(June 23, 2015 at 4:53 am)robvalue Wrote: That's interesting about Catholics denying James is the brother of Jesus. Interesting because the earliest and most often touted extra biblical source confirming even the slightest hint of Jesus actually being a historical figure relies on James being his brother (Josephus). Despite the massive forgery therein, there is a second mention of "Jesus" via his brother which seems to be considered genuine. It's loose and far from makes the whole case, but it's the best they have and the Catholics apparently have jettisoned it unless I'm missing something.
This is a classic misunderstanding based on ignorance of the underlying Aramaic in which Jesus and the apostles actually spoke.
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.
