL Christian writings we have say that Mary was a perpetual virgin and say that Joseph had children from another marriage. Protestants LOVE historical writings when it backs up THEIR beliefs but disregard it when it is opposite of what they believe. The reformers, Calvin and Luther, believed it the perpetual virginity. It was the reformers of the reformers who came up with this new translation of scripture.

Mary

Hi MM
Could you just tell me why you think it is that it's so important for the CC that Mary had not had other children?

There is scripure which seems pretty clear to say that Jesus DID have brothers. James would be one of them.

I'm not too interested in discussing this since it makes not too much difference to me if Jesus had brothers or not.

It seems to me that the original Church did proclaim this in some writings -- I just don't understand WHY.

Any ideas?

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,

Catholics are now saying that perhaps Joseph had children from a previous marriage!
I agree with you on Mathew 1:25. To ignore that verse it quite an undertaking! I've never understood how they explain that one away.

Since you know Greek, I DID read many years ago that it IS very difficult to get either "brothers" or "cousins" from the original manuscripts.

In your experience, is the difference between Brother and cousin more clear, or do we just go by the rest of scripture? For instance, Mathew 13:55-56.

GodsGrace,

Interesting question!

Thayer's lexicon in its entry on adelphos gives one meaning as, 'A brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father, or only of the same mother' (source). That meaning is found in the Greek literature, so it is not original with the RCC.

Matt 1:25 (ESV): 'but [Joseph] knew her not until she [Mary] had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus'. :

Matt 13:55-56 (ESV):

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”​

See this in the Greek text::

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 13:55-56 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)
55 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi] αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας; 56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ [adelphai] αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; πόθεν οὖν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα;​

Adelphos literally means, 'from the same womb' (Thayer's Lexicon).

Here in Matthew 13:55, the brothers are named in what seems to be the order of their birth: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. There is a statement here that Jesus had sisters, but their names are missing according to Matt 13:56. We also have examples from Matt 12:46-49; Mark 3:31 and Luke 8:19 that 'Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him'.

The issue you ask surrounds the meaning of adelphoi, which is the masculine, nominative case. plural of the singular, adelphos. Does this mean brother or cousin?

Adelphai is the feminine, nominative case, plural of the singular adelphe (sister).

I do not have access to my hard copies of Arndt & Gingrich Greek Lexicon and the Thayer Greek Lexicon as I'm moving house and they are packed in boxes in my garage, awaiting the removalist. However, Thayer's lexicon is available in pdf online.

Why don't you take a read of the meaning of adelphos HERE. After studying the Greek literature, Thayer's conclusion was that Jesus' own brothers, born after Jesus, are 'principally clear' from Matt 1:25 and Lk 2:7. He stated that if Mary had no other children after Jesus, a different Greek expression would have been used, e.g. huion monogenes would have been used instead of huion prwtotokon (which is in some MSS).

I'm comfortable with the Greek of passages like Matt 13: 55-56 (SBLGNT) that endorse the brothers and sisters of Jesus as blood relatives (half brothers and half-sisters) and not cousins. Do you see any significant doctrine affected if adelphos means brother or cousin?

I write this for your consideration. It could be wrong and I'd appreciate your showing me where it fails the biblical test.

Oz

 

[Marymog]

Hi MM
Could you just tell me why you think it is that it's so important for the CC that Mary had not had other children?

There is scripure which seems pretty clear to say that Jesus DID have brothers. James would be one of them.

I'm not too interested in discussing this since it makes not too much difference to me if Jesus had brothers or not.

It seems to me that the original Church did proclaim this in some writings -- I just don't understand WHY.

Any ideas?

Hi GG,

The Catholic Church has always defended the Truth of scripture.

Scripture only names Jesus as her child. That is the truth.
Scripture only describes Mary as a virgin. That is the truth.
Adelphos does NOT mean blood brother. That is the truth.
Brothers and sisters are used in scripture in other instances and it does not mean blood brothers and sisters: Genesis 13:8, 1 Cor. 15:6. However anti-perpetual virginity Protestants won't admit that. That is the truth.
In John 20 Jesus said to Mary M., "Go instead to my brothers and tell them...". Who did Mary M. go and tell? The disciples, who were not his blood brothers. That is the truth.
Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, is mentioned in Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 and she is CLEARLY not Mary, the mother of Jesus. However protestants want to act like it was never written. That is the truth.

The truth is this tradition of claiming that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters gained traction AFTER the reformation when anti-Catholism took root. They threw away 2,000 years of Christian teaching and belief in an effort to discredit the RCC.

The truth is the Protestant Reformers themselves, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible. Most Protestants adhere to that teaching.

The good news is if you believe one or the other, it doesn't affect your salvation.

The bad news is if you pretend that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus, you are being dishonest about what scripture says and what 2,000 years of Christian history has taught.

Mary

 

[OzSpen]

you do not provide biblical support for your after - it just is not in the bible but only in your carnal imagination that it follows and must be so -

twinc,

I do wish you would backquote so I know to which post of mine you are referring.

