How is your mother doing ?
God with all of you +
The same term - does that qualify as "one word" ?
Recall - Herod and Philip, referred to as adelphos, were biologically step-brothers.
If you look back at Leviticus, adelphos is the term even where there is no biological relationship.
As before from what I have found so far, the term always indicates a relationship through a common male (unless there is further description).
If you know of instances where it doesn't, without description, I'd be truly pleased to know about them.
The potentially most definitive way to know is through the use of the term "born of" - but with caveats: Michal gave birth to no children, but was said to have born children (they were her sister's children - see 2 Samuel).
Me, I'm fine to leave it at adelphos - and I know what that means.
Ok... that wasn't one word answer. That was the same dancing around the definition... extensive list of ifs, ands, and buts.... that you do all along.
obviously, you are blowing a lot of smoke over the clear facts.
After all the smoke is gone, we are left with the answer. The most probably word that the NT writers would use to mean "brothers", if Mary indeed had other biological children is.... adelphos!
I said it before, I don't need to read
a paragraph (or 10) about how adelphos cannot mean biological brothers. It is just non-sense to me considering the umpteen points that are brought to the table... and there is much more.
For example:
I have 5 children ages 8,4,3,2, and 11 months. Caring for this many children is a lot of work. My wife and I have to referee, judge disputes, discipline, feed, clean, watch, give them the attention they all demand, and try to get a little rest in the meanwhile. Watching that many children is a lot of work.
You would be surprised how much help we need! We don't get enough help.
I understand how easy it is to lose track of one (or even two) of them because the baby is crying, the 2 year old is demanding attention, the 3 year old is getting himself into endless trouble.... and round and round we go.
Oh, I did I say looking after that many little ones is a lot of work?
It is a lot of work.
Even with [only] five children there have been times when for periods of time it dawns on us, where is the oldest? Then we clue in! Wow, we haven't seen him for a while!
It is very easy to lose track when there are so many children. It is scary, and believe me, we had a few scares!
I can relate
very well to Mary when she (and her whole family) went a days journey from Jerusalem. Jesus, being 12 years old... and Mary and Joseph with no birth control must have had a lot! Probably much much more than 5. I can understand how easy it would be to have lost the oldest boy.
Trust me, if you had a lot of children year after year you would understand.
But suppose the argument that Mary had only one child was true. It takes a lot of imagination, and a lot of explanation to explain how Mary's "only" boy was lost for a whole day without her noticing!
Yeah, yeah, I know the argument would be "well, Mary was just so busy with everyone else"... yada, yada....
All I got to say is ask someone who has one
very special child how easy it is to lose that child for several hours without missing him.
On the other hand, ask someone with 10 children how easy it is to lose one for several hours without missing him.
Common sense. The one with many children is
much more likely to be distracted with the needs of all the other little ones (and possibly a baby).
But what, or who would distract a mother from watching her oldest as much as a baby, a 1 year old, a 2 year old, a 4 year old, a 5 year old, a 6 year old, a 7 year old, a 8 year old, a 10 year old, and an 11 year old?
Take it from me... having lots of children, Mary would have been easily distracted and lose track of Jesus.
Would Mary be so distracted by her uncle? her cousin? her friend? that she forgets about her "only" child?
To anyone who argues such I say - Nonsense. Worse than nonsense... hogwash!