Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Thekla,

Let's look at just one example (there are many).

We'll keep it the EXACT SAME WORD: same person, same number, same tense.

Romans 7:15, ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ' ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ.

Now, according to you, the verb tense REQUIRES this to be translated as follows: "For all perpetuity, I will never know what I am doing." The NIV translates it, "I do not know what I'm doing." The ESV, "I do not understand my own actions." Is Paul describing a CURRENT struggle to understand, or does the Greek MANDATE that this is a PERPETUAL thing that MUST continue until his death?

I could do the same with hundreds of other examples. Your insistance that the Greek Present Active Indictative mandates perpetuality just isn't true - grammatically or in common use.

When Mary says, "I do not know a man" she is commenting on the CURRENT reality. Now, it COULD convey some future reality and it certainly doesn't preclude such, but that's CERTAINLY not a requirement of the verb. You have built your whole argument on a position that simply isn't the case.

I'm no Greek expert, and if you are - then I bow to such. But I did research this and could find NOTHING that remotely suggested that perpetuity is a requirement of the present tense in koine Greek, that such MUST mean the current reality MUST continue for all eternity. In fact, that seems to be an entirely different verb. It is a POSSIBLE reading of the term, but not a MANDATED one.



.

 

[Thekla]

.

Thekla,

Let's look at just one example (there are many).

We'll keep it the EXACT SAME WORD: same person, same number, same tense.

Romans 7:15, ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ' ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ.

Now, according to you, the verb tense REQUIRES this to be translated as follows: "For all perpetuity, I will never know what I am doing." The NIV translates it, "I do not know what I'm doing." The ESV, "I do not understand my own actions." Is Paul describing a CURRENT struggle to understand, or does the Greek MANDATE that this is a PERPETUAL thing that MUST continue until his death?

I have repeatedly stated that the context governs the duration of the action/condition described by the verb. (Go back and review my posts.)

Read the verse in context; it is the context which determines duration. In this passage he is speaking of sin warring in his members. The battle against sin persists throughout our earthly sojourn.

This follows and summarizes the points Paul is making (including the point in the verse you quoted):

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

When is the condition in verse 15 over ?

The body (where, per Paul, sin reigns and death - our body will die, thus we sin) will die. Even before we die, the future death of the body and the condition of sin/warring will continue. The future death of the body, sin, and the warring will continue until death; the body is not 'free of death'.
The continuous condition in verse 15 ends at the time of death; the present tense here is governed by the context as well. The duration here ends at death.

I could do the same with hundreds of other examples. Your insistance that the Greek Present Active Indictative mandates perpetuality just isn't true - grammatically or in common use.

I have said over and over and over again that the context determines the duration of the action/condition the verb describes.

The context for Mary's statement is the future, "shall".

When Mary says, "I do not know a man" she is commenting on the CURRENT reality. Now, it COULD convey some future reality and it certainly doesn't preclude such, but that's CERTAINLY not a requirement of the verb. You have built your whole argument on a position that simply isn't the case.

The duration of the "...I do not know a man." is governed by the shall (future) which introduces the portion you quote -- the two verbs are connected by a conjunction. Thus they are part of the same thought and the second verb is dependent on the time period described by the first verb.

I'm no Greek expert, and if you are - then I bow to such. But I did research this and could find NOTHING that remotely suggested that perpetuity is a requirement of the present tense in koine Greek, that such MUST mean the current reality MUST continue for all eternity. In fact, that seems to be an entirely different verb. It is a POSSIBLE reading of the term, but not a MANDATED one.

I can confidently say the Greek ECFs were more expert than either of us.
I can confidently say Philothei is more expert than either of us.

Try some more passages. Don't neglect to read for context, which determines the duration of the condition/action the verb describes.





.[/quote]

 

[Standing Up]

So what is the explanation of this?

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Carpenter--Joseph
Mother--Mary
Brothers--4 of them

At that time, Jesus was about 30, so plenty of time for four other children to have been born.

 

[Thekla]

So what is the explanation of this?

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Carpenter--Joseph
Mother--Mary
Brothers--4 of them

At that time, Jesus was about 30, so plenty of time for four other children to have been born.

