Friday, January 02, 2015

συγγενις και ανεψιος

The New Testament writers would have used the words for "cousin" if they had meant "cousin" in passages about Jesus' brothers and sisters

Persistent commentor "Guy Fawkes" / Jim wrote:
"Brothers" does not have to mean uterine brother. 

Ken Temple:  (with addition comments)

Except when the context demands it.  

συγγενις 

Also, Luke calls Elizabeth a relative or cousin of Mary - sungenis = συγγενις = kinswoman, relative

Luke 1:36

The Greek has words for cousin, kinsman/kinswoman and relative.


καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου καὶ αὐτὴ συνειληφυῖα υἱὸν ἐν γήρει αὐτῆς, καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ·

"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month" Luke 1:36

sungenis / συγγενις means "kinswoman", "relative" 

ανεψιος

If the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were cousins, the NT writers would have used those words.

But it would make no sense for Jesus to be making the spiritual application and saying, "My true cousins are those that do the will of God"
Matthew 12:46-50 and parallels in Luke 8:19-21 and Mark 6:3; see also, John 7:3-10; cf. Matthew 13:55-57  

only uterine/blood brothers makes sense.

ανεψιος / anepsios 

John Mark is Barnabas' cousin. Colossians 4:10
anepsios = cousin

καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ 

Mark, the cousin of Barnabas

That is an even more specific word; so the NT writers would have used those words if the passages of "brothers and sisters" of Jesus meant "cousins".  

Your argument is refuted and defeated again.

79 comments:

guy fawkes said...

Caro meu Amigo Ken,

Ja disse eu nao falo a lingua dos gregos. Por que escreve nesta lingua comigo? Estas a gozar comigo?

Tanto no hebraico como no aramaico, a palavra "irmao" pode ter varios significados:) os filhos do mesmo pai, podendo ser da mesma mae ou de outra mae ( Gn 20:5 )e, em sentido mais largo, "irmao" designa tambem os parentes proximos; ou amigos; ou vizinhos; ou mesmo seguidores, o qu se pode comprovar em numerosos lugares de Biblia.
Um exemplo da parentesco esta bem claro no Livro de Tobias. Aconselhado pelo Arcanjo Rafael a casar-se com Sara, filha unica de Raguel e de Ana, parentes proximos de seu pai, Tobias assim rezou a Deus: " Senhor, sabeis que nao e motivo de luxuria que recebo por mulher esta minha irma" ( Tobias 8:9).

Ken, please excuse the fact that I am quoting from the Book of Tobit. I know you don't have it in your Bible. In it, a fellow marries his "sister".

Since you insist in using the Greek after I told you you have me at a disadvantage as I can't read that tongue, I will use the language Mary spoke when she visited us in 1917. ( We are discussing Mary's Perpetual Virginity , aren't we? )

I guess you think you have shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, from the Greek text, that the "brothers" of Jesus were not Joseph's sons by a previous marriage as the Greeks maintain.
Okay. We Catholics don't buy it either as we say Joseph was a virgin also. Here is what Jerome said about it,
"O Jerônimo afirma que não apenas Maria mas também José mantiveram seu estado virginal (cap. 19); diz, também, que embora o casamento possa ser um estado santo, apresenta grandes obstáculos para a oração (cap. 20) e que o ensinamento da Escritura declara que o estado de virgindade e continência estão mais de acordo com o desejo de Deus do que o casamento (caps. 21-22).

zipper778 said...

Real mature guy. Ken presents the NT's text in it's original language (Koine Greek) and because you don't know that language, you present him material from a language that has nothing to do with the conversation.

Is it any wonder why people on here disagree with you? If you want to present your side that poorly, you have every right to, but you have to be able to see that Ken's arguments are still much greater.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

I told Ken in the other thread he is wasting his Greek expertise on me. Then he opens a new one focusing on Greek.

"καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ"
Maybe you know what this means, Zipper. I don't. And Ken knows it.

One picture, a thousand words.

I will tell you and maybe Ken will see it.

The Evangelists did not use the OT of the Pharisees ( which the Protestants were later to adopt ).

They used the Septuagint, all of it, including Tobit and other books neither the post Jamnia Jews nor the Protestants accept.
The Christians adopted the custom of the Septuagint.

The LXX uses both adelphos and anepsios almost in the same breath.
An example is where a fellow named Tobit is called both anepsios and adelphos by another guy named Raguel.

Ken's point is that Elizabeth is not called Mary's "adelphe" but her "sungenis" demonstrating that Greek did indeed have a word for kinswoman and therefore would not need to use the sister word.
I hope my example from Tobit shows both were used.

Although the Evangelists wrote in Greek ( the fathers say Matthew was written in Hebrew ), they thought as Jews and that is reflected in their writing.

I read things written in English by non native English speakers almost daily. Even if grammatically correct, they always give themselves away.
Ever receive a phishing scam in your email? Although written in English, you can tell it is not the usual idiom immediately, right? Something smells phishy about it.

Give-aways might me, "the wife of my brother" rather than the "my brother's wife". Or separating verb from object, "I eat everyday lunch" instead of "I eat lunch everyday".

Not only can you tell the writer is not a native English speaker, you can actually identify his native tongue by his phrases.

This "brother" of the Lord business is a classic example of this.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Shame on you, young man.
I was trolling and scrolling around today and found this little morsel on another blog. The guy who wrote it was named, "Ken".

"The strange idea that it would be inappropriate or defiling or dirty for Mary and Joseph to have a normal, healthy, sexual marriage after Jesus was born seems to have clouded their thinking,..".

