Physical Divinity of Christ

[Goinheix]

You and I are genetically a blend of our mother and fathers physical makeup.

Christ too did not get his physical body only from Mary, but from both Mary and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I believe His physical incarnation retains the divine attributes of God as well as human flesh and blood (Mary's contribution). As I posted before, Scripture reveals this to us in the account of the Transfiguration.

I see no heresy or heterodoxy in these beliefs at all.

In the Bible it is not clear if Mary did contribute with half the genetic, or if she did only host a baby fully genetic from the Holy Soirit.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I can understand this much better.

I do not believe, as per the Chalcedonian Definition, that the natures or wills can be mixed (they are inconfused and unchanged) but they do exist fully in His entire Person (they are indivisible and inseparable).

That is why I do believe His Body to be Divine.



I agree. However, The fact that God has been depicted in the Bible with the ability to do things that require a "Form" of some kind makes me believe that even beings of pure spirit have some sort of "shape." The angels, for example. Obviously this isn't an earthly form but I believe the Transfiguration points at giving us an idea of sorts (note: Isaiah and Elijah are there too, physically, and possibly transfigured as well). This isn't to suggest that we lose our earthly forms upon our transfiguration as we continue our theosis (we cannot cease being human), but we take on becoming increasingly like being in the image of God (the Energies only of course, and never the Substance).

That Divine Form doesn't cease upon the Incarnation and continues as God the Son takes up human nature and therefore, an earthly body.

In addition, we must consider the Holy Communion. As Lutherans and Anglicans, we believe that Christ is not just spiritually but physically Present in the Elements. If Jesus is both Divine and Man, then when we receive Him by Host or Chalice, His full Person is there, for as Chalcedon suggests, we cannot separate the two natures or wills as much as we cannot absorb them into one or confuse them.

If Jesus is Truly Present, and found in each minute particle of each Species of the Blessed Sacrament, to suggest that we are only receiving His humanity seems suspicious to me, as it would be impossible. Since Jesus is, however, also Divine, it makes it possible, because He is as Chalcedon rightly declares Him to be. That would mean that when we receive His Flesh and His Blood, we are partaking of Him entirely: humanity and Deity.

That is at least my understanding. Truly, I leave it at Chalcedon and let the matter be at that.

Mine too, that was the point is citing the example of the Transfiguration; one person, two natures, inseparable.

In the Bible it is not clear if Mary did contribute with half the genetic, or if she did only host a baby fully genetic from the Holy Soirit.

No, it's not, neither is it clear to the contrary. Consider this though, what would the point have been? The Holy Spirit could just as easily dropped off the infant Jesus on Mary's doorstep.

 

[PaladinValer]

You see? It is you who spend all time accusing others of contradicting this and that creed. You dont care at all to do a direct investigation on the Bible but take for granted what the creed sauy.

Goinheix, I know the Holy Bible very well. I read it, I research it, I know its history, I teach it.

With all due respect, I know how to interpret the Holy Scriptures and I know how to research what is necessary for me to arrive at increasingly better interpretations or if I am not sure.

Not only that...if one brother concider the creed to be wrong, you immediately warn him that he will be expulsed from the forum. You dont defend chrustian truth but your denomination truth.

I have no authority to ban anyone; I'm not staff. I merely quote the rules and suggest to you that your status is in conflict with the rules of this forum. Non-Christians and those who hold unorthodox positions are not banned but are not allowed to post in certain areas. That has been the rule here for a VERY long time.

As for the Creed being my own church's position alone, you truly have no clue. Every single Apostolic and Protestant body agrees with the Creed. It is the ONLY CHRISTIAN POSITION. If you actually took any of the advice I've given you before and actually RESEARCHED the history of the Trinity, you'd see that Nicaea I only dogmatized what was already believed in. The idea that the Trinity began with Nicaea is psuedohistorical nonsense.