Your statement here doesn't make sense; as for my 'carnal imagination', that's very judgmental, especially when it is false. You have flamed me.

likewise it is not in the bible that Mary had children other than Jesus but that it follows that because Jesus had brothers and sisters they must have been Mary's children - it just does not necessarily follow and cannot and should not be accepted -

See my post at#530 that refutes your view.

you even seem to suggest and accept that the Jews knew and accepted that Joseph was not paternal father to Jesus - did you not read the post about Joan of Arc being burnt at the stake - twinc

Which planet are you on? I believe nothing of the sort. That's your invention of my views. You have committed a strawman fallacy.

I've already told you that your insertion of Joan of Arc had nothing to do with this topic.

Bye, bye


Oz

 

[Marymog]

GodsGrace,

Interesting question!

Thayer's lexicon in its entry on adelphos gives one meaning as, 'A brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father, or only of the same mother' (source). That meaning is found in the Greek literature, so it is not original with the RCC.

Matt 1:25 (ESV): 'but [Joseph] knew her not until she [Mary] had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus'. :

Matt 13:55-56 (ESV):

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”​

See this in the Greek text::

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 13:55-56 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)
55 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi] αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας; 56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ [adelphai] αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; πόθεν οὖν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα;​

Adelphos literally means, 'from the same womb' (Thayer's Lexicon).

Here in Matthew 13:55, the brothers are named in what seems to be the order of their birth: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. There is a statement here that Jesus had sisters, but their names are missing according to Matt 13:56. We also have examples from Matt 12:46-49; Mark 3:31 and Luke 8:19 that 'Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him'.

The issue you ask surrounds the meaning of adelphoi, which is the masculine, nominative case. plural of the singular, adelphos. Does this mean brother or cousin?

Adelphai is the feminine, nominative case, plural of the singular adelphe (sister).

I do not have access to my hard copies of Arndt & Gingrich Greek Lexicon and the Thayer Greek Lexicon as I'm moving house and they are packed in boxes in my garage, awaiting the removalist. However, Thayer's lexicon is available in pdf online.

Why don't you take a read of the meaning of adelphos HERE. After studying the Greek literature, Thayer's conclusion was that Jesus' own brothers, born after Jesus, are 'principally clear' from Matt 1:25 and Lk 2:7. He stated that if Mary had no other children after Jesus, a different Greek expression would have been used, e.g. huion monogenes would have been used instead of huion prwtotokon (which is in some MSS).

I'm comfortable with the Greek of passages like Matt 13: 55-56 (SBLGNT) that endorse the brothers and sisters of Jesus as blood relatives (half brothers and half-sisters) and not cousins. Do you see any significant doctrine affected if adelphos means brother or cousin?

I write this for your consideration. It could be wrong and I'd appreciate your showing me where it fails the biblical test.

Oz

Come on Oz,
What about all of this?

Strong's Greek: 80. ἀδελφός (adelphos) -- a brother

Adelphos - Greek Lexicon

Thayer's Greek: 80. ἀδελφός (adelphos) -- a brother

Adelphos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Curious Mary

 

[OzSpen]

Marymog,

Adelphos does NOT mean blood brother. That is the truth.

That is not true and I've set out the reasons why in post #530.

Brothers and sisters are used in scripture in other instances and it does not mean blood brothers and sisters: Genesis 13:8, 1 Cor. 15:6. However anti-perpetual virginity Protestants won't admit that. That is the truth.

This is not true that adelphoi (brothers) 'does not mean blood brothers and sisters' (your words). The lexicons that have done the most work on understanding the meaning of this word (adelphos) have concluded this way for one of them: Thayer's lexicon in its entry on adelphos gives one of the meanings as, 'A brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father, or only of the same mother)' (source).

Your claim that 'brothers and sisters' used in Scripture have other instances where 'it does not mean blood brothers and sisters'. That's true according to the Lexicon. However, it's also true according to Thayer's Lexicon that adelphoi means 'a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father, or only of the same mother)' (source).

You wrote:

The truth is the Protestant Reformers themselves, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible. Most Protestants adhere to that teaching.

Add to that John Wesley who also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Please provide the stats that most Protestants adhere to the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary. That's not so in the Protestant churches I have contact with in Queensland. However, I'll be pleased for you to show me that you have statistics to support your claim that most Protestants 'adhere to that teaching - perpetual virginity'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,

As we know Matthew1 sets up Jesus genealogy and ends with the birth of Jesus. It talks about everything before Jesus was born. Matthew2 then goes into life after Jesus was born (Matthew 2:2).

When we interpret that passage, Matthew 1:25, we must consider what Matthew was trying to say, not what we want it to say. His intent was not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ because he does that in Matthew2. Matthew was trying to convey the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before she got pregnant and they had no relations while she was pregnant all the way up to His birth. For anyone to suggest Matthew spends the entirety of Matthew1 talking about everything before Jesus birth and then he quickly throws in a quick BTW.....Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus birth...is not exegeting scripture properly.

To exegete it the way you and others suggest would mean that Matthew was saying, Joseph took her as his wife (current), but had no marital relations with her (current) until she had borne a son (future) and he named him Jesus (current).

