Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[Miken]

But in Koine Greek, the word for "brother" and "male cousin" is exactly the same.

Reminds me of when my Sicilian wife and I were first married, and I quickly realized that when we said "family" that we weren't using the same definition. If someone asked each of us separately "Who is in your family?", my response was to use "family" as referring to the nuclear family, whereas my wife looked at it as being the extended family.

And it wasn't just a matter of semantics, as how we relate to the extended family makes a huge difference, and I could tell ya many a story about that. My guess is that your wife may also have that same perspective as it is commonplace amongst those from a Latin heritage.

The word adelphos can be intended literally or figuratively. In a figurative sense it is very broad, a countryman or a fellow believer and so forth. But when meant literally it can only mean a brother, including half-brother or step-brother or adoptive brother, having at least one parent in common, biologically or legally. Cousins do not count.

In mentioning Mary as his mother, the sense of the named individuals being her sons as well is clear.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?

The proponents of the Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (who know Koine Greek) claim these brothers and the unnamed sisters as well are children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Joseph was too old to have sex but being guardian of 14 year- old Mary, he married her when she turned up pregnant because the Holy Spirit told him to. This story and the very explicit perpetual virginity idea come from the Protoevangelium of James, a second century work that elaborates enormously on the base story in Matthew and Luke.

 

[Miken]

But it could be "... the Lord's cousin".

In one case, the same word is used in reference to a different Mary than Jesus' mother Mary, but I'd have to look that up, however I'm leaving shortly. If you can't remember or find that reference, please let me know and I'll do the "investigation". Sherlock Holmes, at your service. Or is it Doctor Jekyll?

Do you mean this?

John 1:1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.

Martha is the adelphē (sister) of Mary of Bethany. This is the feminine form of the word for brother.

When Lazarus died…

John 11:9 … many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother.

As with ‘brother’, when ‘sister’ is used literally, it is an immediate relationship, not cousins.

 

[Kenny]

But it could be "... the Lord's cousin".

In one case, the same word is used in reference to a different Mary than Jesus' mother Mary, but I'd have to look that up, however I'm leaving shortly. If you can't remember or find that reference, please let me know and I'll do the "investigation". Sherlock Holmes, at your service. Or is it Doctor Jekyll?

you are too much... I don't know how your wife has put up with you all of these years

OK... let's look at this:

Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas,* (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him

Notice that he didn't use "cousin" but rather specifically relationship for cousin.

Matt 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon,who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee,and John his brother;

Adelphos -

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother

Outside of relations it is basically meaning of the same people or like you and I are brothers in the faith. But whenever it is used in family, don't see any application as cousin.

Cousin as in Mary and her cousin Elizabeth:

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a sonin her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was calledbarren.

Suggeness:
Definition when in use as in family

1. of the same kin, akin to, related by blood

Can be broadly applied to kinsmen... but when used in that method it is not used as "her sister".


Matt 12: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Definition - adelphe

1. a full, own sister

Soooooooo... I remain a literalist.

I think the position of cousin is just the Catholic viewpoint to keep Mary a virgin until death.

 

[metis]

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?

Again, that same word can be used for male cousins.

The proponents of the Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (who know Koine Greek) claim these brothers and the unnamed sisters as well are children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

Frankly, I really don't get into that one way or the other.

This story and the very explicit perpetual virginity idea come from the Protoevangelium of James, a second century work that elaborates enormously on the base story in Matthew and Luke.

I don't get into that either.

BTW, I did read the PoJ several decades ago, and let me say I found it "interesting".

 

[metis]

you are too much... I don't know how your wife has put up with you all of these years

OK... let's look at this:

Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas,* (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him

Notice that he didn't use "cousin" but rather specifically relationship for cousin.

Matt 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon,who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee,and John his brother;

Adelphos -

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother

Outside of relations it is basically meaning of the same people or like you and I are brothers in the faith. But whenever it is used in family, don't see any application as cousin.

Cousin as in Mary and her cousin Elizabeth:

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a sonin her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was calledbarren.

Suggeness:
Definition when in use as in family

1. of the same kin, akin to, related by blood

Can be broadly applied to kinsmen... but when used in that method it is not used as "her sister".


Matt 12: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Definition - adelphe

1. a full, own sister

Soooooooo... I remain a literalist.

I think the position of cousin is just the Catholic viewpoint to keep Mary a virgin until death.