The word "adelphos" covers about ten or so different relationships. The scripture does not describe which of the many meanings is meant by "adelphos".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



Thekla,


Friend, there is NOTHING in Romans 7:15 that REQUIRES that Paul's lack of understanding about this MUST (by grammatical necessity) continue in perpetuity. It MAY, but the GRAMMAR does not require that view. Your understanding to the contrary, all you are revealing is that you are NOT being governed by the tense of the verb - thus your point falls as baseless.

You claim that the ECF understood this better than any here. Maybe. Problem is: the very first indication you have of ANYONE interpreting the verb as you do is a single person from the year 400! MUCH too removed to have any knowledge from Mary about this. What about the 400 years of SILENCE before that - by people who would know even better than he? Ah, the same silence as the 99,998 denominations?

You did cause me to search this (thank you; I always appreciate people who challenge me). I could find NOTHING that indicates that in koine Greek, the present active indicative REQUIRES perpetuity. And unless it does, your entire case falls flat. "I own a Camry" does NOT mandate that I MUST own this Camry until I die. Not in Greek or in English.



.

 

[Thekla]

.



Thekla,


Friend, there is NOTHING in Romans 7:15 that REQUIRES that Paul's lack of understanding about this MUST (by grammatical necessity) continue in perpetuity. It MAY, but the GRAMMAR does not require that view. Your understanding to the contrary, all you are revealing is that you are NOT being governed by the tense of the verb - thus your point falls as baseless.

Where does your claim of "in perpetuity" come from.

The grammar requires that the context determines the duration. The context here describes the duration as the duration of the life of the body.
I have never stated that the tense always requires continuance in perpetuity.

The duration of the action/condition described by the present tense is determined by context. I have repeatedly stated this. Why do you persistently misrepresent what I said ?

You claim that the ECF understood this better than any here. Maybe. Problem is: the very first indication you have of ANYONE interpreting the verb as you do is a single person from the year 400! MUCH too removed to have any knowledge from Mary about this. What about the 400 years of SILENCE before that - by people who would know even better than he? Ah, the same silence as the 99,998 denominations?

I have asked you to provide evidence that orthodox Christians held a different view prior to the year 400. Where is your evidence ? You cannot claim that the position held from the 5th century on was a novelty or innovation without establishin what was previously believed.

As for Hellenistic grammar, do you mean to claim that the ECFs did not understand the language ?

You did cause me to search this (thank you; I always appreciate people who challenge me). I could find NOTHING that indicates that in koine Greek, the present active indicative REQUIRES perpetuity. And unless it does, your entire case falls flat. "I own a Camry" does NOT mandate that I MUST own this Camry until I die. Not in Greek or in English.

Are you capable of having a "staight" discussion, or is it required in perpetuity that you misrepresent my posts ?

I will say again, and I encourage you to reread my posts on the matter:

The duration of the condition of the present tense is governed by the context.

The duration of the verb "knowing" is determined by the "shall" which precedes it.

The shall is the future. There is no contextual condition given in the account other than the future.



.[/quote]

 

[Standing Up]

The word "adelphos" covers about ten or so different relationships. The scripture does not describe which of the many meanings is meant by "adelphos".

Okay, how about this sister in the LORD?

Mt. 13:56 And his (Jesus') sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?

Only two meanings, one of which wouldn't apply until after the Lord's resurrection.

Vines:

Sister:
is used
(a) of natural relationship, e.g., Mat 19:29; of the "sisters" of Christ, the children of Joseph and Mary after the virgin birth of Christ, e.g., Mat 13:56;
(b) of "spiritual kinship" with Christ, an affinity marked by the fulfillment of the will of the Father, Mat 12:50; Mar 3:35; of spiritual relationship based upon faith in Christ, Rom 16:1; 1Cr 7:15; 9:5, AV and RV marg.; Jam 2:15; Phm 1:2, RV.

 

[Thekla]

Okay, how about this sister in the LORD?

Mt. 13:56 And his (Jesus') sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?

Only two meanings, one of which wouldn't apply until after the Lord's resurrection.