Those who rejected the Trinity at the time of Nicaea...those groups all died out. If they really had the truth, then God would have not allowed them to cease to be, so unless you think God Himself made such a critical blunder, then the only logical conclusion is that the Creed is truth.

In the Bible it is not clear if Mary did contribute with half the genetic, or if she did only host a baby fully genetic from the Holy Soirit.

The Holy Spirit isn't biological like we are. God has no DNA. Jesus inherited only the genetics of the only human parent: St. Mary the Virgin.

Mine too, that was the point is citing the example of the Transfiguration; one person, two natures, inseparable.

Fully agreed!

 

[Goinheix]

No, it's not, neither is it clear to the contrary. Consider this though, what would the point have been? The Holy Spirit could just as easily dropped off the infant Jesus on Mary's doorstep.

But at the end of the day, you have nothing proving or sugesting that Mary did contributed with more than carrying the baby.

 

[Goinheix]

The Holy Spirit isn't biological like we are. God has no DNA. Jesus inherited only the genetics of the only human parent: St. Mary the Virgin.

Are you saying that Jesus - genetically - is son of Mary 100%? That is not possible for two reasons. Mary was XX, and males are XY. If depent on a woman, all childrens will be XX. It is the participation of an XY male that make possible to have male babies. And the second reason is that a baby with full genetict from a person, will be a clone of that person.

The conception is a miracle. I have study all miracles; and the conception still is the only one that keep me confuse in understanding it. I am far from understanding what and how it hapens; but yours is not a good explanation.

 

[PaladinValer]

But at the end of the day, you have nothing proving or sugesting that Mary did contributed with more than carrying the baby.

She made a huge contribution: She said "yes" whereas Eve said "no." In other words, her assent was necessary.

Are you saying that Jesus - genetically - is son of Mary 100%? That is not possible for two reasons. Mary was XX, and males are XY. If depent on a woman, all childrens will be XX. It is the participation of an XY male that make possible to have male babies. And the second reason is that a baby with full genetict from a person, will be a clone of that person.

Well, you contradicted yourself with the following:

he conception is a miracle. I have study all miracles; and the conception still is the only one that keep me confuse in understanding it. I am far from understanding what and how it hapens; but yours is not a good explanation.

It is a miracle precisely because St. Mary the Theotokos was the only DNA contributor. In other words, Jesus didn't have a human father. Jesus, being God the Son Incarnate, had God the Father as His Father, begotten from before all worlds; a eternal begetting.

Listen, do us a favor: take the time to digest what we've said, sit down and READ the Holy Scriptures, READ the Fathers and the Apostolic Witnesses, READ the Creeds and the Definition, and then come back.

For all your proposed studying, you are continuously trounced. I do not find it enjoyable debating someone who makes big claims ("I have studied all miracles") and produces no goods. I have no true interest in beating such people to a bloody pulp in debates because it only leads the weaker party to discouragement and sometimes a weaker faith. I debate only to engage in an intellectual and thought-provoking disagreements that I usually learn a lot from and have sometimes been forced to concede when I've been proven wrong - yes, that mean's I've lost before and will continue to probably in the future. I've debated a lot of people here on CF and while I disagree with them, they usually can hold their own. You cannot.

That is not meant to be a slight to you. It is a suggestion that you take the time to learn and to refine and perhaps redefine your positions and your arguments. I would also highly suggest you take the time to brush up on the various logical fallacies because they make a all too common presence here.

I admire your passion and your zeal, but passion must be tempered with reason. Christianity is a reasonable religion because it holds truth so paramount.

Again, I am not finding this enjoyable seemingly beating you down to the point like you're grasping for straws, like you have before. You seem to be someone who aspires for a more thorough understanding of Christianity and to be able to debate and defend, and that is excellent and I do believe you are capable of that. However, you are going on about it the wrong way. Take some of my suggestions to heart, but do not stop posting: take the time instead to learn and not to debate.