I distinctly recall that, on at least 3 occasions, I personally have addressed this issue with you.
I now realize you have quite a history with this.

Kenneth, sir, you say, "...Joseph and Mary had a NORMAL and HEALTHY SEXUAL MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN".

Please sir, after WHO was born? Jesus, a.k.a. GOD ALMIGHTY?

What in the hell is *NORMAL* about a woman who conceived and gave birth to the God Man?????????????

By the way, Mr. Minister, man of God, since when is sex "healthy" for Christians?

A good bowel movement is "healthy". A good loud burp after a solid meal is healthy. A wet dream is healthy.
The things we have in common with the animals are healthy.

Marital relations are not healthy. Conjugal relations are HOLY!

Planned Parenthood and Obama promote "healthy" sex.
Even gay sex ( aka sodomy ) is healthy if between consenting adults and using the hallowed condom.

Masturbation is "healthy".

Picking up a partner in a bar is All American Healthy Sex in today's hook up culture.

Christians don't engage in Normal, Healthy sex.
Temples of the Holy Ghost, adopted sons of God, saints, have holy conjugal relations.

And nothing Mary or Joseph ever did was "normal".




guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

I gotta mention some other examples;
Even when speaking proper British English, the Portuguese speak of their "Fathers" when they mean their "mother and Father".
They say "brothers" when they mean "brothers and sisters".
And they say, "sons" when they mean "sons and daughters".

When I speak my bad Portuguese, they immediately discern I am a Yank, not French or German.
There are always give-aways. Always.

As I told Ken, Eric Svensen will never know Greek "heos hu"and "adelphos" as well as Chrysostom and the other Greek Fathers did. Never. Never. Not in a million years, never.

James Swan said...

They used the Septuagint, all of it, including Tobit and other books neither the post Jamnia Jews nor the Protestants accept.The Christians adopted the custom of the Septuagint.

I did not realize their was a "Septuagint-Only Movement." I know previous generations of Rome's defenders adhered to the "Vulgate Only."

This is the first I've heard of a Septugint-Only defender. Maybe Guy's version of Rome could be dubbed Sola-Fawkestura.

zipper778 said...

Guy said:

"As I told Ken, Eric Svensen will never know Greek "heos hu"and "adelphos" as well as Chrysostom and the other Greek Fathers did. Never. Never. Not in a million years, never."

That assumes a lot.

Guy, you're so gung ho for the LXX and anti-Protestant for Protestants not accepting the entire LXX. Why don't you accept the LXX?

guy fawkes said...

James,

HUH? Whatever your point is, it went right over me.

Are you denying the Apostles used the Septuagint?

Are your denying the Evangelists made references to the Deuterocanonical books?

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

I am gung ho for the LXX?

Did I say I was?
Or did I merely state that the early Church used it? Do you deny it?

"Gung ho" is USMC term. Like "Semper Fi". it's not me. I am not Tim Staples. My name is Guy Fawkes.

Do Protestants use the shorter canon of the Pharisees? Yes? Why? Do you know?

Did Matthew use the LXX "parthenos" rendering of Is 7 or not?

Do you accept the Deuterocanonical books?

I am sorry but I don't understand your point any more than I understood James' humor.

zipper778 said...

Guy, my point is that you accuse Protestants and Evangelicals of not accepting the entire LXX, but you don't either. Why is it that Roman Catholicism can pick and choose what apocryphal books it wants, but Evangelicals can't be allowed to deny the entire apocrypha. It's illogical.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

"Why is it that Roman Catholicism can pick and choose what apocryphal books it wants, but Evangelicals can't be allowed to deny the entire apocrypha. It's illogical."

WOW! Your question goes right to the heart of things.
The Church does not "pick and choose". It "recognizes".

Zipper, think about our two differing attitudes on the "Church".

What denomination are you? Why do you choose to fellowship where you do? Do you give 100% assent to everything they teach? Everything? Does its creed, confession, mission statement or whatever bind your conscience?
If you decide to leave and join a different denomination, is it a serious thing? Can it cost you salvation? Can your church err? Has it ever erred? ( I can think of one case right off the top. Your denomination, if it existed few generations back, condemned contraception. It doesn't now. Was it wrong then and right now? Or right then and wrong now? Is it an important issue? Who decides? )

Who started your denomination? How long ago. Does salvation come through it?
Is your church made up of like minded believers who have opted to band together for fellowship? Or did you join the church and then were told what you must believe? Did you "check your mind at the door" as we Catholics do? ( Or are accused of doing anyway ).
When Jesus said, " Saul, why do you persecute Me?" was He speaking of your particular denomination?

Think about it. I think you will answer your own question.

guy fawkes said...

Ken and Komrades,

Ez 44:2,

"And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it".

There are four points I want to make against the absurdity of the view contrary to Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

1. Just as Christ is the only One begotten of the Father, it is right that He should be the only One of His mother.
2. The Holy Ghost is Mary's Divine Bridegroom and has taken her as her exclusive temple.
3. Mary would have been guilty of ingratitude if she had forsaken of her Virginity after conceiving and bearing Jesus as a Virgin.
4. Saint Joseph, a just and holy man, would have been guilty of violating the Temple of the Holy Ghost.

I asked you if you would blow your nose on one of those handkerchiefs that were touched to Paul and used for miraculous healing. You tried to bamboozle about me denigrating marriage to the level of nose blowing. I didn't fall for it am am still asking you if you would have locked the hanky away or used it for "normal, healthy" nose blowing.
Please respond.