This is from a Catholic website on this, but by posting this I'm not going as far as claiming that Jesus did not have any brothers, nor do lose any sleep over this one way or the other:

The pastor is half right and half wrong. He’s right about the fact that the Greek word for brother (adelphos; plural adelphoi) does mean sibling and about the fact that Greek has precise words for cousin, nephew, and other close relations. He’s also correct in pointing out that adelphos is the word used whenever there’s a mention of Jesus’ “brothers” (Mt 12:46; 13:55-56; Mk 6:3; Jn 7:5; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5).

He’s wrong, though, to infer from that bit of grammatical truth that Mary had children other than Jesus, mainly because he’s wrong in claiming that adelphos can only mean sibling in the New Testament. In Matthew 13:55-56 four men are named as brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. Your former pastor concludes wrongly that these are at least some of Mary’s other children. The New Testament proves otherwise.

In John 19:25 we read, “Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.” Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: “Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they’re called adelphoi); they were Jesus’ cousins–sons of their mother’s sister.

The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13. This proves two important things. First, it proves that the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling, and it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children. -- Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had brothers?

 

[metis]

you are too much... I don't know how your wife has put up with you all of these years

Because I'm so handsome? Maybe because I look like a cross between George Clooney and Godzilla?

 

[metis]

Do you mean this?

John 1:1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.

Martha is the adelphē (sister) of Mary of Bethany. This is the feminine form of the word for brother.

When Lazarus died…

John 11:9 … many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother.

As with ‘brother’, when ‘sister’ is used literally, it is an immediate relationship, not cousins.

Please check out my post #65.

 

[Kenny]

This is from a Catholic website on this, but by posting this I'm not going as far as claiming that Jesus did not have any brothers, nor do lose any sleep over this one way or the other:

The pastor is half right and half wrong. He’s right about the fact that the Greek word for brother (adelphos; plural adelphoi) does mean sibling and about the fact that Greek has precise words for cousin, nephew, and other close relations. He’s also correct in pointing out that adelphos is the word used whenever there’s a mention of Jesus’ “brothers” (Mt 12:46; 13:55-56; Mk 6:3; Jn 7:5; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5).

He’s wrong, though, to infer from that bit of grammatical truth that Mary had children other than Jesus, mainly because he’s wrong in claiming that adelphos can only mean sibling in the New Testament. In Matthew 13:55-56 four men are named as brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. Your former pastor concludes wrongly that these are at least some of Mary’s other children. The New Testament proves otherwise.

In John 19:25 we read, “Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.” Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: “Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they’re called adelphoi); they were Jesus’ cousins–sons of their mother’s sister.

The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13. This proves two important things. First, it proves that the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling, and it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children. -- Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had brothers?

You are correct in not loosing any sleep (a proper position to hold in reference to this).

I know that this person wasn't responding to me since I did acknowledge a broader application of the word.

But I don't understand his point about the sons of Zebedee.... which sons. His sons were John and James... not James and Joseph.

 

[joelr]

You have decided its a myth because its two parallel stories. Again, let me say this again, maybe these two sources had a single legend where "its not a myth" but they had narrated their own versions of it.

No, I have not "decided", I simply follow evidence. While there may have been some local flood at some point there is no evidence for a worldwide flood. There is also no evidence outside mythology that Gods flood the Earth to wipe out humanity and tell people to build a ship and put animals on it. That is a wildly fictitious story and believing it's true just because it's an ancient story does not hold up.
There are many common myths that cultures share that no one would consider true any longer. The only reason some would want to consider this myth as real is because it's part of a religion people still believe. That is not evidence or reason to conclude it was a probable event.

We now know that myths were peoples way to make sense out of reality before we had any scientific understanding.
The fact that we can trace the flood myth back to Sumerian stories does not suggest it's real even a little. There is no Mesopotamian or Sumerian myth that are considered based on real events. It isn't a local river flood that is in question it's the supernatural aspects.

This is the oldest flood myth. Trying to rescue Noah's Ark as if the story is true but with different Gods (this time just Yahweh) and details is no different than suggesting any random ancient story is true.

"The beginning of the tablet is lost, but the surviving portion begins by recounting how the gods An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursanga created the Sumerians and comfortable conditions for the animals to live and procreate. Kingship then descends from heaven, and the first cities are founded: Eridu, Bad-tibira, Larak, Sippar, and Shuruppak.

After a missing section, we learn that the gods have decided not to save mankind from an impending flood. Zi-ud-sura, the king and gudug priest, learns of this. In the later Akkadian version recorded in the Atra-Hasis Epic, Ea (Sumerian Enki), the god of the waters, warns the hero (Akkadian Atrahasis) and gives him instructions for building an ark. This is missing in the Sumerian fragment, but a mention of Enki taking counsel with himself suggests similar instructions in the Sumerian version.