 

[Goinheix]

She made a huge contribution: She said "yes" whereas Eve said "no." In other words, her assent was necessary.

.

We was talking of genetic contribution.

 

[Goinheix]

Well, you contradicted yourself with the following:

It is a miracle precisely because St. Mary the Theotokos was the only DNA contributor. In other words, Jesus didn't have a human father. Jesus, being God the Son Incarnate, had God the Father as His Father, begotten from before all worlds; a eternal begetting.

Listen, do us a favor: take the time to digest what we've said, sit down and READ the Holy Scriptures, READ the Fathers and the Apostolic Witnesses, READ the Creeds and the Definition, and then come back.

The Fathers, the Apostolic Witnesses, the Creeds and the Definition have nothig to add. They are totally useless. The scripture is the only fountain of knowledge and truth. But you did hepl me to understand the miracle.

The scripture say that Joseph did not have sex life with Mary until after Jesus birth. The sex life of Mary and Joseph is not an explanation for the miracle, because it was - acording to the scripture - after the birth, not before; not before getting pregnant, not even before the delivery of the baby.

But yet, Jesus is Joseph first born. The Gospels keep on refering to Jesus as Joseph son. That probably - only probably - means that by some miracle, Joseph genetics were in Jesus. How it happens that Joseph sperm got in Mary? That is the miracle about.

 

[PaladinValer]

We was talking of genetic contribution.

And I answered the question.

The Fathers, the Apostolic Witnesses, the Creeds and the Definition have nothig to add.

They are proof of how the Early Church interpreted the Holy Writ. That is a major part of what Holy Tradition actually is.

They are totally useless. The scripture is the only fountain of knowledge and truth.

Not according to the Early Church.

The scripture say that Joseph did not have sex life with Mary until after Jesus birth.

Which was a simple affirmation that St. Mary the Theotokos was a true Virgin. There is no other point to the passage. The Early Church is clear that St. Mary the Theotokos lived a completely celibate life, and while such a belief may not be salvific, the fact that is was a part of the decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council and that it was believed in by even Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley means that the idea that Protestantism or Lutheranism as a whole denying the perpetual virginity of St. Mary the Theotokos is false.

The sex life of Mary and Joseph is not an explanation for the miracle, because it was - acording to the scripture - after the birth, not before; not before getting pregnant, not even before the delivery of the baby.

Point being...

But yet, Jesus is Joseph first born. The Gospels keep on refering to Jesus as Joseph son. That probably - only probably - means that by some miracle, Joseph genetics were in Jesus. How it happens that Joseph sperm got in Mary? That is the miracle about.

No....

Again, please learn about the Holy Bible and read it thoroughly before you do this...

According to the Law, if a widower marries and the wives brings forth new children, they are the sons of the former widower. Furthermore, the children of the widower from his previous marriage become the children of the former widower's new wife.

Jesus was born of St. Mary the Theotokos. That means St. Joseph the Betrothed, since he was to marry her, would be the father according to the Torah. Furthermore, it means St. Joseph's children from his previous marriage would be as true siblings to Jesus and as true sons and daughters to St. Mary.

That is why it is said that St. Joseph was the "father" of Jesus. Therefore, there is no male donor of biological DNA; St. Mary was the only one who offered DNA. That's the implication of the miracle of the Virgin Birth.

Please...stop trying to debate and concentrate on learning. I do not find any joy in this...

 

[Goinheix]

Which was a simple affirmation that St. Mary the Theotokos was a true Virgin. There is no other point to the passage. The Early Church is clear that St. Mary the Theotokos lived a completely celibate life, and while such a belief may not be salvific, the fact that is was a part of the decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council and that it was believed in by even Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley means that the idea that Protestantism or Lutheranism as a whole denying the perpetual virginity of St. Mary the Theotokos is false.

...

Now you know why the Early Chruch, the Ecumenical Councils, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley are useless and clearly wrong. The Gospels clearly say that she did not have sex until Jesus birth. Also they mention the brothers of Jesus.