Ken, why was it forbidden, under penalty of instant death, for someone to touch the Ark of the Covenant?
It was just an old wooden box, wasn't it? Or was it?

You do know both Luke and John make Mary out to be the fulfillment of that OT type and shadow, don't you?

About that hanky, your answer please.

zipper778 said...

So you have no answer for me on the LXX guy. Just mre rabbit trails you want me to follow you through.

And yes, your church is not consistent. At least Protestants and Evangelicals reject the apocrypha based on the contradictions and errors that are made in it. Roman Catholicism accepts some of the LXX but not all and ignores the contradictions and errors made in the apocrypha. Roman Catholicism is a cherry picker and leaves its followers with no answers on why it chooses to accept those books. This is not a very convincing argument.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

Rabbit trail?

Okay, I will answer your question point blank.
The Catholic Church has the authority to. You denomination does not.

JimBrooks1776 said...

BOW BEFORE MARY OR BE DOOMED TO HELL!!! THE CHURCH SAYS SO!!!!
"Guy Fawkes"

guy fawkes said...

Jimberooks;

I am missing the point. You made this assertion on the other thread twice. Now here. Although I responded the first time, you have repeated yourself twice.
Why? Do you need some attention from me? I realize I am a strong alpha male ( on beta blockers ) and you probably want to identify with me. I'm sorry but this blog belongs to James Swan, not me. I believe it is for the specific purpose of Protestant/Catholic apologetics. I cannot counsel you on this blog.
Please, Jim, apply to a 12 Step Group or a helpline. During the holidays, many people have break downs. You are not alone.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

" Protestants and Evangelicals reject the apocrypha based on the contradictions and errors that are made in it."

Errors like prayers for the dead,eh Zipper?

Kinda' like Luther rejecting ( wanting to reject? ) James and Revelation because they contradicted JBFA?

Do you know why the Jews rejected these books? I mean the post-Christ Jews.

Do you know why Luther chose the canon of the Pharisees rather than the canon used by the 4 Gospel writers and St. Paul?

Ever actually read Wisdom ( Paul used it a lot in his epistles )?

Speaking of those contradictions, maybe you could tell me and the lurkers why you have Esther in your canon. God isn't even mentioned once in your version, is He?What is so inspired by a book that doesn't even talk about God.

You are a Protestant. You think for yourself, right? You don't check your brilliant mind at the door like we Catholics do. Why do you have Esther? Because someone else told you to? Ha! You can read the book and decide for yourself if it is inspired or contradicts the Gospel, can't you Zipper?

How about that Song of Songs? What about it tells you it is God-breathed?

Revelation says we are gonna be judged according to our works. Just because other folks keep it in their Bibles, you, Zipper, can rip the pages out of your Bible.

Zipper, I know why I have the books in my Bible that I own.( The Catholic Church tells me).
For the life of me, I cannot fathom why you have the Bible you do.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

When I said, " Jews rejected these books", I meant the books you call the Apocrypha.

zipper778 said...

Guy said:

"Errors like prayers to the dead,eh Zipper?"

That is one of many errors made in the apocrypha. It's rather odd that Rome would use II Mac 12 for support of prayers to the dead considering that the people who died there died in mortal sin (as defined by Rome). No point in praying for someone who is eternally condemned.

Also, the author of II Maccabees admits that the book isn't inspired at the end of the book. I have indeed read the apocrypha and have come across numerous doctrinal and historical errors.

This url has a good article explaining why the apocrypha doesn't belong in the Bible:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html

Your answer to my question guy is because Rome told you so and then you provide no proof why Rome is correct. This is a weak argument, and you would never accept the same argument from me.

You have to do better guy. Your arguments are shallow.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,
So, it seems we will now be addressing two topics; Prayers for the dead and the Apocrypha.

How do you know what constitutes mortal sin? Nobody knows if anyone is in a state of mortal sin except God.
Certain conditions must be met for any sin, no matter what, in order for it to be mortal. And beside, you don't believe in the biblical mortal/venial sin distinction so why try to beat me with my own stick?

Witchcraft is "grievous matter". Is carrying a rabbit's foot or checking your horoscope? Avoiding the 13th seat on plane?
Zipper, you have no way to say the men who died in battle wearing amulets were in mortal or venial sin. Because we don't ever know, the Church always prays for the dead.

Think about it. First you concoct your doctrine and then start ejecting books that don't agree with it.
Books that teach prayers for the dead or good works must go, right? They go against your new fangled "gospel".

Zipper, you have things backwards.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

In denying prayers for the dead, you deny the possibility of there being a middle state, neither heaven or hell.

I think the Bible disagrees with you.

In denying prayers for the dead, you deny the biblical distinction between sin and the punishment for sin. You say that justified people are 100% sanctified and ready for heaven.

The Bible disagrees with you.

You also say that the Jews and Christians did not have the practice of praying for the dead.
I think the Bible teaches otherwise.

Now, for the Apocrypha, please tell me which version of the OT the NT writers used. The Greek or the Hebrew? With or without Apocrypha?

Please tell me in your own words as I can't click on your link.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

You said I supplied no proof as for why Rome is correct.

Do I have to spoon feed you? Did you actually read my post asking you about your denomination and why you fellowship there?

I thought I was very clear on just how different our two concepts of the word "CHURCH" is.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

I think the original topic was Mary,
wasn't it? Not that I mind talking canon or prayers for the dead. I just don't want to be accused of rabbit trailing.

I have asked you, not your denomination or Protestantism in general, but YOU, Mr.Zipper, a question about Esther. You have not addressed it.

