We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Aractus]

Jesus was not an "only child" Randy. That's just some stupid made up RCC doctrine. His brothers are mentioned by name, and Mark and Matthew both say he also had sisters.

This is a common error resulting from the English translation. So, let's address the perpetual virginity of Mary, shall we?

---

The Adelphoi of Jesus

Objection 1:  The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. Matthew 13:55 says: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?’"

The key to Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a "brother." Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like "brother" having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.

Objection 2:  But there was a Greek word for cousin, anepsios. If the brothers of the Lord were really his cousins, why wasn’t that word used?"

It is a misconception that Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term "adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the "brothers" in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ" [quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]. Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary" [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].

You also can't back-up your claim that labourers were poorly paid, can you?

Poorly paid relative to what? Or to whom? Jesus was born in a stable. Where is Joseph's wealth?

At his presentation, Joseph and Mary offered two pigeons:

Luke 2:22-24
22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

This was in keeping with the following passage of the law:

Leviticus 12:8
8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

There would have been no reason for Luke to mention the pigeons at all if Mary and Joseph had offered a lamb. Consequently, we can be confident that Luke learned this detail from Mary and included it in his gospel.

Where is Joseph's wealth?

Or that that Joseph wasn't really a carpenter, or that Joseph had died before Jesus, can you?

In brief, the Greek word commonly translated as "carpenter" really mean more of a general day laborer. You can look that up yourself.

As for Joseph dying earlier:

1. Joseph was a widower who married Mary to protect her vow of virginity.
2. Joseph does not appear in the gospels after Jesus was found in the Temple at age 12.
3. Jesus commended his mother into the hands of John. If Joseph was still alive, why did He need to make this provision for her?

---

Okay Randy, just so you know I reported that post for clear plagiarism (which is what led to you being banned). You know where to contact me if you really want to continue discussing this topic.

I did a search and I have no idea who came up with the original content from which this was taken. So there's no way for me to verify the analysis as originating from a scholarly source.

The issue with the idea that 'adelphoi' doesn't necessarily mean an actual brother - and could refer to any of his close followers - is that it is never used to describe his closest followers like Peter, Andrew, John, and James. James the Just was never a follower of Jesus - according to you - until after Jesus died. Yet he is called a brother, and Peter is not. Furthermore it is my understanding that the analysis is based on the Aramaic word for brother, not the Greek word, and as the NT is written in Greek and not Aramaic that's pure conjecture.

Genesis is not written in Greek, it's written in Hebrew so analysis of what the LXX wording might say is useless.

"we can be confident that Luke learned this detail from Mary" - no we can't. We cannot verify anything about the nativity, it's safer to assume the whole thing is an embellishment.

We do not know where Luke got his information, but we do know it was not from primary sources since he says so himself (see Luke 1:1-4).

Even if it's true, we don't know why they didn't offer a lamb. That's simply an assumption you've made. But even assuming you are right that they are poor when Jesus is born - how does that tell you anything about their financial status in 30-something years time when Jesus begins to preach?

"Joseph was a widower" - never seen that in my Bible. Is that some other random RCC doctrine?

"Joseph does not appear in the gospels after Jesus was found in the Temple at age 12." - So what? How do we infer anything about his financial state from that?

"Jesus commended his mother into the hands of John." I assume you mean John 19:27- we don't know for certain who the "beloved disciple" is. And even if I agree with you that John takes him into his home, this is simply following the crucifixion - not a permanent arrangement.

The real objection you could have made - if you could think up your own arguments Randy - is that if Joseph was alive and wealthy he would placed Jesus into his tomb.

The fact that Joseph isn't present in those passages though does not indicate he has died. He could have been away on a building project. That means he could have returned as soon as he had been sent word and taken possession of his son's body, moving it from the tomb of the other Joseph.