How many other children did Mary have?

[Montalban]

And, of course, Philothei, some people know much better than you do (a native Greek) what the Greek terms translated into English really mean much better than you would.

I don't know - I've got to choose between someone who teaches Greek, and a person who's their own pope.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't know - I've got to choose between someone who teaches Greek, and a person who's their own pope.

Sometimes it can be both

 

[Standing Up]

It's easy enough to comment on the definitions here, rather than the poster. As we can see, while the hebrew term may refer to a relative, like cousin, the greek term does not. But when the books were translated, the terms were mingled nonetheless.

I understand this definitional issue doesn't fit into people's tradition, but if someone has additional material that shows otherwise, please feel free to provide it.

ach-hebrew
1) brother
a) brother of same parents
b) half-brother (same father)
c) relative, kinship, same tribe
d) each to the other (reciprocal relationship)
e) (fig.) of resemblance


adelphos-greek
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
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

 

[Standing Up]

So, applying those same terms, we see them in scriptural operation:

Mt. 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?

Jn. 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

v5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

v10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

v11 Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?


It's clear what brethren are and kin are. These are in fact Jesus' brothers, having the same mother and different father.

But, we cannot say they are cousins. Nor can we say they are brothers because they do not have either the same father or same mother. In these 2 cases, the hebrew "brother" is substituted for the greek "brother". We shouldn't impose our tradition on scripture.

 

[Montalban]

StandingUp has still not shown why one definition is to be used instead of another

 

[Montalban]

Sometimes it can be both

That is possible. Only in this case the 'pope' has

a) not the same degree of understanding in Greek
nor
b) shown why one of his defintiions is to be preferred over the others - other than to colour one red.

 

[Thekla]

It's easy enough to comment on the definitions here, rather than the poster. As we can see, while the hebrew term may refer to a relative, like cousin, the greek term does not. But when the books were translated, the terms were mingled nonetheless.

Actually (as pointed out before), this is not factually correct.
Counter-examples include the LXX and additional definitions/usage in extant secular Greek writings. Further, as the usage adelphos as "cousin" occurs in the LXX, one cannot discount the possibility of Hebraism in the NT (leaving aside any other claim re: Greek usage).

I understand this definitional issue doesn't fit into people's tradition, but if someone has additional material that shows otherwise, please feel free to provide it.

This conclusion seems to be derived from someone's "tradition", as a review of extant writings would indicate. Even your own definition includes the definition you "cast out", where the originating national ancestor is common -- ie degrees of cousin, as in 1st cousin, 2cnd cousin, 3rd cousin once removed, etc.). See:

2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman

You, or your source, have relied on a tradition which does not consider the use of "adelphos" in reference to siblings where one has been adopted from outside the nuclear family for inclusion in the nuclear family.

I have also pointed out - frequently - that both secular and Biblical usage locate a common male (by blood or not) for the use of this terminology. I would welcome any Biblical counter-examples you can provide.

 

[Standing Up]

If anyone has something like Thayers, Strongs, Vines, etc to show the greek adelphos different than what's already been presented, feel free to show it.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Philothei

*coughing* Joseph kids? Maybe "brothers" as cousins? or maybe kinsmen growing up in the same family? Take your pick Standing Up. Unless it means blood brothers and sisters you have proved nothing.

NO ECFs disagreed
​

Really?

Bump

 

[Thekla]

If anyone has something like Thayers, Strongs, Vines, etc to show the greek adelphos different than what's already been presented, feel free to show it.

Why does their definition exclude known usage beyond their list ?

 

[Montalban]

Why does their definition exclude known usage beyond their list ?

I think if it's not coloured in red it doesn't count.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I believe that in 1950 the pope declared the Assumption of Mary.

She was declared to have been Immaculately Conceived in 1854

At the Council of the Lateran, 649 she was declared Ever-Virgin...

Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ's birth. It stresses thus the radical novelty of the Incarnation and Mary's no less radical and exclusive dedication to her mission as mother of her Son, Jesus Christ. Vatican II reiterated the teaching about Mary, the Ever-Virgin, by stating that Christ's birth did not diminish Mary's virginal integrity but sanctified it
Mary: The Four Marian Dogmas :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Thank you for the correction. As we can see, the Roman Catholic Church has had a steadily evolving view of Mary. The next step may be the declaration of her as Co-Redemptrix with Jesus Christ.

 

[Montalban]

Thank you for the correction. As we can see, the Roman Catholic Church has had a steadily evolving view of Mary. The next step may be the declaration of her as Co-Redemptrix with Jesus Christ.

There's certainly a movement within Catholicism for this.

There's many terms; Co-redemptrix, mediatrix, etc.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I believe that in 1950 the pope declared the Assumption of Mary.

She was declared to have been Immaculately Conceived in 1854

At the Council of the Lateran, 649 she was declared Ever-Virgin...

Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ's birth. It stresses thus the radical novelty of the Incarnation and Mary's no less radical and exclusive dedication to her mission as mother of her Son, Jesus Christ. Vatican II reiterated the teaching about Mary, the Ever-Virgin, by stating that Christ's birth did not diminish Mary's virginal integrity but sanctified it
Mary: The Four Marian Dogmas :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Thank you for the correction. As we can see, the Roman Catholic Church has had a steadily evolving view of Mary. The next step may be the declaration of her as Co-Redemptrix with Jesus Christ.

There's certainly a movement within Catholicism for this.

There's many terms; Co-redemptrix, mediatrix, etc.

Reading through the "Four Marian Dogmas" in the context of our Lutheran Confessions, there are really only three things that we would take issue with.

The first being the fact that these things are Dogmas, that is more or less, articles of faith, in that Scripture does not mandate these beliefs as such.