Before the missing section, the gods have decided to send a flood to destroy mankind. Enki, god of the underworld sea of fresh water and equivalent of Babylonian Ea, warns Ziusudra, the ruler of Shuruppak, to build a large boat, though the directions for the boat are also lost.

When the tablet resumes, it describes the flood. A terrible storm rages for seven days and nights. "The huge boat had been tossed about on the great waters." Then Utu (Sun) appears and Ziusudra opens a window, prostrates himself, and sacrifices an ox and a sheep.

After another break, the text resumes with the flood apparently over, and Ziusudra prostrating himself before An (Sky) and Enlil (Lordbreath), who give him "breath eternal" for "preserving the animals and the seed of mankind". The remainder is lost."
Sumerian creation myth - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

The word adelphos can be intended literally or figuratively. In a figurative sense it is very broad, a countryman or a fellow believer and so forth. But when meant literally it can only mean a brother, including half-brother or step-brother or adoptive brother, having at least one parent in common, biologically or legally. Cousins do not count.

In mentioning Mary as his mother, the sense of the named individuals being her sons as well is clear.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?

The proponents of the Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (who know Koine Greek) claim these brothers and the unnamed sisters as well are children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Joseph was too old to have sex but being guardian of 14 year- old Mary, he married her when she turned up pregnant because the Holy Spirit told him to. This story and the very explicit perpetual virginity idea come from the Protoevangelium of James, a second century work that elaborates enormously on the base story in Matthew and Luke.

Establishing historicity is mainly based on what Paul says in any of the 7 letters considered authentic.
The gospels are later works of fiction and Paul knew of no disciples or Earthly Jesus. The debate is weather Paul was calling James a "brother in the lord" or biological brother.

What PhD carrier says regarding that:

"Paul does not say “brother of Jesus,” but “brother of the Lord,” which can only be a cultic title (one does not become the brother of “the Lord” until the person in question is hailed “the Lord,” thus the phrase “brother of the Lord” is a creation of Christian ideology). Yes, he may have earned that cultic title by actually being the brother of Jesus. But he could also have earned it by simply being a baptized Christian. Since all baptized Christians were the adopted sons of God, just as Jesus was (Romans 1:3-4), Jesus was only “the first born among many brethren” (Romans 8:29), which means all Christians were the brothers of the Lord…

[And] there are numerous passages in Paul that confirm this: Romans 8:15-29, 9:26; Galatians 3:26-29, 4:4-7; and Christians explicitly taught that Jesus himself called all of them his brothers in Hebrews 2:10-18, via a “secret message” in the Psalms (Psalms 22:22). They had obvious inspiration from what they regarded as scripture, the Psalms of Solomon 17:26-27, which Paul appears to reference, and which predicted that the messiah would gather a select people and designate them all the sons of god (and thereby, his brethren)."

 

[firedragon]

No, I have not "decided", I simply follow evidence. While there may have been some local flood at some point there is no evidence for a worldwide flood. There is also no evidence outside mythology that Gods flood the Earth to wipe out humanity and tell people to build a ship and put animals on it. That is a wildly fictitious story and believing it's true just because it's an ancient story does not hold up.
There are many common myths that cultures share that no one would consider true any longer. The only reason some would want to consider this myth as real is because it's part of a religion people still believe. That is not evidence or reason to conclude it was a probable event.

We now know that myths were peoples way to make sense out of reality before we had any scientific understanding.
The fact that we can trace the flood myth back to Sumerian stories does not suggest it's real even a little. There is no Mesopotamian or Sumerian myth that are considered based on real events. It isn't a local river flood that is in question it's the supernatural aspects.

This is the oldest flood myth. Trying to rescue Noah's Ark as if the story is true but with different Gods (this time just Yahweh) and details is no different than suggesting any random ancient story is true.

"The beginning of the tablet is lost, but the surviving portion begins by recounting how the gods An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursanga created the Sumerians and comfortable conditions for the animals to live and procreate. Kingship then descends from heaven, and the first cities are founded: Eridu, Bad-tibira, Larak, Sippar, and Shuruppak.

After a missing section, we learn that the gods have decided not to save mankind from an impending flood. Zi-ud-sura, the king and gudug priest, learns of this. In the later Akkadian version recorded in the Atra-Hasis Epic, Ea (Sumerian Enki), the god of the waters, warns the hero (Akkadian Atrahasis) and gives him instructions for building an ark. This is missing in the Sumerian fragment, but a mention of Enki taking counsel with himself suggests similar instructions in the Sumerian version.

