Perpetual Virgin Mary?

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Original? That's in remarkable condition for a book that is over 4 centuries old.

Note that I said version. Not book. Or do you believe that people who read the King James Version also read the first-ever published book?

 

[prodromos]

Note that I said version. Not book.

Yes I understand that, but is it identical to the original book as "original version" would imply, or is this a later edition that has had changes made? You stated that Mike's English version was a bad translation. What if it is a good translation of an early edition.
What revision (if any) is your copy? Is it truly an original version as you claimed?

 

[Mountainmike]

Curious and curiouser.

It’s in the book of concord, which I assumed was authoritative for lutherans.

Part I | Book of Concord

the problem with early books is editions differ

They did, but it didn't really matter to them. Do you see the difference? In Catholicism a whole doctrine is built around Mary and her virginity, while the protestants (including the reformers) think that Jesus is the important one, not Mary. Mary didn't play a major role anymore and the reformers didn't deem it necessary to mention their belief in her (perpetual) virginity. The only important thing for the reformers was that Mary was a virgin when receiving Jesus, everything afterwards and whether until she died or not was irrelevant.
You can belief something without making it the center of your beliefs, that's why the reformers, even though believing in perpetual virginity, didn't make it part of their writings.

EDIT: That Mary was a virgin when receiving Jesus is still an important part of what we believe by the way. Just the perpetual part got lost - either because it is not necessary or because of the verse I quoted above, or even for both reasons.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Curious and curiouser.

It’s in the book of concord, which I assumed was authoritative for lutherans.

Part I | Book of Concord

the problem with early books is editions differ

A quick look at wikipedia (Immerwährende Jungfräulichkeit Marias) says the following:
"Die lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften als verbindliche Lehrgrundlage der lutherischen Kirchen sprechen beispielsweise in der Konkordienformel Artikel 8 (Von der Person Christi S. 1024) wie folgt: „Darum sie (Maria) wahrhaftig Gottesmutter und gleichwohl eine Jungfrau geblieben ist.“ Jedoch berufen sich nicht alle lutherischen Kirchen auf die Konkordienformel."

The first sentence means as much as this: The book of concord is used for teaching in the Lutheran church and contains the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The second sentence then means this: But not all Lutheran churches refer to/plead the book of concord.

Which pretty much confirms what I said in an earlier comment: there was no unity in the church about this topic. Some agreed, some didn't.

Yes I understand that, but is it identical to the original book as "original version" would imply, or is this a later edition that has had changes made? You stated that Mike's English version was a bad translation. What if it is a good translation of an early edition.
What revision (if any) is your copy? Is it truly an original version as you claimed?

The book I got here is indeed the original as in: it is a copy of what Luther wrote in 1537 (he actually wrote it December 1536 but it was sent to Johann Friedrich, Kurfürst von Sachsen on January 3rd, 1537). Luther himself then let this exact wording print in 1538 to make it public.
There is no revision of it.