Why does Zipper believe it to be inspired? Do any on the NT writers quote from it? Esther is a form of Astarte, isn't it? How many times is God mentioned in your version? Have you ever actually read it yourself?

In my version, God is mentioned about 30 times. I have read it many times. The Catholic Church says Esther, herself exempt from the curse of death by the King, is an OT types of Mary's Immaculate Conception. And she does intercede for her people after destroying the evil Haman, a type of the devil, doesn't she? I like the Book. But I don't accept it because I, Mr. Guy Fawkes, happen to like it.

I accept the inspiration of Esther ( and Maccabees, Tobit, etc. ) because the Catholic Church, established by Christ, tells me to.
Again, why do you?

John said...

And why isn't step brother a viable option?

JimBrooks1776 said...

"BECAUSE THE CHURCH SAYS SO!"
'Guy Fawkes' The Iberian Troll

zipper778 said...

Guy said:

"How do you know what constitutes mortal sin? Nobody knows if anyone is in a state of mortal sin except God."

I know how Rome defines mortal sin, and idolatry is one of many "mortal sins". If you're willing to say that people carrying idols might not be "mortal sin" you are only confusing the matter. Itis true that God knows that heart, but we can also use evil people as examples of what not to do.

Guy, you haven't provided ANY proof as to why Rome accepts the apocrypha, and I can site MANY people in the early church all the way to Trent (Roman Catholic and others) who believe the apocrypha isn't Scripture. You accept Jerome's arguments for the PV of Mary, but not his arguments on the apocrypha.

The fact that you have asked me what denomination I belongs to has nothing to do with: why did Trent accept the apocrypha even though church tradition didn't accept it until a little over 450 years ago? My answer to what denomination I belong to would not present any evidence to the table on why Rome is wrong about the apocrypha and why Rome doesn't accept the entire LXX. Rome charging Protestants and Evangelicals of heresy because they don't accept the entire apocrypha backfires greatly.

The reason that I accept the canon of Scriptures in agreement with other Protestants and Evangelicals is because the Scriptures themselves prove that they are inspired and because the Scriptures hold themselves accountable to history. This is a standard that the apocrypha fails to meet.

In order to view my link, just copy and paste my url into a different window or tab in your internet browser. The reason I provide urls is because I don't have time to spoon feed you everything guy, but I can provide you with people who have answered all of your charges better then I could explain them myself. It is your loss if you don't want to investigate.

John said...

"why did Trent accept the apocrypha even though church tradition didn't accept it until a little over 450 years ago?"

Obviously it's not true that "church tradition didn't accept it". Yes, there were some characters who didn't accept it. Even Jerome is ambiguous. There are plenty of instances of Jerome citing the deuteros as scripture.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

"Guy, you haven't provided ANY proof as to why Rome accepts the apocrypha,"

I didn't? I could have sworn that I told you the Apostles used the Apocrypha. You obviously don't actually read me answers to your questions.

As for Jerome, you don't get it , do you?
Jerome,Chrysostom, Aquinas, whoever is right when and only when they conform to the Church.
I don't agree with Jerome because I like what he said on Mary. I like him because he agrees with the Church.
A Protestant cannot grasp this as the Church for them is just a collection of individuals groping together in the dark.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

" the Scriptures themselves prove that they are inspired...".

Son, examine the absurdity of this statement.

Where in scripture does it even say which books comprise scripture?

John said...

"" the Scriptures themselves prove that they are inspired...".

How then can you account for the evidence that different churches came to different conclusions on the Canon?

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

Does your denomination appear in scripture?
Does it have a creed or confession that binds you? If yes, what happens if you grow to disagree with that creed or confession? You just pull stakes and move on to another group of folks that you do agree with, right?

( I am sure, if you do have a confession, it doesn't even claim to be infallible or binding ).

Zipper, Canon is an issue of authority. The Catholic Church has the authority that Christ gave her.
Neither your denomination nor anybody named "Zipper" appear in scripture.
Neither you nor your denomination are authorized to determine canon.

Why do you think Esther is inspired?

guy fawkes said...

JimBrooks,

Okay, okay, I will give you some quality time.

What did you get for Christmas? Do you like chocolate milk? Do you watch soccer on TV?

Why don't you have some chocolate milk and watch some TV for a while. I am busy with grown ups right now but will check in on you later. Run along now.

John said...

"At least Protestants and Evangelicals reject the apocrypha based on the contradictions and errors that are made in it. Roman Catholicism accepts some of the LXX but not all and ignores the contradictions and errors made in the apocrypha."

On the contrary, the delineation between proto Canon and so called deutero Canon (or apocrypha if you prefer) is completely arbitrary. Furthermore, the delineation between deutero Canon and the lxx is very fuzzy also. To assume that the apocrypha contains errors (even if one were to grant that they are errors which is very disputable ) is to assume the very thing you want to prove, namely that there is something different between protestantisms 39 books and the other books. In point of fact, even of those Church fathers who held to a shortish Canon, it's pretty much ONLY Jerome who made a list that exactly matches Protestantism's 39 book list, and even he is to be found referring to the so called apocrypha as scripture.

JimBrooks1776 said...

"I'M A GROWN UP!"
'Guy Fawkes' The Iberian Troll

Rhology said...

Guy Fawkes' comment at 12:32 PM, January 02, 2015 is 100% nonsense.

Ken said...

Guy Fawkes' comment at 12:32 PM, January 02, 2015 is 100% nonsense.

Agreed.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Speaking of nonsense, your confusion over the brothers of Jesus reaches disaster proportions in the first chapter of Acts.
It names the 11 remaining Apostles, the Virgin Mary and some devout women, probably Magdalene and the wives of Cleophas and Zebedee. It also mentions the brothers of Jesus being present.
The entire number of people was 120.