The Immaculate Conception is at odds with with Scripture which tells us that Christ died for all, not all but Mary; likewise Mary speaks of her "low estate".

Also, the "god like" attributes which they afford Mary; not only are not supported by Scripture, but if they were true would take away from the all availing sacrifice of Christ.

Scripture, from our POV seems to support Semper Virago, but does not, out and out state it is so.

There is no debating that she is Mother of God, considering God's narration of Christ's incarnation in Scripture.

While Scripture is silent regarding the Assumption, there are "extra Biblical" texts which, while questionable, do give testimony that this was believed very early in the Church; as such it may be held or it may be rejected. Our Church commemorates the Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord on exactly the same date as the Feast of the Assumption in Rome.

For me, I accept and believe that Mary is ever virgin; she is the Mother of God. I'm on the fence regarding the Assumption; but I must admit that if Christ willed her assumption, it would be so.

Do I believe that salvation is contingent on faith in these things? Nope!

 

[Montalban]

Reading through the "Four Marian Dogmas" in the context of our Lutheran Confessions, there are really only three things that we would take issue with.

Well we Orthodox think it's taking things too far with Mary.

One can (if one has the time) read an Orthodox view of this here
it's a chapter of "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God" by
St. John Maximovitch.

The Immaculate Conception is at odds with with Scripture which tells us that Christ died for all, not all but Mary; likewise Mary speaks of her "low estate".

Without sounding as if taking up their cause, I do know that they believe this was still paid for by Christ, only in advance. I don't believe in this.

Also, the "god like" attributes which they afford Mary; not only are not supported by Scripture, but if they were true would take away from the all availing sacrifice of Christ.

Scripture, from our POV seems to support Semper Virago, but does not, out and out state it is so.

There is no debating that she is Mother of God, considering God's narration of Christ's incarnation in Scripture.

While Scripture is silent regarding the Assumption, there are "extra Biblical" texts which, while questionable, do give testimony that this was believed very early in the Church; as such it may be held or it may be rejected. Our Church commemorates the Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord on exactly the same date as the Feast of the Assumption in Rome.

For me, I accept and believe that Mary is ever virgin; she is the Mother of God. I'm on the fence regarding the Assumption; but I must admit that if Christ willed her assumption, it would be so.

Do I believe that salvation is contingent on faith in these things? Nope!

I also don't support The Apparitions at Fatima

 

[Standing Up]

Reading through the "Four Marian Dogmas" in the context of our Lutheran Confessions, there are really only three things that we would take issue with.

The first being the fact that these things are Dogmas, that is more or less, articles of faith, in that Scripture does not mandate these beliefs as such.

The Immaculate Conception is at odds with with Scripture which tells us that Christ died for all, not all but Mary; likewise Mary speaks of her "low estate".

Also, the "god like" attributes which they afford Mary; not only are not supported by Scripture, but if they were true would take away from the all availing sacrifice of Christ.

Scripture, from our POV seems to support Semper Virago, but does not, out and out state it is so.

There is no debating that she is Mother of God, considering God's narration of Christ's incarnation in Scripture.

While Scripture is silent regarding the Assumption, there are "extra Biblical" texts which, while questionable, do give testimony that this was believed very early in the Church; as such it may be held or it may be rejected. Our Church commemorates the Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord on exactly the same date as the Feast of the Assumption in Rome.

For me, I accept and believe that Mary is ever virgin; she is the Mother of God. I'm on the fence regarding the Assumption; but I must admit that if Christ willed her assumption, it would be so.

Do I believe that salvation is contingent on faith in these things? Nope!

Would that be the same source, Gospel of James?

 

[Montalban]

I'm still waiting for the proof that one particular definition is to be preferred to the others given

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Scripture, from our POV seems to support Semper Virago, but does not, out and out state it is so.

Would that be the same source, Gospel of James?

No. You already know from this thread and many others that the historic Church and it's theologians find that the Canonical Scriptures support Semper Virago. It's time that you accept that the majority of Christians steadfastly accept this interpretation; just as we accept that you have a different interpretation.

One would be inclined to think that your purpose here is to "save" us from what you see as a most grievous error.

I think we are here to discuss our various interpretations, and in doing so, understand (but not necessarily accept) the interpretation of others.

While the Gospel of James is pseudepigraphical, that is the authorship is someone other than who it is attributed to, it is not part of Scripture, nor should it be; it also includes a bunch of stuff which conflicts with the Canonical Scripture (Semper Virago does not as we have shown in this thread, and many others), and even recorded history. It does not prove Semper Virago; it does show that it was held though, at a very early date, no more than that.

Lets avoid being lead around in circles yet again. Please.

 

[Philothei]

What is black and white is the fact "adelfos" does not have one translation/ interpretation and saying so...is well plain out wrong. Judging from linguistic scholars of the ancient times up to our times all seem to agree to that. Now if some do not IMHO I think there is indeed a bigger picture behind it. Or like I said then if we use the word bilaterally Paul must had many brothers

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MarkRohfrietsch Reading through the "Four Marian Dogmas" in the context of our Lutheran Confessions, there are really only three things that we would take issue with.

Are you ready to read thru a 5th one?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7533697/#post56714947
Cardinals Hoping for a 5th Marian Dogma

Well we Orthodox think it's taking things too far with Mary.

One can (if one has the time) read an Orthodox view of this here
it's a chapter of "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God" by
St. John Maximovitch.

Without sounding as if taking up their cause, I do know that they believe this was still paid for by Christ, only in advance. I don't believe in this.

I also don't support The Apparitions at Fatima

Thanks for that info

http://www.christianforums.com/t7058376/
Marian Apparitions...