Vines:

Sister:
is used
(a) of natural relationship, e.g., Mat 19:29; of the "sisters" of Christ, the children of Joseph and Mary after the virgin birth of Christ, e.g., Mat 13:56;
(b) of "spiritual kinship" with Christ, an affinity marked by the fulfillment of the will of the Father, Mat 12:50; Mar 3:35; of spiritual relationship based upon faith in Christ, Rom 16:1; 1Cr 7:15; 9:5, AV and RV marg.; Jam 2:15; Phm 1:2, RV.

It also means nephew, cousin, fellow household resident, neighbor, fellow countryman/tribe, like minded, etc.
Your source has artificially limited the actual meaning of the word "adelphos". You can check an Hellenistic dictionary (for ex., Langenscheidt).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where does your claim of "in perpetuity" come from.

YOU. And all the others pointing to this verse as confirmation for the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary. It has been your argument since the verse was brought up that it confirms the dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary - that Greek grammar of the present active indicative REQUIRES perpetuity. If the verb tense here doesn't MANDATE perpetuity, then your entire argument is baseless.


I reviewed things a few posts back just to put all this in our context. The point was made that SCRIPTURE confirms/substantiates the dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, the dogmatic fact of the uppermost certainty that Mary had no ______ EVER . Friend, no one here is denying that She was a virgin at the Annunciation/Incarnation, or at the birth of Jesus. No one is denying that she was a virgin when she said the words of Luke 1:34 and likely for a long time thereafter. In fact, I'm not IN ANY SENSE denying that she was/is a virgin ETERNALLY. It's YOU arguing that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that she IS still, in 2009, a virgin. She died a virgin. The issue is not 6 BC, it's EQUALLY 52 years later. The EVER Virginity. The PERPETUAL virginity. No _____ EVER. THAT is the issue we are discussing: perpetuality, eternity. The point was made that SCRIPTURE confirms this. I asked for the Scripture(s). One was given. You jumped right on to the bandwagon. You've been ever since trying to prove that in koine Greek, it is MANDATED that the present active indicative REQUIRES perpetuity - thus this verse confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.

I can find nothing that says that in koine Greek, it purpetuity is MANDATED by the present active indicative. CERTAINLY, it doesn't preclude the present continuing perpetually, eternally, but that's not a MANDATE of the verb tense. I've found your entire argument baseless.

The duration of the action/condition described by the present tense is determined by context.

1. Well, if you insist that the context is that Mary had no ____ ever, then we have eisegesis, not exegesis. You are simply making the verse agree with you - not the other way around.

2. But we've already been over the "shall." It does not provide a context that requires PERPETUITY. Grammatically or logically. Now, maybe you are backing off now and insisting only that it brings some future sense to it. Okay, I'm not sure I agree, but purely for the sake of the discussion, let's say it does (I'm not agreeing). How does that MANDATE forever? Let's say she used the future tense. I will buy a car. Does that mean that I will be buying cars every day for the rest of all eternity? No. EVEN IF YOUR RIGHT, it does nothing to support your point.

Again, I think the "context" (we're really talking speculation) is better. That Gabriel and Mary and Tradition are CORRECT here. On March 25 (9 months before Christmas) - a day Tradition says occured BOTH the Annunciation AND Incarnation, the day Gabriel announced the Gospel AND the day Mary conceived the Child - the Angel announced it BEFORE it happened (Catholics insist he sought willingness - maybe they are right!). But Mary was also CORRECT and understood this miracle would not occur 52 years in the future, or 37 years or 12 years. Or even 1 year in the future when She and Joseph would be together. No, rather than being wrong, it is my speculation that She was RIGHT. She understood the conception to be now. Today. Still future, but not 71 years from now. Mary, being innocent but not ignorant, notes that she and Joseph hadn't come together YET. "How can this be?" Ah, the verb tenses work perfectly - unlike in your speculation. But, obviously, speculation - yours or mine - is entirely moot to the issue of substantiation.

I have asked you to provide evidence that orthodox Christians held a different view prior to the year 400. Where is your evidence ? You cannot claim that the position held from the 5th century on was a novelty or innovation without establishin what was previously believed.

Let's try yet again....

1. I have no position. Of the 100000 denominations here claimed exist, only 2 have a position. In both, it is a dogma that Mary had no ____ ever. The 99,998 that have no position need no documentation to the level of highest certainty to defend a position THEY DON'T HAVE, the two that have the dogma have the requirement to confirm it. You keep trying to pass the buck. Nice try, though.