Lets subtract the 11 men and the 3 or 4 women from 120 brothers.

Math was never my strong point but it sure looks like Mary must have born about 105 sons ( not counting Jesus of course ).

Ken, you win. I concede Mary could not have been a perpetual Virgin after giving birth to over 100 sons.
You have just toppled the entire Catholic Romish Whore with your brilliant logic!

(HA! Try again boys)


Rhology said...

I concede Mary could not have been a perpetual Virgin after giving birth to over 100 sons.

And to think I once thought Guy was sort of reasonable.
Papists tend to really lose it when you suggest that the actual object of their devotion might not hold quite as lofty a position in biblical religion as in papist religion.

guy fawkes said...

Rhology,

Do you actually have an argument to put forth? Or just a comment?

The word "brother" is a stumbling block for Ken. Or maybe a red herring he keeps throwing out despite repeated clarifications on adelphe, anepsios and sungenis.
The 100 brothers silliness above was meant only to show him the absurdity of his insistence on a Woman who conceived and bore God in her womb went on to lead a "normal" ( Ken's actual word! ) married life.

Do you have something to say on that topic?

guy fawkes said...

Rhology,

I will put this question to you rather than Ken.

Jesus made quite an issue out of the way the Pharisees were letting men off the hook of providing for their elderly parents with a loophole the though they found in the Law with the Korban rule.

Why would Jesus, after denouncing the sin of neglecting to take care of ones parents, while hanging on the cross absolve his own deadbeat brothers from providing for Mary?

Ken says it was because they were not believers.

What does believing in the Divinity of their brother Jesus have to do with making sure their mother had food and rent money?

By the way, how in tarnation did they grow up in the same house as their elder brother Jesus, who was a perfect child, and not know who he was?

Show me how logical you non-papists are and give me your spin on what that household was like. I need a good chuckle.

Rhology said...

The 100 brothers silliness above was meant only to show him the absurdity of his insistence on a Woman who conceived and bore God in her womb went on to lead a "normal" ( Ken's actual word! ) married life.

There is every reason to think she DID live a normal married life and no reason other than Rome's say-so to think otherwise.
I think she fulfilled the commands in 1 Cor 7. You don't. I hold Mary (and Joseph) in higher regard than you.


Why would Jesus, after denouncing the sin of neglecting to take care of ones parents, while hanging on the cross absolve his own deadbeat brothers from providing for Mary?

It's eisegesis to claim that's for sure what He was doing.


Ken says it was because they were not believers.

It probably was. Where is the absolution?


What does believing in the Divinity of their brother Jesus have to do with making sure their mother had food and rent money?

You may have noticed that believing in Jesus was a bit divisive. Divided families and stuff, like Jesus said it would.


By the way, how in tarnation did they grow up in the same house as their elder brother Jesus, who was a perfect child, and not know who he was?

The same way Mary did and didn't know who He was.
Because it wasn't given to them to figure it out yet. John 6.


EA said...

"Conjugal relations are HOLY!

12:32 PM, January 02, 2015"


Okay. So if Conjugal Relations within a Sacramental Marriage are "HOLY!" and Mary and Joseph were married, how would "HOLY!" Conjugal Relations within that marriage have been a "defilement" of Mary's virginity? In other words, how can a holy act also be a an act that defiles?

Adam Blauser said...

Well, the LXX uses ανεψιος at Numbers 36:11, so I don't think that is relevant. What *is* significant is, in those uses of αδελφος in the LXX, you are usually translating the Hebrew אח. This is significant because these uses [mostly in Genesis] are from a translator who is quite literal in his approach to translation. This is another problem with using the LXX to try to prove meanings of words in the NT. If the LXX is following a certain translation philosophy, and is trying to translate Hebrew idioms literally, it will be utterly irrelevant to common speech and writing, unless it becomes crystallized into some kind of formula [say και εγενιτο].

You have to wonder why the authors of the NT used such a vague usage of "brother" if what they really meant was "cousin" or "close relative." There is simply no way to get the Perpetual Virginity starting with scripture alone.

guy fawkes said...

Rhology,

James the Apostle was not a believer but John was? Where do you get that?

The worst thing you said was,

"The same way Mary did and didn't know who He was.'.

Mary did not know who her Son was? Even though the angel had told her He would sit on the throne of David?

The throne had been empty for centuries. The Messiah was the one who was to assume the throne.
Mary was also told her son would be the Son of the Most High.
She miraculously conceived and gave birth yet she didn't know who her Son was?


If she didn't know her Son could do something, why did she press Him at the wedding feast of Cana?

Just who in heaven's name did she think he was?

You actually had the chutzpah to say,

" I hold Mary (and Joseph) in higher regard than you."

Really? Sounds to me like you think Mary ( and Joseph ) were mad.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

"You have to wonder why the authors of the NT used such a vague usage of "brother" if what they really meant was "cousin" or "close relative".

Because they were Jews, writing in Greek and following the pattern established in the ( Greek ) Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures.

guy fawkes said...

EA,

You ask me ow can a holy act be an act that defiles?

I didn't use the word "defile", did I?

Are you implying Mary and Joseph's marriage was like other marriages? Wouldn't you say everything about the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph was,... well, um... SUI GENERIS?!?!

Besides, Mary was also the spouse of the Holy Spirit. "Overshadow" is taken out of the Book of Ruth. It has a spousal significance.