Respectfully, Mary

Mary,

We've gone over this before. Respectfully, I disagree with your position - based on the etymology of adelphos (bother) and adelphe (sister).

Matt 1:25 harmonises with Joseph and Mary having other children between them or brothers and sisters of Jesus who were children of Joseph or children of Mary (see Thayer)

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Come on Oz,
What about all of this?
Thayer's Greek: 80. ἀδελφός (adelphos) -- a brother
Curious Mary

Mary,

This is an example of your filtering from Thayer what you want and leaving out all the rest of his etymology of ἀδελφός (adelphos). All you quoted from Thayer was the meaning, 'a brother'. What did Thayer actually say that you did not post for us on this forum? This is what he stated under his first point where 'a brother' is mentioned.

a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.) [Thayer's Lexicon, adelphos]​

You quoted what you wanted, 'a brother', but left out the rest that disagrees with your theology from Thayer's lexicon. Could this be your bias, seen in the way you filter? Many of us are capable of doing this. I know that I sometimes have a tendency to tell a one-sided story.

Oz

 

[Marymog]

Mary,

We've gone over this before. Respectfully, I disagree with your position - based on the etymology of adelphos (bother) and adelphe (sister).

Matt 1:25 harmonises with Joseph and Mary having other children between them or brothers and sisters of Jesus who were children of Joseph or children of Mary (see Thayer)

Oz

Hi Oz,

This is the definition of adelphos from the link YOU provided: a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother)
brethren of Christ
all men
apostles
a fellow-believer
having the same national ancestor,
just as in Leviticus the word is used interchangeably
Christians, as those who are destined to be exalted to the same heavenly

Dear sir, you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the Greek translation. You accept the ONE translation that fits your theory and disregard the rest. The translation I have accepted aligns with what scripture says. ALL of scripture, not one passage.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Mary,

This is an example of your filtering from Thayer what you want and leaving out all the rest of his etymology of ἀδελφός (adelphos). All you quoted from Thayer was the meaning, 'a brother'. What did Thayer actually say that you did not post for us on this forum? This is what he stated under his first point where 'a brother' is mentioned.

a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.) [Thayer's Lexicon, adelphos]​

You quoted what you wanted, 'a brother', but left out the rest that disagrees with your theology from Thayer's lexicon. Could this be your bias, seen in the way you filter? Many of us are capable of doing this. I know that I sometimes have a tendency to tell a one-sided story.

Oz

Interesting. I quoted what I wanted but you didn't quote what you wanted? Who is showing bias? Oz, who throws away 2,000 years of Christian belief and teaching? Oz who accepts a 500 year tradition? Or Mary who accepts what has always been since the beginning of Christianity?

Mary

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,

This is the definition of adelphos from the link YOU provided: a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother)
brethren of Christ
all men
apostles
a fellow-believer
having the same national ancestor,
just as in Leviticus the word is used interchangeably
Christians, as those who are destined to be exalted to the same heavenly

Dear sir, you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the Greek translation. You accept the ONE translation that fits your theory and disregard the rest. The translation I have accepted aligns with what scripture says. ALL of scripture, not one passage.

Mary

Mary,

Again, that's false. I gave you the full quote for 'a brother' in Thayer's Greek lexicon. You gave only 2 words. Therefore, I gave a fuller definition of the meaning of adelphos and Thayer said it included,

(the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used​

Your claim is:

The translation I have accepted aligns with what scripture says. ALL of scripture, not one passage.

Not according to Thayer where he cause the opinion of the church fathers (the doctors of the church) since Augustine is that adelphos means 'any blood-relation or kinsman'. It is you who doesn't want to agree with the etymology of adelphos in the Greek lexicon by Thayer.

Your statement in #538 is:

Interesting. I quoted what I wanted but you didn't quote what you wanted? Who is showing bias? Oz, who throws away 2,000 years of Christian belief and teaching? Oz who accepts a 500 year tradition? Or Mary who accepts what has always been since the beginning of Christianity?

I've showed you in this post that it is not throwing away 2,000 years of Christian belief to not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Thayer has pointed out that adelphos, 'denotes any blood-relation or kinsman' - this was the opinion the church fathers from the time of Jerome & Augustine. It's not 2,000 years. Jerome lived and 'own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used'. You don't want to agree with Thayer, do you?

Jerome's life span was ca 347 – 420. St Augustine of Hippo's life span was ca. 354 – 430. So from the time of the 5th century, adelphos was accepted as meaning 'blood-relation or kinsman'. While some Protestant leaders from the time of the Reformation did believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that is not my experience in the contemporary, Evangelical, Protestant Church. In fact, by using the

Many Christian leaders do/did not believe in the perpetual virginity, e.g. Timothy George [Dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University].

Your statement, 'Oz, who throws away 2,000 years of Christian belief and teaching? Oz who accepts a 500 year tradition? Or Mary who accepts what has always been since the beginning of Christianity?', committed the Genetic Fallacy.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

Hi mrhealth,

If it doesn't matter why are you chiming in? Did the devil get you to join the argument? The argument that doesn't matter....

Curious Mary

You are an odd one//