If they didn't use "cousin" how come Elizabeth was referred to as Mary's cousin?

After research, I have found that there is a Greek word "anepsios" for cousin, but there is no Aramaic word for cousin. Either way, the Greek word "suggenes" is used in reference to Elizabeth, which means "kinswoman" or "relative". It is not definitive that they were cousins.

 

Now, the Greek word "anepsios" is used a few other times in the New Testament, which could lead to people saying "if the bretheren of the Lord were his cousins, why wasn't that word used?". I'm not arguing that those mentioned as bretheren of the Lord are cousins for sure, just that the Greek word used for "brother" and "sister" had a much wider usage then our words, and they may or may not have been cousins, or stepbrothers, or adoptive brothers, or half-brothers through Joseph. It is possible that they were full brothers through Mary, but I believe that to be unlikely, for arguments mentioned above (her response to the angel Gabriel, cultural norms between older and younger siblings, to name two...)

 

There is circumstantial evidence that Mary remained a virgin that I have stated and many have rejected. There is no definitive evidence in the Bible that states Mary was not a virgin. People say "well, they were only married, so we can assume they had sex," but I don't see that as bullet-proof fact that she was not a virgin.

If he were the son from a previous message, wouldn't he be mentioned during the story of Jesus' birth? Maybe, maybe not. I would say that he would be. Most likely, IF James was Jesus' brother he was younger and was born to Mary.

If you are going to assume that a son from a previous marriage would have been mentioned.....on the flip side, if Mary (the mother of God) was the mother of James, wouldn't he have been mentioned in the story about Jesus being lost at the temple? There is no mention of any other son in this story.

 

BTW, Cats, while I may be in the minority here, and many think my arguments are stretching it, I have enjoyed this thread as much as any other in a while. Thanks for starting it....

Yet another thing to consider- many are essentially stating that the word brother must mean "full brother" (because that's how English uses it). Since Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, no one would be his full brother (biologically speaking) even if they were born of Mary. Then why is the word brother used? Because, as I've stated, the Greek word for "brother" has a much wider meaning then our usage.

From the cited article:

 

that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

 

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

 

It is one thing to take the bible literally word-for-word, but it is even worse when we do so in English, simply because there are differences in translation.

 

There is no definitive proof in the New Testament that Mary was NOT a virgin her entire life.

 

FWIW, I've been doing research and I will conceded that it is totally possible and consistent with my faith that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, but I'm not sure how they factor into the Bible.

 

There's not a whole lot of anything that is said definitively about Mary in the New Testament, which is the primary reason that the extensive Catholic doctrine regarding her is perplexing.

 

It seems like a lot of work has been done to create a doctrine about her, and then a lot more work to show that the Bible doesn't say that any of it cannot be true, rather than proving that it is explicitly stated in the text. I think it's reckless to build a Bible doctrine based on omission rather than inclusion. That opens up a whole new can of worms...if you study Bible Prophecy much, you'll find that many people build cases based on omission, i.e., the Bible doesn't say its false, so it must be true.

 

I don't deny that based on the greek words, the door is left open. The greek word for "till" or "until" in the context of that verse doesn't mean that the later action is a certainty...it means that it's "only probable". So again, we're taking the less likely interpretation based on the context.

 

Also, the verse you cited from Samuel is from the Old Testament, which means it would have been translated from Hebrew. Does the Hebrew word translated "till" have the same meaning as the Greek? I cannot find anything on the internet for it....maybe you'll have better luck.

There's not a whole lot of anything that is said definitively about Mary in the New Testament, which is the primary reason that the extensive Catholic doctrine regarding her is perplexing.

 

It seems like a lot of work has been done to create a doctrine about her, and then a lot more work to show that the Bible doesn't say that any of it cannot be true, rather than proving that it is explicitly stated in the text. I think it's reckless to build a Bible doctrine based on omission rather than inclusion. That opens up a whole new can of worms...if you study Bible Prophecy much, you'll find that many people build cases based on omission, i.e., the Bible doesn't say its false, so it must be true.