 

[PaladinValer]

Now you know why the Early Chruch, the Ecumenical Councils, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley are useless and clearly wrong. The Gospels clearly say that she did not have sex until Jesus birth. Also they mention the brothers of Jesus.

Already answered that.

Furthermore, the Greek used doesn't just mean biological brothers, but brothers by Law (as I explained) and is inclusive of cousins as well.

That is not a rebuttal. That is a repeat.

Furthermore, saying "well that's wrong" isn't an argument. Debate the points given.

 

[Goinheix]

Already answered that.

Furthermore, the Greek used doesn't just mean biological brothers, but brothers by Law (as I explained) and is inclusive of cousins as well.

That is not a rebuttal. That is a repeat.

Furthermore, saying "well that's wrong" isn't an argument. Debate the points given.

You base your position in what the oficial church have said. It is the same oficial church that was saying Earth to be flat. What all those persons and creeds have to say is irrelevant.

The greek word for brother also means brothers. It laso means sons of Mary. Actually it not "also eman" but it is the primary and direct mening.
What about Joseph not having sex until the birth of Jesus?

The Bible sugest that Mary had a natural marital ñlife with Joseph; and that she had more childrens, brothers of Jesus. What the Bible silence at all is about the perpetual virginity of Mary. That is an invention of those persons, believing in a flat Earth.

 

[PaladinValer]

You base your position in what the oficial church have said. It is the same oficial church that was saying Earth to be flat. What all those persons and creeds have to say is irrelevant.

1. Mark not only quoted the Creed but gave Scriptural basis.
2. The Church never suggested the Earth was flat. Psuedohistory, and as someone with a degree in history, I know that for a fact.

The greek word for brother also means brothers.

Do you actually read what I say? I'm going to quote myself and this time, since you want to continue this, I'm going to play hardball:

"Furthermore, the Greek used doesn't just mean biological brothers, but brothers by Law (as I explained) and is inclusive of cousins as well."

1. I acknowledged that it can mean purely biological brothers.
2. I pointed out that it has a broader definition as well.

You need to prove that it can only mean biological brothers. Since the Greek is AMBIGUOUS, you have a serious issue. Based on your premise of solo scriptura (note: I said "solo" not "sola"; sola scriptura is a position of Lutheranism which is not negative towards the Creeds, the Definition, or the Church Fathers. In fact, sola scriptura demands adherence to the Creeds, the Definition, and is usually very positive about the Early Church and especially the Apostolic Witnesses), you need to prove it via Holy Scripture alone. If I continue to show its ambiguity, then you'd have no choice but to look elsewhere. The moment you do, you will have contradicted yourself.

As I said: if you really want to continue this debacle, especially when you are going to directly ignore what I am saying, then I am not going to pull any more punches.

It laso means sons of Mary.

That is not true since it was used before St. Mary the Theotokos was even born. It is NOT an exclusive term for the Holy Family

Actually it not "also eman" but it is the primary and direct mening.

False. Get a lexicon and look it up: Adelphos - Greek Lexicon

You don't understand languages if you think words necessarily have to have a "primary use." Words' definitions change, evolve, and, often, have more than one primary use, especially when it comes to idiom, but sometimes when it comes to their very use.

What about Joseph not having sex until the birth of Jesus?

Already answered and explained.

The Bible sugest that Mary had a natural marital ñlife with Joseph; and that she had more childrens, brothers of Jesus.

I've just proven above that the Greek is ambiguous at best. I've also pointed out the importance of the Torah in the matter, which is why the lexicon admits that it doesn't have to be a fully biological sibling. That shows that the Holy Bible isn't absolutely clear beyond any reasonable doubt.

What the Bible silence at all is about the perpetual virginity of Mary. That is an invention of those persons, believing in a flat Earth.

