I don’t know why the Septuagint chose adelphos for those translations but I would remind that the reason you know it didn’t mean “brother” in those instances was that context ruled it out.
I’m honestly not trying to make a sola scriptura argument. I’m not making any argument at all as it pertains to doctrine. I’m only attempting to make a critical evaluation of the text, itself. I’m not saying extrascriptural doctrine is not legitimate, only that it is extrascriptural.
I would also say that the Trinity is not found in the Bible. I would not say that that means it is not an essential Christian doctrine.
That is fine, but people don’t perfectly translate things. What we have is a couple of offhand references that, when people tried to put them into a language that the teachers didn’t know, contradict. We also have strong evidence that the people who wrote the Greek simply could not have properly translated it, because they were translating from no-equivelant terms. The best evidence seems to be that there was no continuing family line; if there was, one might expect it to have taken a very sacred place very early in the history of Christianity, a la Islam. And its not as if the Bible doesn’t use evocative, but technically inaccurate imagery in other places, either.
Tradition of the Orthodox Church is that Joseph was an old man and the Theotokos was his last wife. The brothers of Jesus were the sons of Joseph by another wife or wives.
Now, of course, one can cry “Where is that in the Bible?” to which I respond again “Where in the Bible does it state that one is to only consult the Bible in these matters, and where does it even say what is supposed to be in the Bible?”
What evidence is there that there was no continuing family line?
The only textual evidence we have says that Jesus had natural siblings. There is no textual evidence which says otherwise.
The only non-Biblical reference to James calls him Jesus’ brother without qualification. Josephus was not translating anything he was simply relating facts. There was absolutely no reason for him to say frater if he really meant sobrinus or patruelis*.
If a man is a “carpenter’s son”, then that carpenter’s other sons are that man’s brothers, at least in common speech, even if those brothers were from other wives. Or is somebody going to claim that there were ABSOLUTELY NO “half-brothers” at all among the Hebrews or among Jews since the term “half-brother” wasn’t used in the case in question and, indeed, did not appear at all in any description of Jews in the New Testament?
The tradition of the Orthodox Church is that they were sons of Joseph by an earlier wife or wives. Please quote the specific parts of Scripture that state that one is to ONLY consult Scripture to develop doctrine. Likewise, please quote the SPECIFIC parts of scripture that say that the “most plausible” reading to Protestants is the TRUE reading.
It is possible for them to be brothers of Christ and still for the Theotokos to remain ever-virgin.
The “most plausible” reading of all the miracles of Christ is that they’re a bunch of hooey and that He never rose from the dead and that He offers no salvation, whatsoever. Just ask any hardcore materialist. So, does that mean that the majority Christians act in direct contradiction against Scripture (or at least the “most plausible” reading of Scripture)?
I will say I agree with everything Jersey has posted here.
Mary was not sinless.
Although it is taught that Jesus had to not have an earthly genetic father becasue men are tainted by Adam’s sin.
I know theres a verse about this, darned if I can think of where it is.
Which is why IMHO God (NOT phycially) made Mary pregnant.
Which brings up an interesting point: if the sin nature is transmitted by the father (makles, obviously) then woman aren’t tainted by sin?
You wrote “The only textual evidence we have says that Jesus had natural siblings. There is no textual evidence which says otherwise.”
“only” and “no” are universal terms as you used them. You did not exclude their application to extra-Scriptural Tradition. Thus, what else could you have meant than espousing sola scriptura?
One need not be a “fundie” to deny the doctrine of immaculate conception. The Orthodox Church does not accept immaculate conception. We are all born with the consequences of Original Sin.
The idea that it is “transmitted” like some sort of venereal disease strikes me as rather odd.
I’m talking about contemporary (or at least as close as possible) historical texts. There are only a couple of non-Biblical historical sources which make any reference to Jesus. Josephus is one, Tacitus the other. Josephus makes a brief mention of the execution of “…the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…”
Besides, the concept of the Immaculate Conception does not hold that Mary was sinless. It says she received the redemption of Christ at her conception, in anticipation of her unique role in the birth of the Saviour. Therefore she had the stain of original sin removed while still in the womb (at conception, hence the term). She needed a Saviour just as everyone else, she simply received redemption in a different way.
And yes, this is a Catholic belief. However, I don’t see how this can be proved one way or the other without asking God himself, and I don’t see how belief (or doubt, or non-belief) effects one’s belief in Jesus or effects their own salvation.
And I put this in the same category of argument as Star Wars geeks arguing that “parsec” is an acceptable measure of speed for the Kessell Run because a fast ship could fly closer to a black hole on the journey, thus decreasing the distance traveled. It’s a post-hoc rationalization. **
Please quote the SPECIFIC part of my posts that state I advocate only consulting Scripture to develop doctrine.
Indeed, I’ve taken great pains to point out that I have no problem with extrascriptural tradition-based doctrines like the Immaculate Conception. The difference between those doctrines and doctrines like perpetual virginity is that the former don’t actually contradict other doctrinal sources (e.g., scripture). **
Please quote the SPECIFIC part of my posts where I claimed to have the “one true reading” of the Bible.
I never claimed to hold metaphysical truth. I just don’t personally buy the argument for perpetual virginity, for the reasons I’ve stated.