If Mary had been planning to have normal marital relations with Joseph, the Holy Spirit would not have violate Joseph's rights.
And after conceiving and having a child by another Person, Mary would have been off limits to Joseph carnally. The Law said so. He would have been authorized to house and provide for her, but that's all. Check out the case of King David and the the concubines Absalom violated. They were locked away and spent their lives as "widows of a living man".

EA said...

Guy,

You seem to be saying that the conjugal act within marriage is "holy" and that Mary and Joseph were married. Given those circumstances then, Joseph would be committing no sin to engage in the conjugal act with his wife.

But then you also seem to be saying that because Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, that this now renders Joseph's claim to Mary vis a vis the conjugal act null and void. Is that correct? If so, in what sense were Mary and Joseph "married" if the husband has no claim on his wife?


"Wouldn't you say everything about the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph was,... well, um... SUI GENERIS?"

No, I wouldn't. I would say that the conception of Jesus is sui generis and that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was of the usual variety between male and female human beings.

"If Mary had been planning to have normal marital relations with Joseph, the Holy Spirit would not have violate Joseph's rights."

This is an interesting way of describing the situation; that the Holy Spirit "violated" Joseph's rights.

"And after conceiving and having a child by another Person, Mary would have been off limits to Joseph carnally. The Law said so."

The Law applies to relations and relationships between people (i.e. human beings). The Holy Spirit did not have sex with Mary like Zeus with Callisto. God is not bound by the same Law that He created for us.

EA said...

"And after conceiving and having a child by another Person, Mary would have been off limits to Joseph carnally. The Law said so. He would have been authorized to house and provide for her, but that's all. Check out the case of King David and the the concubines Absalom violated. They were locked away and spent their lives as "widows of a living man"."

Frankly, this is shoddy exegesis. Absalom was the son of King David. He broke the Levitical Law (Lev. 20:11) by sleeping with his father's wives. Absalom wrongs David by defiling his wives and in effect usurping his role as king and husband. In your analogy the Holy Spirit is Absalom and Joseph is David.

Adam Blauser said...

guy fawkes,

Because they were Jews, writing in Greek and following the pattern established in the ( Greek ) Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures.

If it was a pattern, then why did they use ανεψιος in Numbers 36:11? And why does it seem to correspond to the use of the Hebrew term אח which means "brother?" Also, why did they follow this pattern in contexts that make no sense. "Who is my mother and who are my brothers? Those who do the will of my Father are my brother..." Are we really to suggest that what Jesus meant by that is that those who do the will of his Father are his cousins?

Algo said...

Just a little FYI.
Eric Svendsen's interviews with Chris Arnzen are still
available. (Thank You J. Swan).

http://sharpens.blogspot.com.br/2008/05/eric-svendsen-mary-her-role-status-in.html

http://sharpens.blogspot.com.br/2008/05/eric-svendsen-mary-her-role-status-in_05.html

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

ειστηκεισαν δε παρα τω σταυρω του ιησου η μητηρ αυτου και η αδελφη της μητρος αυτου μαρια η του κλωπα και μαρια η μαγδαληνη."


Mary had a sister named Mary?

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

Tell me about the relationship between Jude and James of Alphaeus.

guy fawkes said...

EA,

Whether Absalom was a bad son or not is not the issue.

If a man lawfully divorced his wife, he could not remarry her if she had married another man in the interim.

If a woman was raped against her will, she was henceforth off limits to her husband although he was to take care of her.

You keep trying to put words in my mouth. Deal with what I actually say, period.

While still only betrothed to Joseph, ( but not yet married ) marry became pregnant by Someone other than Joseph. That is all I am saying.

As Mary and Joseph obviously were intending to remarried celibate ( Mary had said so to the Angel ), the Holy Spirit did not "wrong" Joseph.

guy fawkes said...

Ea,

OOPS! I meant to say Mary, ( and therefore Joseph ) were obviously intending to *remain* celibate.

Think about it; if she were mature enough to get married, Mary would have known about the birds and the bees, right?

Why would a girl intending to have a normal married life ask, "How can this be? I know not man"?
Silly question, nao e?

Also, notice the tense used by the English and Portuguese ( eu nao conheco homem )translators of the Greek is present simple.
Even your KJV uses the present simple. Unless you question the Protestant translators' understanding of the Greek text, you have to agree on this.

"I don't smoke" is present simple. It is used to show a habit or state. It does not mean "I am not smoking at the moment", a.k.a. the present continuous tense which is used for temporary situation or actions.

You guys keep telling me about the lofty view of Mary you hold, loftier even than we Catholics.
Actually, any woman planning to marry and have a family would never ask such an absurd question. She would have to be a maluca.
( I'm guessing, you have Brazilian connections ).

EA said...

"While still only betrothed to Joseph, ( but not yet married ) marry became pregnant by Someone other than Joseph."

I guess I'm not seeing how this is applicable under the Levitical Law that you cited. The Holy Spirit did not "marry" Mary nor "sleep" with her.

"'I don't smoke' is present simple. It is used to show a habit or state. It does not mean 'I am not smoking at the moment', a.k.a. the present continuous tense which is used for temporary situation or actions."

Svendsen (and others) have responded to these types of lexical and linguistic niceties far better than I can. I would refer you to Svendsen's book.

Rhology said...


His own brothers - John 7: 1After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. 3Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4“For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5For not even His brothers were believing in Him.

His family - Mark 3:20Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. 21And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

His mother - Luke 2:48And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” 49And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” 50And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.


Mary did not know who her Son was? Even though the angel had told her He would sit on the throne of David?

Why'd she think He was out of His mind?
People forget. People sin.