No such thing as the Church teaching the Earth is flat: Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undeniable proof. Writings from the Early Church, including those of the greatest Biblical authority in the West, St. Augustine of Hippo, whose writings were so important to Vatican Catholicism, Anglicanism, Luther, and Calvin, that each of them point to him as the basis of their theology, show that the idea that the Church taught the Earth was flat is pure psuedohistorical nonsense.

As for the perpetual virginity, I never claimed the Holy Bible outright stated it. I do claim, however, that the Holy Bible suggests it, and since the belief can be derived from the Holy Writ and can be found in the writings of the Church whereas the opposite cannot be found outside orthodoxy, then it must be the position of the Church, which is why its doctrine was proclaimed at Ephesus.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But at the end of the day, you have nothing proving or sugesting that Mary did contributed with more than carrying the baby.

The fact that he was born of Mary suggests that Mary did contribute more than just being a surrogate, Mary was Jesus' mother.

The Fathers, the Apostolic Witnesses, the Creeds and the Definition have nothig to add. They are totally useless. The scripture is the only fountain of knowledge and truth. But you did hepl me to understand the miracle.

The scripture say that Joseph did not have sex life with Mary until after Jesus birth. The sex life of Mary and Joseph is not an explanation for the miracle, because it was - acording to the scripture - after the birth, not before; not before getting pregnant, not even before the delivery of the baby.

Sex after Christ's birth or not, Scripture leads us to conclude that Mary definitely had no other sons; otherwise why would our Lord give St. John to Mary as her son, and Mary to St. John as his mother? A widow with no son to care for her would be destitute.

But yet, Jesus is Joseph first born. The Gospels keep on refering to Jesus as Joseph son. That probably - only probably - means that by some miracle, Joseph genetics were in Jesus. How it happens that Joseph sperm got in Mary? That is the miracle about.

Be very careful here, you are teaching against our SoF, this is unorthodox theology. Jesus was begotten by God the Father, before his conception, "He was conceived by the Holy Spirit", period. End of discussion.

Now I'm talking as a member of staff: This is teaching against the Statement of Faith, which you agreed with when you became a member. If this is what you truly believe, you are in the wrong forum; consider this a friendly warning.

Now you know why the Early Chruch, the Ecumenical Councils, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley are useless and clearly wrong. The Gospels clearly say that she did not have sex until Jesus birth. Also they mention the brothers of Jesus.

The Gospels also do not clearly state that she did.

1. Mark not only quoted the Creed but gave Scriptural basis.
2. The Church never suggested the Earth was flat. Psuedohistory, and as someone with a degree in history, I know that for a fact.

Do you actually read what I say? I'm going to quote myself and this time, since you want to continue this, I'm going to play hardball:

"Furthermore, the Greek used doesn't just mean biological brothers, but brothers by Law (as I explained) and is inclusive of cousins as well."

1. I acknowledged that it can mean purely biological brothers.
2. I pointed out that it has a broader definition as well.

You need to prove that it can only mean biological brothers. Since the Greek is AMBIGUOUS, you have a serious issue. Based on your premise of solo scriptura (note: I said "solo" not "sola"; sola scriptura is a position of Lutheranism which is not negative towards the Creeds, the Definition, or the Church Fathers. In fact, sola scriptura demands adherence to the Creeds, the Definition, and is usually very positive about the Early Church and especially the Apostolic Witnesses), you need to prove it via Holy Scripture alone. If I continue to show its ambiguity, then you'd have no choice but to look elsewhere. The moment you do, you will have contradicted yourself.

As I said: if you really want to continue this debacle, especially when you are going to directly ignore what I am saying, then I am not going to pull any more punches.

That is not true since it was used before St. Mary the Theotokos was even born. It is NOT an exclusive term for the Holy Family



False. Get a lexicon and look it up: Adelphos - Greek Lexicon

You don't understand languages if you think words necessarily have to have a "primary use." Words' definitions change, evolve, and, often, have more than one primary use, especially when it comes to idiom, but sometimes when it comes to their very use.