Before the missing section, the gods have decided to send a flood to destroy mankind. Enki, god of the underworld sea of fresh water and equivalent of Babylonian Ea, warns Ziusudra, the ruler of Shuruppak, to build a large boat, though the directions for the boat are also lost.

When the tablet resumes, it describes the flood. A terrible storm rages for seven days and nights. "The huge boat had been tossed about on the great waters." Then Utu (Sun) appears and Ziusudra opens a window, prostrates himself, and sacrifices an ox and a sheep.

After another break, the text resumes with the flood apparently over, and Ziusudra prostrating himself before An (Sky) and Enlil (Lordbreath), who give him "breath eternal" for "preserving the animals and the seed of mankind". The remainder is lost."
Sumerian creation myth - Wikipedia

Again, it could have a single source or legend that was adopted.

 

[joelr]

Again, it could have a single source or legend that was adopted.

Yes a river could have had a flood?That isn't the crux of the story, it's a myth about God(s) destroying humanity with other parables thrown in, re-birth and having a good society that a God doesn't have to drown and so on.
Until we have good evidence of Gods and Gods interacting and speaking with people then supernatural humanity destroying floods are as likely as demigods flying around with hammers shooting lightning.
That is the myth part - God. God destroys humanity. God allows one family to live. God makes animals go on an arc and chill and not need the normal amount of food. God allows humanity to survive from one family. Evolutionary science shows you need many thousands individuals for a human population to survive long term.
Humanity almost went extinct around 10,000BC when a long drought left only about 10,000 humans.

 

[firedragon]

Yes a river could have had a flood?That isn't the crux of the story, it's a myth about God(s) destroying humanity with other parables thrown in, re-birth and having a good society that a God doesn't have to drown and so on.
Until we have good evidence of Gods and Gods interacting and speaking with people then supernatural humanity destroying floods are as likely as demigods flying around with hammers shooting lightning.
That is the myth part - God. God destroys humanity. God allows one family to live. God makes animals go on an arc and chill and not need the normal amount of food. God allows humanity to survive from one family. Evolutionary science shows you need many thousands individuals for a human population to survive long term.
Humanity almost went extinct around 10,000BC when a long drought left only about 10,000 humans.

Again, it could have been one single legend or source that both had taken.

 

[firedragon]

Yes a river could have had a flood?That isn't the crux of the story, it's a myth about God(s) destroying humanity with other parables thrown in, re-birth and having a good society that a God doesn't have to drown and so on.
Until we have good evidence of Gods and Gods interacting and speaking with people then supernatural humanity destroying floods are as likely as demigods flying around with hammers shooting lightning.
That is the myth part - God. God destroys humanity. God allows one family to live. God makes animals go on an arc and chill and not need the normal amount of food. God allows humanity to survive from one family. Evolutionary science shows you need many thousands individuals for a human population to survive long term.
Humanity almost went extinct around 10,000BC when a long drought left only about 10,000 humans.

Tell me something. Why do you so strongly believe that Noah and the flood episode was copied from the epic of Gilgamesh? Why could not it have been the other way around?

Lets say that the Epic of Gilgamesh was coined around 2000 BC or even later, so how would you know so secularly that Noah who is supposed to have lived over 4000 years ago, maybe around 600 years before Gilgamesh epic, so it could be that the Epic of Gilgamesh was copied from Noah's legend.

So why one side?

 

[Miken]

Establishing historicity is mainly based on what Paul says in any of the 7 letters considered authentic.
The gospels are later works of fiction and Paul knew of no disciples or Earthly Jesus. The debate is weather Paul was calling James a "brother in the lord" or biological brother.

What PhD carrier says regarding that:

"Paul does not say “brother of Jesus,” but “brother of the Lord,” which can only be a cultic title (one does not become the brother of “the Lord” until the person in question is hailed “the Lord,” thus the phrase “brother of the Lord” is a creation of Christian ideology). Yes, he may have earned that cultic title by actually being the brother of Jesus. But he could also have earned it by simply being a baptized Christian. Since all baptized Christians were the adopted sons of God, just as Jesus was (Romans 1:3-4), Jesus was only “the first born among many brethren” (Romans 8:29), which means all Christians were the brothers of the Lord…

[And] there are numerous passages in Paul that confirm this: Romans 8:15-29, 9:26; Galatians 3:26-29, 4:4-7; and Christians explicitly taught that Jesus himself called all of them his brothers in Hebrews 2:10-18, via a “secret message” in the Psalms (Psalms 22:22). They had obvious inspiration from what they regarded as scripture, the Psalms of Solomon 17:26-27, which Paul appears to reference, and which predicted that the messiah would gather a select people and designate them all the sons of god (and thereby, his brethren)."