If she didn't know her Son could do something, why did she press Him at the wedding feast of Cana?

Mary lived a long time. A lot can happen in 30 years.


Sounds to me like you think Mary ( and Joseph ) were mad.

No, I think they were sinners who forgot.
You think they intentionally disrupted the marriage covenant, and I think they honored it.


And after conceiving and having a child by another Person, Mary would have been off limits to Joseph carnally. The Law said so.

I'll never understand this bizarre papist predilection to calling Mary the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.


guy fawkes said...

EA,

The Holy Spirit did not take Mary as His spouse?

Explain what "overshadow" means.

You put quotes around the word "sleep". I hope you are not, once again, trying to put words in my mouth as I never said any such absurdity. Your words, not mine.

Rhology said...

"Overshadow" means "implant the fetus Jesus in Mary's womb, overriding the lack of normal natural impregnation processes".

What you're expressing is a lot more like the atheist caricature - God had sex with Mary.

guy fawkes said...

Rholoogy,

Please read the text with a little more care. It doesn't actually say Mary thought her Son had lost his mind, now does it.
No more than when finding Jesus after 3 days in the temple. She did not think he was crazy or wonder who He was. She asked why He ad gone off for 3 days. She did not say, "who are you?"

You said,
"No, I think they were sinners who forgot."

You know, I have a tendency to forget to take my blood pressure pill. I forget to do the little chores my wife asks me to do around the house. I have even forgotten our anniversary.
But I sure as hell have never forgotten I am married, nor to whom.

Finally, you made this strange statement,
"You think they intentionally disrupted the marriage covenant, and I think they honored it."

I have no idea what you are trying to say so I cannot comment on it.

guy fawkes said...

By the way,

You have never been visited by an angel nor conceived a baby as a virgin. Not lately anyway, I bet.


If you had, I guaran-freaking-tee,

YOU WOULD NEVER FORGET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!


"I'll never understand this bizarre papist predilection to calling Mary the Spouse of the Holy Spirit."

I will never understand the Protestant predilection to making Mary out to be "the most cursed among women" with stupidity.

guy fawkes said...

Better check your Christology.

The Holy Spirit did not "implant a fetus in Mary's womb".


Just when it was getting fun, I gotta run to work. Shucks.

Rhology said...

It doesn't actually say Mary thought her Son had lost his mind, now does it.

No, it's not specific enough. Why did she go to seize Him, though?


She did not say, "who are you?"

It says she didn't understand what He said. She was worried b/c He was missing. Why would she be worried that God was missing?


But I sure as hell have never forgotten I am married, nor to whom.

Good for you.
The disciples sure didn't quite get it, even after the resurrection! Peter said "I go a-fishin'" after he had seen and met the risen Lord. What makes you think Mary was exempt from that sort of veil?


I have no idea what you are trying to say so I cannot comment on it.

1 Cor 7 says that husbands and wives owe each other their conjugal duties. I think J&M fulfilled those duties. You think they didn't (because Rome tells you to think that).


I will never understand the Protestant predilection to making Mary out to be "the most cursed among women" with stupidity.

That makes literally zero sense.


The Holy Spirit did not "implant a fetus in Mary's womb".

Sorry, an embryo.

guy fawkes said...

Rhology,

Do you have a wife or girlfriend? How about a mom? Do you work around any women?

"The disciples sure didn't quite get it, even after the resurrection! Peter said "I go a-fishin'" after he had seen ...".

1Cor 7 also says couples can abstain for a while in order to pray. Every moment of Mary's life was a prayer.

Did Peter conceive miraculously a baby in his womb?

You really should talk to a woman about your silly understanding of what it means to be a mother.

guy fawkes said...

Rhology,

You suffer from a nasty case of a bizarre combination of Nestorianism Docetism ( sort of ).

The Holy Ghost did not implant an embryo in Mary's womb.

Mary was neither a surrogate mother nor an incubator. A pre-existing embryo was not implanted into her.

The embryonic Christ's body was drawn from Mary's matter by God.

Jesus was born "of" the Virgin Mary.
And she actively gave her enthusiastic fiat to the Incarnation and Salvation of the the world.

guy fawkes said...

R.
In answer to my,
"Protestant predilection to making Mary out to be "the most cursed among women" with stupidity."

You objected,

"That makes literally zero sense."

No? Let me elaborate.

Any woman planning to marry and make babies who would ask, "How am I going to have a baby?" obviously is not fit to get married as she doesn't know that babies are not brought by storks.

Any woman, no matter how crude, stupid or sinful, who was set aside for a holy purpose by God, ( to bear God in her own body ) would be transformed. She would instantly become the greatest of saints. She would, from that moment on, live only for God.
After his encounter with the Burning Bush, Moses' face glowed like the sun. He remained celibate the rest of his life.

Let me digress for a moment to address the repeated charge by 3 or 4 of you Protestant guys that Catholics must think sex is dirty.
Not at all. But you must know that OT priests had to refrain from their wives during the time the ministered in the temple.
Even Uriah refused David's suggestion that he go home and sleep with his wife, Bathsheba. This was because Israel's wars were considered to be holy wars and soldiers had to be continent before battle.

The children who had encounters with Mary at Lourdes and Fatima retired from public life. They had an impatience with worldly matters and longed only for heaven.

Mary's "encounter" with God is absolutely unique. Yet Protestants say that her encounter with God left her as before the encounter. They say she went on to lead a *NORMAL* life.

You, Rhology, actually say Mary forgot her encounter as if it were no big deal.

We are talking about the Mother of God. Not some silly ninny of a girl.