 

I don't deny that based on the greek words, the door is left open. The greek word for "till" or "until" in the context of that verse doesn't mean that the later action is a certainty...it means that it's "only probable". So again, we're taking the less likely interpretation based on the context.

 

Also, the verse you cited from Samuel is from the Old Testament, which means it would have been translated from Hebrew. Does the Hebrew word translated "till" have the same meaning as the Greek? I cannot find anything on the internet for it....maybe you'll have better luck

I disagree that I'm taking thes less likely interpretation. I do not think that the Greek word for until, εως, states that it is probable.

 

No idea on the Hebrew/Greek/Old Testament thing- I was just illustrating that the word "until" used to have a different meaning. Here is something from the NT:

 

Take Matthew 28:20- "I am with you always, even unto (εως) the end of the world." Does this imply that, at the end of the world, Jesus will not be with us anymore? According to your interpretation of the word "εως" it is "only probable" that Jesus will abandon us at the endof the world?

After research, I have found that there is a Greek word "anepsios" for cousin, but there is no Aramaic word for cousin. Either way, the Greek word "suggenes" is used in reference to Elizabeth, which means "kinswoman" or "relative". It is not definitive that they were cousins.

 

Now, the Greek word "anepsios" is used a few other times in the New Testament, which could lead to people saying "if the bretheren of the Lord were his cousins, why wasn't that word used?". I'm not arguing that those mentioned as bretheren of the Lord are cousins for sure, just that the Greek word used for "brother" and "sister" had a much wider usage then our words, and they may or may not have been cousins, or stepbrothers, or adoptive brothers, or half-brothers through Joseph. It is possible that they were full brothers through Mary, but I believe that to be unlikely, for arguments mentioned above (her response to the angel Gabriel, cultural norms between older and younger siblings, to name two...)

 

There is circumstantial evidence that Mary remained a virgin that I have stated and many have rejected. There is no definitive evidence in the Bible that states Mary was not a virgin. People say "well, they were only married, so we can assume they had sex," but I don't see that as bullet-proof fact that she was not a virgin.

 

Again, is it wise to build an extensive doctrine when the foundation is simply that the Bible doesn't state something isn't true, rather than explicitly stating that it is? Forgetting about this particular debate, what is your opinion on that practice?

I disagree that I'm taking thes less likely interpretation. I do not think that the Greek word for until, εως, states that it is probable.

 

No idea on the Hebrew/Greek/Old Testament thing- I was just illustrating that the word "until" used to have a different meaning. Here is something from the NT:

 

Take Matthew 28:20- "I am with you always, even unto (εως) the end of the world." Does this imply that, at the end of the world, Jesus will not be with us anymore? According to your interpretation of the word "εως" it is "only probable" that Jesus will abandon us at the endof the world?

 

I'm just quoting what the Greek lexicon had as its definition.

 

So, in the context of Matthew 28:20, it seems quite obvious that the event in question won't happen...thus, its meaning is "only probable" in a general sense. I suppose verses like this are one reason for that.

 

However, its not nearly as clear in the case of Matthew 1:25. In context, and in light of the rest of scripture, it makes more sense to assume it did happen in that case.

Again, is it wise to build an extensive doctrine when the foundation is simply that the Bible doesn't state something isn't true, rather than explicitly stating that it is? Forgetting about this particular debate, what is your opinion on that practice?

This may provide controversial, but oh well.

 

I agree with you that "just because it isn't in the Bible, it must be true" is a dangerous argument. However, if something it is correlated by multiple other documents, and does not contradict what the Bible says, I think it is entirely logical to assume it as true. The Protoevangelium of James, written by the assumed brother of Christ, states that he was a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and that Mary remained a virgin.

 

I will not put that writing on the same level as the Bible, but when dealing with issues that are not clearly stated in the Bible, I think it is wise to use documents from as early as possible, and rely on the beliefs of the early Christians, rather than beliefs that have developed much, much later.

