Absolutely and unequivocally untrue.
I already showed you where the exact word is used to denote the Zebedee brothers where by no means does it refer to some sort of nebulous ‘kinsmen.’
Shockingly only to you— brothers can and does mean brothers.
Jesus's "siblings"
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Absolutely and unequivocally untrue.
I already showed you where the exact word is used to denote the Zebedee brothers where by no means does it refer to some sort of nebulous ‘kinsmen.’
Shockingly only to you— brothers can and does mean brothers.
It can, but it doesn't always refer to siblings, because the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφός" (sing. adelphos [brother];pl. adelphoi [brothers]) has the following textbook definitions: "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman, or relative," etc. Therefore, any of those definitions could apply to the word whenever it's used.
Regarding its use in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, context shows its definition "kinsman, or relative" applies to Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus). You essentially assert those kinsmen/relatives were Jesus's siblings solely for being called His brothers.
An assertion based on an assumption.
That's an asinine form of reasoning, because "kinsman, or relative" is the only familial textbook definition that the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi;brothers) has, and when used it can refer to various types of family members, not only siblings.
That's why you need to present evidence that supports your assertion the four brothers (kinsmen/relatives) of Jesus were His siblings, like how I presented evidence that shows those same kinsmen/relatives of Jesus were the sons of Jesus's uncle, and thus His cousins.
Last edited:
We know the brothers apostles James and John were brothers, as in "kinsman, or relative," and specifically siblings, because, for example, we read they were the "sons of Zebedee."
We know the brothers apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were brothers, as in "kinsman, or relative," and specifically siblings, because, for example, we read they were the "sons of Alphaeus."
Regarding Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), we only know from the context of Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 that they were His brothers, as in "kinsmen, or relatives." However, nowhere in those verses, or anywhere else in the New Testament, is there something said to indicate what type of kinsmen/relatives they were to Jesus, such as the "sons of Joseph and Mary." In fact, only Jesus was called the son of Joseph and Mary. So, what evidence makes you believe those brothers (kinsmen or relatives) of Jesus were His siblings???
Last edited:
We know they were brothers as in........ wait for it................................................ brothers.
According to your form of reasoning, you and I are siblings, solely because I call you brother.
You're not ready to be on a discussion board.
You need to work on your theory.
I have three brothers. I call them brothers. I have Christian brothers- I call them brothers. I have cousins. I never call them brothers.
According to your form of reasoning, you and I are siblings, solely because I call you brother. If you understood more about words, definitions, etc., you'd know why various types of family members, including cousins, can be/were/are called "brothers."
:face palm:
Let's go over what you just said, which is "Yep. Exactly" to the following, as if what's in brackets is its definition, but it's rather the English translation of the Koine Greek word.
"The Koine Greek word "ἀδελφός" (sing. adelphos [brother];pl. adelphoi [brothers])"
What's interesting is you would've already known what I was actually saying when you misrepresented me, because you deliberately left out the rest of my quote where I said,
"...has the following textbook definitions:
'fellow-countryman,' 'disciple/follower,' 'one of the same faith," and 'kinsman, or relative,' etc."
You only embarrass yourself. Bravo.
Anyway, as you can see, "sibling," nor any other type of family member, is neither a direct nor only definition. The only familial definition the word "ἀδελφός" has is "kinsman, or relative," which can refer to siblings, cousins, nephews, or uncles, etc.
You read the words "brother(s)" and "sister(s) and assume it refers to sibling(s).
That's not how this works. If it was, for example, the following verse would mean Jesus appeared to over five hundred siblings:
"After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters..." (1 Cor. 15:6)
It's an asinine form of reasoning.
Last edited:
No.
It’s the same word and different meanings. I call my brothers- brothers and I call my Christian friendS -brothers, and though I use the exact same word, they words don’t mean the same thing.
The meaning is established by the relationship and you’ve done no work to establish that Jesus did not have actual brothers.
Correct, but there's more to it.
These are the textbook definitions of the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi;brothers): "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman, or relative," etc.
The context of Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 shows the definition that applies to the word "ἀδελφοί" is "kinsman, or relative" in those verses. Now, what information shows us what type of family members they were?
When I ask you to present evidence that shows siblings is the type of family members Jesus's brothers (kinsmen/relatives) Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were to Him you don't give any. Instead, you just say "They're called brothers, and thus siblings." Without evidence to support that it's just an assumption.
I, however, have actually given something (scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies), which is better than your nothing, to show they were the sons of Jesus's uncle, and thus His cousins. Another thing you don't do is actually show why that evidence of mine doesn't show what I claim it does.
Again.... My theology doesn't require Jesus' brothers to be anything other than his actual brothers.
Yours requires it. So you've built a premise upon the idea, without any support other than your own requirement.
To all intents and purposes they were his actual brothers but half brothers insomuch as Jesus wasn't Joseph's natural son.
Thank you for proving my point that you dont understand words, definitions, context, evidence, etc.
These are the textbook definitions of the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi;brothers): "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman, or relative," etc.The context of Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 shows the definition that applies to Jesus's brothers (ἀδελφοί;brothers) in those verses is "kinsman, or relative."
Now, what type of family members were they?
You assert they were Jesus's siblings, but when I asked you to present evidence that shows that is the type of family members they were to Him you don't give any. Instead, you just say "They're called brothers, and thus siblings." Without evidence to support that it's just an assumption.
I, however, have actually given something (scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies), which is better than your nothing, to show those kinsmen/relatives of Jesus were the sons of Jesus's uncle, and thus His cousins. Another thing you don't do is actually show why that evidence of mine doesn't show what I claim it does.
Last edited:
I don't assert anything. I accept that they were his brothers, because there is no reason not to.
It's you who is doing all of the asserting.
Beyond reason.
It's very simple. There's a Greek word that can be used for kinsmen if that was the intended meaning. I asked @Sigma what word should have been used if they were not brothers, but he/she ignored the question. If the writer wanted to convey that these were simply cousins and not actual adelphos "brothers' they could have used the word "suggenes" to remove all doubt that these are mere relatives and NOT brothers.
It's used in Luke 1 to describe the relationship between Mary and 'her cousin" Elizabeth. Note that they are not called "sisters" (aldelphos) but suggenes (relatives)-- and we know that they are cousins.
Yes, it's the same Greek word for brothers and sisters--- adelphos. But if the meaning is indeed cousins-- Suggenes is used.
You assume they were siblings because there's no reason not to?!
First, thank you for admitting your assertion is based on an assumption.
Second, the reason no one should assume Jesus's brothers (kinsmen/relatives) were siblings, or any type of family member, is because the familial definition of "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi;brothers) is "kinsmen, or relative," and thus could refer to not only siblings, but cousins, nephews, and uncles, etc. So, if you want your baseless assertion to evolve into a substantiated fact, then you need to provide information that shows Jesus's brothers (kinsmen/relatives) were siblings.
Finally, I've actually given something (scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies), which is better than your nothing, to show those kinsmen/relatives of Jesus were the sons of Jesus's uncle, and thus His cousins. Another thing you don't do is actually show why that evidence of mine doesn't show what I claim it does.
Lol, you just explained something what I've been trying to get you to understand, and which you've been fighting me on, and you don't even realize it. In fact, you think it supports your argument xD.Lets see if you can pin point where in your own paragraph on your own first. If not, I'll show you.
Last edited:
Similar threads