EA said...

"You put quotes around the word "sleep". I hope you are not, once again, trying to put words in my mouth as I never said any such absurdity. Your words, not mine. "

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. However, the crime of Absalom in violating Lev. 20:11 certainly requires that meaning. Keep in mind you were the one that invoked the example of Absalom, I'm only following up on that.

EA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EA said...

"The Holy Spirit did not take Mary as His spouse?

Explain what "overshadow" means."


The word used in Luke 1:35 in Greek is episkiazo.

It has the meaning of a cloud casting a shadow over someone or something or a cloud enveloping the same.

The same word or related forms are used in Matt 17:5, Luke 9:34, Acts 5:15, and Mark 9:7.

"Besides, Mary was also the spouse of the Holy Spirit. "Overshadow" is taken out of the Book of Ruth. It has a spousal significance."

The word "Overshadow" (your use of quotes preserved) does not appear at all in the Book of Ruth. I assume that you are referring to Ruth 3:9 "And he said to her: 'Who art thou?' And she answered: 'I am Ruth thy handmaid: spread thy coverlet over thy servant, for thou art a near kinsman.'" You are correct that the act of the bridesgroom covering the bride with his talith was part of marriage ceremony and that in part is what is being referred to here in this passage. The word in Luke is not the same as used in Ruth nor does it have the same meaning.

guy fawkes said...

EA,

Ask Ken or Adam if "overshadow" appears in Ruth. It does indeed and in the scene where Boaz claims Ruth. And it does indeed appear in Luke 1. Who told you otherwise?

This episkiazo word also appears in context of the Ark of the Covenant ( an OT type of Mary ).

I just copy and pasted this from James Swan's new article on Luther.

"This epistle is ascribed to the holy apostle St. Jude, the brother of the two apostles James the Less and Simon, the sons of the sister of the mother of Christ who is called Mary the wife of James or Cleophas".

EA said...

"Ask Ken or Adam if "overshadow" appears in Ruth. It does indeed and in the scene where Boaz claims Ruth. And it does indeed appear in Luke 1. Who told you otherwise?"

Nobody told me otherwise, I went and looked for myself.

Here are some searches from Biblegateway.com for "overshadow" in the entire Bible, not just Ruth:

in the Douay-Rheims 1899 version

in the King James Version

in the NASB version

in the RSV Catholic Edition

There were no results for "overshadow" in Ruth in any version that I could find.

Why would I ask Ken or Adam if "overshadows" appears in Ruth? Are they claiming that it does? Why can't you provide the chapter and verse yourself? You're the one making the claim.

EA said...

"This episkiazo word..."

Yes Guy, the Greek word episkiazo is translated to "overshadow" in English.

guy fawkes said...

EA,

I directed you to your own Protestant cronies because you doubt everything I say.. I certainly could have directed you to the chapter and verse.
Beside, both of those guys read the Greek. I don't and, unless you have been holding out, neither do you.

EA said...

The search links for BibleGateway.com were incorrectly formatted, my apologies.

The correctly formatted links are below:

in the Douay-Rheims 1899 version

in the King James Version

in the NASB version

in the RSV Catholic Edition

guy fawkes said...

EA,

You should have stayed in the Catholic Church. You have left the Sacraments, Mary, the Saints, everything.

When the Ark of the Covenant was taken into the temple, the shekinah glory cloud overshadowed it.
When the Ark was carried, it was announced by an anaphoseme. Luke uses this word to describe Elizabeth's greeting when Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, approached.

When Mary approached Elizabeth, the baby John did a "skirtan" in her his mother's womb just a King David did before the Ark.

Luke made some powerful associations between the OT Ark, that incorruptible vessel that contained the manna from heaven, and Mary, who carried the true Bread of Life in her inviolate womb.

You probably can't see the obvious because you have chosen to be blinded. Get to Confession and start doing penance.

zipper778 said...

That's quite the response to EA guy. EA asked you where you were going with the whole overshadow thing and then you spam for Rome.

Not convincing.

EA said...

Guy,

You see to be incapable of admitting a mistake. You claimed that the word "overshadow" is in the Book of Ruth. When challenged on that point and provided with evidence of it not being accurate, instead of admitting that you made a simple mistake you elected instead to obfuscate and prevaricate.

Now, if that is the sort of behavior that one adopts as the result of being in the Roman Catholic Church, you may certainly keep it. You're not a very convincing "salesman" for the RCC; consider going to confession yourself.

I'm abandoning this particular rabbit trail as you have once again shown your true colors as someone who does not argue in good faith. Goodbye.

guy fawkes said...

EA,

Adios melga.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

more catholic spam,

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant


From a Protestant source

http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/htm/OT/Ruth/Ruth.htm


you can read,
"The Hebrew words translated "spread your covering [wing] over your maid" (v. 9) are an idiom referring to marrying (cf. v. 10; 2:12; Deut. 22:30; 27:20; 1 Kings 19:19; Ezek. 16:8; Mal. 2:16)."

here is more,

http://bigbible.org/mothergod/jesus-mother-hens-and-gods-wings/

guy fawkes said...

Check out Ezekial 18:6.
Yahweh spread his cloak/wings over Israel and made a covenant (marriage)

Boaz spread his cloak over Ruth when he claimed her.Ruth 3:9

Now, was Mary overshadowed/had God's cloak/wings over her or not? Did the power of the Most High cover her?
Is this spousal terminology in Ruth and Ezekial but not in Luke?

What is "Catholic spam" about it? Seems like you are a victim of Protestant spam if you deny the obvious just because of your anti-Catholic bias.