Already answered and explained.

I've just proven above that the Greek is ambiguous at best. I've also pointed out the importance of the Torah in the matter, which is why the lexicon admits that it doesn't have to be a fully biological sibling. That shows that the Holy Bible isn't absolutely clear beyond any reasonable doubt.

No such thing as the Church teaching the Earth is flat: Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undeniable proof. Writings from the Early Church, including those of the greatest Biblical authority in the West, St. Augustine of Hippo, whose writings were so important to Vatican Catholicism, Anglicanism, Luther, and Calvin, that each of them point to him as the basis of their theology, show that the idea that the Church taught the Earth was flat is pure psuedohistorical nonsense.

As for the perpetual virginity, I never claimed the Holy Bible outright stated it. I do claim, however, that the Holy Bible suggests it, and since the belief can be derived from the Holy Writ and can be found in the writings of the Church whereas the opposite cannot be found outside orthodoxy, then it must be the position of the Church, which is why its doctrine was proclaimed at Ephesus.

Well stated!

 

[Goinheix]

I can see that you workship Mary; and it is not my porpose to ofend you. I can keep discussing this topic, demostrating that the perpetual virginity is a doctrine based on later believes not included in the Bible. But it will be an end less discussion since you will never give up in your workshiping to Mary; the Virgin; the Mother of God; Teokokos.

The main topic is about the divinity of Jesus body. I presume that it is conected to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Aparently it is necessary for her to be mother of a divine crerature, even in the fleah. How is that a body can be divine?

 

[PaladinValer]

I can see that you workship Mary;

Illogical conclusion based on the evidence given. Defending the position that the Holy Bible supports St. Mary the Theotokos' perpetual virginity and was the belief of the Early Church does not imply any sort of Marian worship. That fact that John Calvin, who denounced Saintly venerations, nonetheless accepted the doctrine that St. Mary the Theotokos was a perpetual virgin and also truly the Mother of God is proof enough.

Worship is an entirely different topic. You are now grasping for straws, as I warned that you would start to do, because you didn't follow my friendly advice to cease debating with either Mark or myself when we are both clearly overclassing you and start to learn. Mark, I, and many others here, including several Baptists (which you claim to be; mind you, it is impossible to be a Baptist and to deny the Trinity, since that is a dogmatic part of orthodox Baptist theology), could help you learn and understand.

and it is not my porpose to ofend you. I can keep discussing this topic, demostrating that the perpetual virginity is a doctrine based on later believes not included in the Bible.

I'm going to be perfectly straight with you: I have been extremely patient with you. I have offered you excellent advice on how to proceed, how to learn, how to debate and argue, given you information to improve your schema and scholarship, and how to avoid a truly embarrassing situation. The offer is still there, if you have had enough of a "thrashing".

I have shown where in Holy Writ where the basis is based on the Greek word for bothers and gave you a link to a lexicon for you to see it for yourself. That lexicon is a credible source. You need to either prove that it isn't or concede the point.

But it will be an end less discussion since you will never give up in your workshiping to Mary; the Virgin; the Mother of God; Teokokos.

1. As I proved above, worship or veneration is an entirely different topic.
2. I do not worship any Saint nor angel. I venerate them, which is also entirely Scriptural.

The main topic is about the divinity of Jesus body. I presume that it is conected to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

Which I have shown.

Aparently it is necessary for her to be mother of a divine crerature, even in the fleah. How is that a body can be divine?

It is necessary or else you deny Jesus to be God.

I have already shown how Jesus' Body is Divine.

 

[Mark_Sam]

I agree. However, The fact that God has been depicted in the Bible with the ability to do things that require a "Form" of some kind makes me believe that even beings of pure spirit have some sort of "shape." The angels, for example. Obviously this isn't an earthly form but I believe the Transfiguration points at giving us an idea of sorts (note: Isaiah and Elijah are there too, physically, and possibly transfigured as well). This isn't to suggest that we lose our earthly forms upon our transfiguration as we continue our theosis (we cannot cease being human), but we take on becoming increasingly like being in the image of God (the Energies only of course, and never the Substance).