2. I never said no one thought Mary had no ___ ever prior to 400 AD. I honestly don't know (and frankly, don't care) when this position began to develop. I simply learned many years ago it's LONG after the only person would could know this had died, and LONG after anyone who ever knew Her did. And I learned LONG ago that the earliest claimed "affirmations' (NOT substantiations) actually aren't (Evangelium of James, for example). All too often, Catholics and Orthodox seem to think that if someone thinks Jesus had no sibs, that confirms that Mary never once had _____. That one always has puzzled me. What I said is the first known reference to this verb as meaning that you do is from around the year 400 AD. I don't remeber his name off the top of my head just now (hey, long day) but he died about 400 AD. Now, if I'm wrong and this verb was revealed as MANDATING perpetuity prior to that - I'm all ears. Educate me! Again, the shoe is TOTALLY on your foot. I have no position. I'm with the 99,998 denominations that don't say she did and don't say she didn't - we just don't say. We are silent. YOU are defending one of the 2 that shout that Mary Had No ______ E.V.E.R. No ____ EVER. That's the point you are trying to confirm to the highest level. And you've been claiming for several posts now that THIS verse does exactly that, by virtue of koine Greek grammar.

As for Hellenistic grammar, do you mean to claim that the ECFs did not understand the language ?

I never said that those in the First century didn't understand first century Greek. I only pointed out the first one ever revealed to me that said that this particular verb in the present active indictative MUST - by grammatical mandate - mean PURPETUALITY wrote that around 400 AD. I certainly could be wrong, lol Happens every day. So, if you can quote me someone who said that in the first century - I'm all ears. Quote some Greek speaker from the First Century who says, "the verb tense in this reference in Luke MANDATES that Mary had no _____ EVER." It will strengthen your case a bit and I'd be grateful for the insight.








.

 

[Thekla]

YOU. And all the others pointing to this verse as confirmation for the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.

So do you mean to say that folks will have "___" in heaven ? Or do you have no position on that ...

The shall covers her betrothal and pending marriage and the future in general --- the context does not provide a limit on the future of shall.

Unless you believe that folks have "___" in heaven, then after death is covered as well.

It has been your argument since the verse was brought up that it confirms the dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary - that Greek grammar of the present active indicative REQUIRES perpetuity. If the verb tense here doesn't MANDATE perpetuity, then your entire argument is baseless.

I have never said the present tense demands "perpetuity". Please quote the post and provide the post # for this alleged statement of mine.

Do I need to repeat myself ? The context determines the duration of the action/condition described by the verb.

I reviewed things a few posts back just to put all this in our context. The point was made that SCRIPTURE confirms/substantiates the dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, the dogmatic fact of the uppermost certainty that Mary had no ______ EVER .

The scripture does this:

The conception is announced to occur in the future.
Mary, who is betrothed (which is typically followed by marriage) asks how shall this be (future) which covers the betrothal and pending (typically) marriage. There is no limit given for the shall. The EO does not believe that folks have "____" in heaven. After the death of Mary, it is assumed thus, based on this belief, that she will still remain in the condition covered by shall, as there is no opportunity to reverse the condition after death.

Friend, no one here is denying that She was a virgin at the Annunciation/Incarnation, or at the birth of Jesus. No one is denying that she was a virgin when she said the words of Luke 1:34 and likely for a long time thereafter. In fact, I'm not IN ANY SENSE denying that she was/is a virgin ETERNALLY. It's YOU arguing that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that she IS still, in 2009, a virgin. She died a virgin.

See above. (And my other posts as well).

The issue is not 6 BC, it's EQUALLY 52 years later. The EVER Virginity. The PERPETUAL virginity. No _____ EVER. THAT is the issue we are discussing: perpetuality, eternity. The point was made that SCRIPTURE confirms this. I asked for the Scripture(s). One was given. You jumped right on to the bandwagon. You've been ever since trying to prove that in koine Greek, it is MANDATED that the present active indicative REQUIRES perpetuity - thus this verse confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.

I have never said that the present mandates eternity.

Please quote and provide post # for the post where I state what you claim.

I can find nothing that says that in koine Greek, it purpetuity is MANDATED by the present active indicative. CERTAINLY, it doesn't preclude the present continuing perpetually, eternally, but that's not a MANDATE of the verb tense. I've found your entire argument baseless.

Nor have I stated any such thing; please quote the post where I made such a statement, or stop making a claim which is demonstrably false.

1. Well, if you insist that the context is that Mary had no ____ ever, then we have eisegesis, not exegesis. You are simply making the verse agree with you - not the other way around.

The context is the future, indicated by "shall". I am not claiming the context is what you state, therefore your claim of "eisegesis" is a product of your eisegesis of my post/s.

2. But we've already been over the "shall." It does not provide a context that requires PERPETUITY. Grammatically or logically.

Please provide scriptural evidence for the limit Mary provides for the duration of "shall".

Let's try yet again....

1. I have no position. Of the 100000 denominations here claimed exist, only 2 have a position. In both, it is a dogma that Mary had no ____ ever. The 99,998 that have no position need no documentation to the level of highest certainty to defend a position THEY DON'T HAVE, the two that have the dogma have the requirement to confirm it. You keep trying to pass the buck. Nice try, though.

Hmmm, seems I've read this before.

2. I never said no one thought Mary had no ___ ever prior to 400 AD. I honestly don't know (and frankly, don't care) when this position began to develop. I simply learned many years ago it's LONG after the only person would could know this had died, and LONG after anyone who ever knew Her did.

How can you claim both that you do not know when the position "began to develop" and also claim it developed "long after the only person who would could (sic) know this had died" ?

This is a logical inconsistency.

And I learned LONG ago that the earliest claimed "affirmations' (NOT substantiations) actually aren't (Evangelium of James, for example). All too often, Catholics and Orthodox seem to think that if someone thinks Jesus had no sibs, that confirms that Mary never once had _____. That one always has puzzled me.

I'm not surprised.

What I said is the first known reference to this verb as meaning that you do is from around the year 400 AD.

Hellenistic grammar is from the period of the writing of scripture. Why don't you investigate secular works from the same era ? That should answer your question.

I don't remeber his name off the top of my head just now (hey, long day) but he died about 400 AD.

You mentioned St. Gregory of Nyssa; do you mean to suggest that St. Gregory was involved in a vast ECF conspiracy to change the rules of Hellenistic Greek grammar

Now, if I'm wrong and this verb was revealed as MANDATING perpetuity prior to that - I'm all ears.

Using a demonstrable misrepresentation of what has been stated, you then narrow your question to the point of absurdity and ask for proof that the absurdity you propose is correct.

Educate me! Again, the shoe is TOTALLY on your foot. I have no position. I'm with the 99,998 denominations that don't say she did and don't say she didn't - we just don't say. We are silent. YOU are defending one of the 2 that shout that Mary Had No ______ E.V.E.R. No ____ EVER. That's the point you are trying to confirm to the highest level.

Do these 99,998 denominations also have no position on whether or not folks have "___" in heaven ?

I never said that those in the First century didn't understand first century Greek. I only pointed out the first one ever revealed to me that said that this particular verb in the present active indictative MUST - by grammatical mandate - mean PURPETUALITY.

Given my experience with you, I tend to think your statement may be a bit off what was actually said; please provide a quote and source for this claim.

I certainly could be wrong, lol Happens every day. So, if you can quote me someone who said that in the first century - I'm all ears. Quote some Greek speaker from the First Century who says, "the verb tense in this reference in Luke MANDATES that Mary had no _____ EVER." It will strengthen your case a bit and I'd be grateful for the insight.

You're fully capable of doing research. There are certainly secular texts extant from the 1st century in Greek. If you are truly interested, I have no doubt you will do the research.









.[/quote]

 

[Thekla]

In a closed mathematical sentence with a variable, the range of the possible value/s of the variable is limited by the other quantities/values in the sentence. Even in mathematical sentences where the value of the variable is actually a range of values, there are values that the variable is not/will not be.

In a sentence (complete thought) in Hellenistic Greek, the range of the duration of the action/condition described by the present tense is determined by the context; the context can be the sentence/complete thought or the more general context of related sentences/complete thoughts.


The 'key' to the range of values/duration (in both instances) is the context; either the other terms and the operation/s (mathematical sentence), or the other words and their syntactical significance, part of speech, meaning, rules of grammar and the greater context of thematically related sentences (text).

 

[Secundulus]

Brother and Sister did not necessarily mean by blood, even in the OT.​

sister, a term referring to physical or spiritual kinship. We know of Moses’sister (Exod. 2:4) and Aaron’s sister (Exod. 15:20). Marriages were prohibited with one’s full or half sister (Lev. 18). Yet ‘sister’ is used for the beloved in Song of Songs 4:9-11, perhaps referring to fictive kinship ties. Members of Jesus’ circle were ‘brother, sister, and mother’ (Matt. 12:50). The co-worker Phoebe was Paul’s ‘sister’ (Rom. 16:1); young women in the churches of the pastoral Letters of the nt were also called ‘sisters’ (1 Tim. 5:2). See also Brothers.​

nt New Testament

Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 958.

brothers, blood relatives, especially one’s siblings; can also be used of one’s close male associates. Cain and Abel are blood brothers (Gen. 4:9), as are Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:26) and Simon and Andrew (Mark 1:16). Much is made of the pattern of the younger brother superseding the elder; Abel is preferred over Cain, Jacob over Esau, David over Jesse’s sons. Gentile election is seen as part of this pattern in Rom. 9:10-13. ‘Brother’ also embraces clans, compatriots, and allies. David calls Jonathan his ‘brother’ (2 Sam. 1:26). Allied kings (Solomon and Hiram of Tyre) are ‘brothers’ (1 Kings 9:13); Amos 1:9 laments the breaking of this ‘covenant of brotherhood.’ Israelite priests constitute a brotherhood (2 Chron. 29:34); they must marry within the brotherhood, thus cementing the bonds. Finally we find ‘brother’ used to express the spiritual relationship of coreligionists. Essenes act as ‘brothers’ (Josephus, Bella Judaica II.122). Jesus calls brothers those ‘who hear the word of God and do it’ (Luke 8:20). Paul regularly speaks of his coreligionists as ‘brothers’ (1 Cor. 1:10) and as ‘beloved brothers’ (1 Thess. 1:4). See also Sister.

Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 144.

 

[Secundulus]

A case cannot be made that the term "Brothers" or "Sisters" refers automatically to blood.

Sister is the feminine form of the word below.

11.25 ἀδελφόςc, οῦ m: a person belonging to the same socio-religious entity and being of the same age group as the so-called reference person—‘brother, fellow countryman, fellow Jew, associate.’ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες, ἀκούσατέ μου τῆς πρὸς ὑμᾶς νυνὶ ἀπολογίας ‘brothers and fathers, listen to me as I now make my defense before you’ Ac 22.1.​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=7309630#_ftnref3
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:124.



See Acts 22.1. Here it simply refers to fellow Jews (not fellow Christians or blood relatives)

ESV, Acts 21:40-22:1
And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying:

"Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you."​

 

[Thekla]

Also to (re)mention, in the LXX OT, Lot and Abraham are referred to as "adelphos"; Abraham was Lot's uncle.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So do you mean to say that folks will have "___" in heaven ? Or do you have no position on that ...

What?

We're discussing your insistence that according to the grammar of koine Greek, the verb "to know" in Luke 1:34 MUST mean perpetuity.

AGAIN.....

The point was made by our Orthodox sister that the Bible confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, that Mary had no _____ EVER. I understandably asked for those Scripture(s). One was given, Luke 1:34. You jumped on the bandwagon and have ever since insisted that it does just that since the Greek verb mandates perpetuality, that Mary had no ____ EVER (the issue of this thread, the point of the reference to that verse).

If anything, you have been amazingly persistent in your position that the grammar here MANDATES perpetuality. I've asked you repeatedly for something from any Greek grammar books that supports your assertion and the foundation of your entire argument now for many pages of posts - but you have consistently ignored that.

I have made a bit of a study, using my Greek grammar book and the net to try to see some confirmation of your foundational apologetic, but I could find nothing.

I looked at dozens and dozens of translations - including a number of Catholic ones - surely the Greek scholars who translate from koine Greek to English would know if the only grammatically possible translation is perpetuity, if the greek MANDATES this. But NONE so indicated. I could find NO translation that says, "I will never know a man" or "I am a perpetual virgin." Not even Catholic ones. Not even very old CAtholic ones. Since you wouldn't supply me with ANY grammatical confirmation of your point, I tried to find some for you. But I found nothing. Only that the present active MAY continue into the future, that it doesn't PRECLUDE such. Yet NO translator, NO Bible Society - Protestant or Catholic - seems to be aware of this solid rule of which you speak.

Can you supply me with even ONE translation of this verse that supplies the MANDATED verbage: Mary was a virgin PERPETUALLY?

You DO recall: that's the issue we're discussing. Does this verse confirm that Mary had no ____ E.V.E.R. That She was/is a PERPETUAL virgin. The insistence was made that it does and you've taken the ball on that for a long time now insisting the GRAMMAR of this verse MANDATES that understanding - this verse requires as a rule of Greek grammar - that Mary died a virgin.

I have never said the present tense demands "perpetuity"

Then you entirely failed to see the context of our discussion and didn't read the title of this thread....

THE WHOLE POINT is perpetuality. The WHOLE POINT is Mary had no _____ ever. THAT'S what we're discussing. What do did you think a thread entitled, "The PERPETUAL Virginity of Mary" was about?

Huge sigh....

Do I need to repeat myself ? The context determines the duration of the action/condition described by the verb.

1. Then AGAIN, share in whatever koine grammar book you have where it says the present active indicative mandates perpetuity.

2. WHAT context? That you believe Mary had no ____ ever? YES, if you impose your thought into a text as the "context" then I can see how you view the text in conformity with that; but eisegesis ALWAYS does that: self simply agrees with self. YOU are supplying that context, the text does not.

3. As we've seen, the "shall" does NOT supply that context. If it did, I'd suspect that at least ONE Bible - even if just a very biased Catholic one - would translate it the ONLY GRAMATICALLY PERMISSIBLE way you INSIST is allowed, "I will not know a man for all perpetuity." NO Bible soceity, no board of translators I can find seems to be aware of this grammatical mandate you insist exists.

4. There's no reason - logically or otherwise - for you to impose your speculation about the situation as the "context." Again, the text doesn't present your speculation, YOU do. It's YOUR context imposed upon the text: self agreeing with self. I personally think that my speculation: that tradition about the timing of the Annunciation and Incarnation is CORRECT, that the angel was CORRECT and that Mary was CORRECT is more likely - in which case there's NO implication of perpetuality here. But you didn't even consider that - because it's not your speculation. Frankly, NO speculation has any relevance at all, that's not the context, that's an imposition.

5. NOW - after all these pages of posts - you seem to be backing off of your entire point (and maybe the issue of this thread). IF all you are now saying is that some sense of future is IMPLIED - swell. That's MOOT to the issue we were discussing, moot to the issue of this thread, moot to the dogma, moot to the claim about this verse, and it doesn't even disagree with me. Sigh. Now, do you or don't you agree with the point you've been making: This verse confirms via Greek Grammar that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin? If not.......

Please provide scriptural evidence for the limit Mary provides for the duration of "shall".

Let's try this one more time......


1. The topic here is that Mary had no ____ EVER. That she was a PERPETUAL Virgin. Read the title of the thread.

2. Our Orthodox sister stated that this position (read # 1 again) is confirmed by Scripture. Not hinted at. Not denied by. Not made possible. Confirmed.

3. I asked for the verse(s).

4. I was given one. Luke 1:34.

5. I noted that it says nothing to confirm the topic, indeed, nothing about it at all. Nothing that says She was a PERPETUAL virgin, that She had no ______ EVER. (See # 1)

6. You jumped. You insisted that I was wrong and your Orthodox sister correct.

7. Your basis was that the GRAMMAR - koine Greek grammar - MANDATES, requires - that the position is true. See # 1 again.

8. For PAGES now, you have gone on and on and on insisting that the GRAMMAR of the koine Greek verb here MANDATES an understanding of Her PERPETUAL virginity (the sole topic under discussion - read the title of the thread); you've continued your issues that the verse confirms the issue: Mary had no _____ E.V.E.R.

9. Once again, I have no position. I honestly and respectfully am puzzled - I truely and sincerely am - why this is so very difficult for some here to understand. I need to say this at least daily in virtually every thread on this topic whenever we have these discussions. I'm like the 99,998 denominations out of 100000 - I have no position. Thus, I have no position to defend or substantiate. You keep trying to pass the buck. Don't give it to me - I don't have a position. I'm silent. Just like 99,998 denominations.

10. The "ball" is in your court. Only those WITH a position need to defend a position. And if that is a position of highest possible level - then the resulting substantiation need also be to the highest possible level. I need not substaniate my no position. YOU need to substantiate your DOGMA. I'm not saying you are wrong, you are dogmatically insisting you are right. Okay. Balls in your court.....

11. For several pages now (a good part of my day!) you have insisted the koine grammar of this verb in this Scripture does exactly that: Proves Her PERPETUAL virginity (see #1). But you've failed to show ANY grammatical support for your foundational apologetic.

How can you claim both that you do not know when the position "began to develop" and also claim it developed "long after the only person who would could (sic) know this had died" ?This is a logical inconsistency.

AGAIN....

I don't know when this idea that Mary had no _____ EVER began to develop. Others have often pointed out the SAME Gregory of Nyssa as saying that this verb in this text means Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. None earlier than this has ever been suggested to me. THAT'S what I said.

If you know of one who, BEFORE 400 AD, insists that the verb tense in this verse grammatically must mean that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin, then I asked you to please share it. You haven't.

That's what I said.







.

 

[Secundulus]

When everyone in the Church for 1800 years including Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli acknowledged the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, I think it becomes those who have invented their modern day traditions to prove their argument, rather than the other way around.

 

[Standing Up]

It also means nephew, cousin, fellow household resident, neighbor, fellow countryman/tribe, like minded, etc.
Your source has artificially limited the actual meaning of the word "adelphos". You can check an Hellenistic dictionary (for ex., Langenscheidt).

Not the male/brother, but the female/sister.

Here's Strongs who says like Vines

Fem of adephos; a sister (naturally or ecclesiastically) -- sister.

Ecclesiastically is only after resurrection (spiritually that is).


Martha physical sister to Lazarus.
Mary and Martha - physical sisters.
Jesus' mother's physical sister.


Besides, those who spoke those words (Jesus had sisters) weren't speaking ecclesiastically. They were speaking of His physical sisters.

 

[Philothei]

When when Christ says "my sister" or is mentioned in the OT is not "spiritual siter" pleeeease...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When everyone in the Church for 1800 years including Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli acknowledged the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, I think it becomes those who have invented their modern day traditions to prove their argument, rather than the other way around.

1. If you are correct and Christians have affirmed this for 1800 years, then there is an earlier Tradition that was displaced by this one.

2. Today some 99,998 denominations (if we accept our Orthodox sister's claim of 100,000 denominations) do not deny this; they just don't proclaim this. They are SILENT. Thus, they have nothing to prove. TWO affirm it. They have something to prove.

3. IF you say (as a matter of dogmatic fact of highest importance) that there are 16 people living on Earth's Moon, then the "burden of proof" - the burden of substantiation lies with YOU. Don't try to pass the buck. UNLESS I have a position that there is some other number of persons (including none), then I have nothing to prove. Just because a position cannot be shown to be false doesn't make it right (try proving there ARE NOT 16 people on the Moon and you'll see my point, my friend).

4. Of the 100000 denomination, TWO have a view on Mary's ____ life after Jesus was born, INSISTING to the highest level that She was as PERPETUAL virgin, that She had no _____ EVER. They have it on the highest possible level. The ball is in your court.




.

 

[Secundulus]

Not the male/brother, but the female/sister.

Here's Strongs who says like Vines

Fem of adephos; a sister (naturally or ecclesiastically) -- sister.

Ecclesiastically is only after resurrection (spiritually that is).


Martha physical sister to Lazarus.
Mary and Martha - physical sisters.
Jesus' mother's physical sister.

How do you explain this then? This was written well before the resurrection.

NASB95, Song of Solomon 4:9

"You have made my heart beat faster, my sister, my bride;
You have made my heart beat faster with a single glance of your eyes,
With a single strand of your necklace.​