Paul provides very few details about an earthly Jesus, but he does say Jesus was born of a woman under the Law and was crucified and died. Paul also mentions several people who were presumably disciples of Jesus.

I agree that the Gospels were mostly purposeful fiction, with only Mark probably having some genuine historical material not obtained via Paul, although he also got some material from Paul.

It would appear that the label ‘the brother of the Lord’ is not merely a generic reference to any believer. Galatians 1:19 uses the phrase:

τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου
The (definite article) brother of-the Lord

Since Paul has just mentioned Peter without this title, this suggests a unique association of James with the Lord, not a generic one.

It is curious that James, the ‘brother of the Lord’, should be the head of the Jerusalem church yet the James son of Mary should play no role in the Gospels other than passing mentions. This could indicate that it is not a sibling of Jesus at all, i.e., a title as you say. Or it could be that when Mark got what historical material he has from Peter (as tradition says), Peter left out any mention of this James because Peter thought of himself as the chief Apostle and not subordinate to James as Paul tells us.

 

[pearl]

If however, you say Jesus did not come to found a new religion, then where did Christianity come from?

Post resurrection faith. I do not believe that the historical Jesus had any intention of starting a new religion but to renew his own.

 

[Miken]

This is from a Catholic website on this, but by posting this I'm not going as far as claiming that Jesus did not have any brothers, nor do lose any sleep over this one way or the other:

The pastor is half right and half wrong. He’s right about the fact that the Greek word for brother (adelphos; plural adelphoi) does mean sibling and about the fact that Greek has precise words for cousin, nephew, and other close relations. He’s also correct in pointing out that adelphos is the word used whenever there’s a mention of Jesus’ “brothers” (Mt 12:46; 13:55-56; Mk 6:3; Jn 7:5; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5).

He’s wrong, though, to infer from that bit of grammatical truth that Mary had children other than Jesus, mainly because he’s wrong in claiming that adelphos can only mean sibling in the New Testament. In Matthew 13:55-56 four men are named as brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. Your former pastor concludes wrongly that these are at least some of Mary’s other children. The New Testament proves otherwise.

In John 19:25 we read, “Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.” Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: “Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they’re called adelphoi); they were Jesus’ cousins–sons of their mother’s sister.

The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13. This proves two important things. First, it proves that the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling, and it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children. -- Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had brothers?

The meaning of adelphos when used in a literal sense is always male sibling – having at least one parent in common. That is simply Koine Greek and there is no changing that.

I fail to see the logic in the argument given above. Matthew not mentioning two of the brothers is supposed to be proof they were not siblings? There is no mention of the sisters either in Mt 27. Recall also that Matthew does not use the same list of names for the Apostles as Mark does. I see nothing definite about this at all. In fact, I see from the use of the word adelphos, which has the sole meaning of male sibling – having at least one parent in common – when used in a definite sense, that Jesus had four male siblings.

 

[metis]

The meaning of adelphos when used in a literal sense is always male sibling

False, as it can also refer to male cousins, which should make sense since there was great emphasis put on the extended family. One of Jesus' "brothers" came from a different Mary, which was shown in my last post.

 

[Miken]

False, as it can also refer to male cousins, which should make sense since there was great emphasis put on the extended family. One of Jesus' "brothers" came from a different Mary, which was shown in my last post.

Your last post assumed its conclusion and provided no real evidence or argumentation to support it. Grammatically, adelphos used in a literal sense always means male sibling.You cannot change the meaning of words, especially in another language, to suit your purposes. Recall that according to Matthew, Joseph and Mary originally lived in Bethlehem and moved way up into Nazareth for safety reasons. How come they have an extended family there to which they are close enough to call cousins 'brothers'?

 

[metis]

Your last post assumed its conclusion and provided no real evidence or argumentation to support it.

I did not and have not assumed anything of the like, and I've made that perfectly clear if you were ton check back.

Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent adelphos (adelfoV) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. However, the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aho) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, such as cousins -- II

A reminder that Jesus and the Twelve spoke Aramaic, which then was translated into Koine Greek. Also, the use of "adelphos" sometimes referred to those "bothers" also of the Christian faith.

Anyhow, I got some more important things to do.