That Divine Form doesn't cease upon the Incarnation and continues as God the Son takes up human nature and therefore, an earthly body.

In addition, we must consider the Holy Communion. As Lutherans and Anglicans, we believe that Christ is not just spiritually but physically Present in the Elements. If Jesus is both Divine and Man, then when we receive Him by Host or Chalice, His full Person is there, for as Chalcedon suggests, we cannot separate the two natures or wills as much as we cannot absorb them into one or confuse them.

If Jesus is Truly Present, and found in each minute particle of each Species of the Blessed Sacrament, to suggest that we are only receiving His humanity seems suspicious to me, as it would be impossible. Since Jesus is, however, also Divine, it makes it possible, because He is as Chalcedon rightly declares Him to be. That would mean that when we receive His Flesh and His Blood, we are partaking of Him entirely: humanity and Deity.

That is at least my understanding. Truly, I leave it at Chalcedon and let the matter be at that.

Between us, I think this is more a matter of wording than of doctrine.

 

[PaladinValer]

Between us, I think this is more a matter of wording than of doctrine.

I believe so. Language can be a funny thing - it led to the so-called "schism" of the Oriental Orthodox, which truly was primarily an issue of a few words.

We are on, I believe, the same page, and are saying it in different ways.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Now you know why the Early Chruch, the Ecumenical Councils, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley are useless and clearly wrong. The Gospels clearly say that she did not have sex until Jesus birth. Also they mention the brothers of Jesus.

This is a dangerous walk to walk. As Christians, we have a "cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1); our brothers and sisters in Christ. We should learn from their lives and teaching. Do I believe every single doctrine every Church Father ever taught? No. But do I believe that we can learn something from their interpretation of the Scriptures? Yes.

This changed my view on Mary's perpetual virginity. I opposed this view, but then I discovered that almost every single Christian, from the second-generation disciples up to the children of the Reformation (and indeed, most Christians today still do), taught that Mary was the "ever-virgin".
Were all of them wrong? And do I have greater knowledge of this than the greatest theologians in the history of Christianity? I would be arrogant to claim so.

Also, a quick note on the Greek: the Greek word used for "until" ("heos"), doesn't always imply a change. It's even like this in English; "Until the day I die, I will not eat turkey." Does this mean that I will eat turkey after my death? So "until" can simply mean "up to that point".
Then we are just as far, since both interpretations (the perpetual-virgin one and the non-perpetual-virgin one) seems to be just as valid.

 

[PaladinValer]

This is a dangerous walk to walk. As Christians, we have a "cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1); our brothers and sisters in Christ. We should learn from their lives and teaching. Do I believe every single doctrine every Church Father ever taught? No. But do I believe that we can learn something from their interpretation of the Scriptures? Yes.

Well said. Although of course I place a little more emphasis on the Early Church than you do, I respect your words here greatly on the topic.

This changed my view on Mary's perpetual virginity. I opposed this view, but then I discovered that almost every single Christian, from the second-generation disciples up to the children of the Reformation (and indeed, most Christians today still do), taught that Mary was the "ever-virgin".
Were all of them wrong? And do I have greater knowledge of this than the greatest theologians in the history of Christianity? I would be arrogant to claim so.

Emphasis added. Wonderfully said, all of it, but you point out something very critical.

Also, a quick note on the Greek: the Greek word used for "until" ("heos"), doesn't always imply a change. It's even like this in English; "Until the day I die, I will not eat turkey." Does this mean that I will eat turkey after my death? So "until" can simply mean "up to that point".
Then we are just as far, since both interpretations (the perpetual-virgin one and the non-perpetual-virgin one) seems to be just as valid.

Irrefutably said. Reps coming!