Jesus had Brothers and sisters.

Jesus had Brothers and sisters.

We are all his brothers and sisters. That is what you mean, right?

This may provide controversial, but oh well.

 

I agree with you that "just because it isn't in the Bible, it must be true" is a dangerous argument. However, if something it is correlated by multiple other documents, and does not contradict what the Bible says, I think it is entirely logical to assume it as true. The Protoevangelium of James, written by the assumed brother of Christ, states that he was a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and that Mary remained a virgin.

 

I will not put that writing on the same level as the Bible, but when dealing with issues that are not clearly stated in the Bible, I think it is wise to use documents from as early as possible, and rely on the beliefs of the early Christians, rather than beliefs that have developed much, much later.

 

I also like using early documents...and there aren't any that are earlier than the ones found in the Bible.

 

There are a lot of extra-biblical writings. Again, I'm not comfortable opening up that can of worms. I don't mind using them to support doctrines that are clearly stated in the Bible. But, I won't use them as the foundation for a doctrine, and then support that by saying the Bible doesn't comment definitively either way. I'm just not comfortable with it.

 

I guess I believe it would be in the Bible otherwise.

 

Regarding the Gospel of James (or whatever you prefer to call it)...the author claims to be the stepbrother of Jesus. However, there is evidence to suggest that the work is pseudonymous, meaning James didn't actually write it. Just someone claiming to be him. This was a common practice, because the Gospel of James the step-brother of Jesus, or Peter, would be more likely to carry weight than the Gospel of 5wide or cch5432.

 

I'll try to continue this discussion later. Hopefully, I'll have time. I've got a couple more things to add, but it will take a little time to trim it down. :thumb:

We are all his brothers and sisters. That is what you mean, right?

 

He had siblings.

He had siblings.

 

There is no doubt that he did NOT have full siblings, biologically, because Joseph was not his biological father.

 

There is the possibility that he had stepbrothers and stepsisters through Joseph through a previous marriage. This is an entirely likely and possible scenario.

 

The argument is whether or not he had siblings through Joseph and Mary (which may have more to do with the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother, which may warrant another thread) and which I disagree with, due to (but not limited to):

• Cultural implications of sibling relationships and the way that his supposed brothers addressed Jesus in certain situations
  
• Weaknesses between the translations from Greek to English
  
• Lack of definitive relational words in Hebrew and Aramaic
  
• Other early Christian writings (such as the Protoevangelium of James)
  
• Mary's response to the angel Gabriel (and the corresponding writings that claim that Mary's mother gave her to the temple as a "virgin of the Lord")
  
• The fact that multiple early Christian fathers referenced that Mary remained a virgin till her death.
  

Again, is it wise to build an extensive doctrine when the foundation is simply that the Bible doesn't state something isn't true, rather than explicitly stating that it is? Forgetting about this particular debate, what is your opinion on that practice?

 

I agree. I try to stick with what the Bible says when I study with people. The Lord didn't go through all of the millions of things he doesn't want us to do in regards to spritual mattes but he simply told us what to do. That is all we can go by and teach is what we are told.

 

Its kind of like is a Father gives a kid a twenty dollar bill and says pick up some milk. If the kid comes back with the milk and 20 snicker bars his excuse of well "You didn't say not to" get the snickers isn't going to fly.

Or if a Father tells his kid he can borrow the family car to go to the movies and the kid decides to go to the movies and then drives to 1,000 miles to Texas and then drives back his argument of "you didn't say not to" isn't going to fly.

 

Of course that is probably another topic for another day.

If you are going to assume that a son from a previous marriage would have been mentioned.....on the flip side, if Mary (the mother of God) was the mother of James, wouldn't he have been mentioned in the story about Jesus being lost at the temple? There is no mention of any other son in this story.

 

BTW, Cats, while I may be in the minority here, and many think my arguments are stretching it, I have enjoyed this thread as much as any other in a while. Thanks for starting it....

 

No problem man.:thumb: