Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

Thekla · Oct 23, 2009

There is much information conveyed in the present tense of the Greek verb. Simply stated, the present tense of Greek verbs denotes continuous action or action in progress. There are many examples of the present tense. We read, "And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us, we perish" (Matt. 8: 25). The verb translated "perish" is apollumeqa (a-pol-lú-me-tha). The grammatical information on this verb is: First person, plural, present tense, indicative mood, and passive voice. I will explain how you can verify this information in Lesson Eight. Based on the present tense status of the verb, the disciples are literally saying "We are presently in the process of perishing." Which is fuller and replete with emotion, "we perish" or "we are presently in the process of perishing?"

http://www.bibletruths.net/greek%20course/Lesson%20Five%20of%20Greek%20Course.htm

In the above verse, the context indicates that the continuous state is limited by the ending of the situation.
In the verse from Romans (cited by CJ) the context exhibits that the condition ends at death (noted in the verses which summarize what Paul has said).

At the time Luke 1:34 is stated by Mary, Mary is betrothed which is typically followed by marriage. Mary begins her statement with the future tense (shall) which covers her present condition and the future (shall). There is no other limiting in the context of the passage/s. The only context provided for her statement is "shall". Thus, the duration of the condition described by the present tense in this statement is the future; the "knowing not a man" is for the present and future. The condition is continuous.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 23, 2009

Secundulus said:
You are mistaken.

YOU, not I, are the one that stated that the PVM was taught "FOR 1800 years." That's YOUR position; how can you now state that I'm mistaken for simply quoting you?

My question was: Since you insist that this view has been taught for 1800 years, that means some other view existed for 200 years before that. Why do you so easily dismiss that obvious reality (IF you are not mistaken in your point that the PVM has been taught for 1800 years)?

until modern day inventors of traditions of men started teaching something else around 200 years ago.

1. I don't know who invented the PVM 1800 years ago; do you?

2. Of the 50,000 denominations some CAtholics insist exist, or 100000 at least one Orthodox in this thread insist exists, we have TWO that have ANY position on Mary's ____ life after Jesus was born. You seem to keep forgetting that. And those TWO have it as a matter of highest importance, they are the CC and EO. Thus TWO need to substantiate their teaching to the highest level belongs belongs to, they are the CC and EO.

Once again, what's 'ya got?

.

Thekla · Oct 23, 2009

How can one attest that the New Testament as we presently have it is authentically as it was received ?
Please provide evidence of a complete copy from the first centuries that matches what is presently used.

prodromos · Oct 23, 2009

Thekla said:
Lesson Five of Online Greek Course

In the above verse, the context indicates that the continuous state is limited by the ending of the situation.

At the time Luke 1:34 is stated by Mary, Mary is betrothed which is typically followed by marriage. Mary begins her statement with the future tense (shall) which covers her present condition and the future (shall). There is no other limiting in the context of the passage/s. The only context provided for her statement is "shall". Thus, the present tense here is for the future; the "knowing not a man" is for the present and future. The condition is continuous.

Thekla,
I just want to make a point of thanking you for making clear through analysis of the Greek text, what I could only state as the obvious meaning of the text after 12 years of actually using the Greek language. Having been immersed in the Greek language for many years, I have internalised much of the grammar through using the language even though I have not spent a lot of time actually studying Greek grammar.

CaliforniaJosiah,
you come across as having nothing more than a textbook understanding of Greek. This makes you about as qualified to comment on the grammar as someone who has only read Gray's Anatomy would be qualified to perform surgery. You don't use the language so it is not possible for you to truly understand it. I'm not saying this to be mean spirited, just to state a fact. It would be just as true of a Brazilian with a textbook knowledge of German.

John

Secundulus · Oct 23, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
YOU, not I, are the one that stated that the PVM was taught "FOR 1800 years." That's YOUR position; how can you now state that I'm mistaken for simply quoting you?

I posted a poorly written thought which I clarified some pages back. It was taught universally from the beginning until some people's lack of faith around 200 years ago caused them to start teaching something new. Thus it was believed universally throughout the Church for 1800 years.

When a johnny-come-lately comes up with a new theological idea contrary to the universal belief of the Church then it is his responsibility to provide incontrovertable proof of his theory. It is not the other way around.

prodromos · Oct 23, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
YOU, not I, are the one that stated that the PVM was taught "FOR 1800 years." That's YOUR position; how can you now state that I'm mistaken for simply quoting you?

Up until 200 years ago, no one (apart from a few heretics) taught that Mary was not ever virgin. That means that for approximately 1800 years, "ever virginity" was the only thing taught about Mary.

John

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 23, 2009

.

Thekla said:
CaliforniaJosiah said:

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.

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....

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.......

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.

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.

.

Click to expand...

There is much information conveyed in the present tense of the Greek verb. Simply stated, the present tense of Greek verbs denotes continuous action or action in progress.

There are many examples of the present tense. We read, "And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us, we perish" (Matt. 8: 25). The verb translated "perish" is apollumeqa (a-pol-lú-me-tha). The grammatical information on this verb is: First person, plural, present tense, indicative mood, and passive voice. I will explain how you can verify this information in Lesson Eight. Based on the present tense status of the verb, the disciples are literally saying "We are presently in the process of perishing." Which is fuller and replete with emotion, "we perish" or "we are presently in the process of perishing?"

THANK YOU!

So, you are now retracting your entire argument? Now you quote from some source that notes you have been wrong, the present active indictative does NOT mandate perpetuality! Your insistence that the verb tense REQUIRES that Mary be a PERPETUAL virgin is incorrect. That was the result of my research on the grammar, too.

Ah, so NOW you are saying that the verb tense in Luke 1:34 means that Mary is CURRENTLY in the state of virginity. It does NOT say, "is perpetually in the future a virgin."

Ah, NOW all makes sense. This is why I could find NOTHING to confirm you foundational apologetic. This is why I could not find even a Catholic Bible that translated the verse the way you insisted it MUST be according to koine Greek grammar, the way the grammar mandates. This is why I could not find a single scholar who made the apologetic you did. Because that's not what the grammar is. The PRESENT active indictive shows continuous action IN THE PRESENT - not for all perpetuity. It doesn't preclude that, but it doesn't mandate that. I was correct all along.

As the grammar book you quote notes from the example, the grammar does NOT mandate that we translate that verse, "The disciples of Jesus will for all perpetuity be perishing."

Okay, so after pages of your posts to the contrary, read the quoted post from me. We're right back where you entered the discussion. So, how does Luke 1:34 substantiate that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin, that Mary had no _____ EVER? You know agree the grammar of the verb does not teach that, so since the grammar of the verb doesn't teach that, and the word doesn't teach that, and nothing in the text teaches that, then how does this verse teach that?

.

prodromos · Oct 23, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
THANK YOU!
You just proved my point and destroyed yours.

No. You omitted where Thekla stated

"In the above verse, the context indicates that the continuous state is limited by the ending of the situation."

John

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 23, 2009

prodromos said:
CaliforniaJosiah,
you come across as having nothing more than a textbook understanding of Greek. This makes you about as qualified to comment on the grammar as someone who has only read Gray's Anatomy would be qualified to perform surgery. You don't use the language so it is not possible for you to truly understand it. I'm not saying this to be mean spirited, just to state a fact. It would be just as true of a Brazilian with a textbook knowledge of German.

John

You missed where Thekla notes her point wrong.

She quotes from some source that shows her foundational argument was wrong, the Greek present active indicative does NOT mandate that the action continue for all perpetuity.

Let's look at the very example her source used:

We read, "And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us, we perish" (Matt. 8: 25). The verb translated "perish" is

apollumeqa (a-pol-lú-me-tha). The grammatical information on this verb is: First person, plural, present tense, indicative mood, and passive voice. I will explain how you can verify this information in Lesson Eight. Based on the present tense status of the verb, the disciples are literally saying "We are presently in the process of perishing." Which is fuller and replete with emotion, "we perish" or "we are presently in the process of perishing?"

So, the scholar says that the proper, full way to translate the verse to keep the meaning of the tense is this:

"We (disciples of Jesus) are presently in the process of perishing."

Thekla's apologetic, founded on her point of koine Greek Grammar, is that the present active indicative mandates future perpetuality, so that the verse would be REQUIRED to be translated thusly, "We (the disciples of Jesus) are perishing for all perpetuity."

Remember, our friends whole point, the entire apologetic, has been that the Greek grammar here confirmes the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, not the simply the PRESENT state to virginity. I asked her - for pages - for some grammatical confirmation of this rule, but until this - my requests were ignored. I searched my grammar books and found that the present active indictative only means the state PRESENTLY exists - nothing about Thekla's foundational apologetical insistance that perpetuity is REQUIRED, MANDATED by the present active indicative. I search grammars, I search dozens of translations - NOTHING that confirmed her earlier insistance. NOW, finally, she quotes a source. And it entirely destroys her argument. The verb does NOT say Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 23, 2009

.

Secundulus said:
When a johnny-come-lately comes up with a new theological idea contrary to the universal belief of the Church then it is his responsibility to provide incontrovertable proof of his theory. It is not the other way around.

Sorry, I don't understand your point at all.

Let's say Bob stresses as a point of highest importance that there are 16 people living on Earth's moon.

Jim doesn't say anything about that. In fact, no one before or other than Bob says or has said anything about people living on the Moon.

How is Jim "contrary" to Bob? How is Jim inventing a "new" idea? And to your point, why does Jim need to prove...... WHAT?

Friend, there are TWO with a position. 99,998 who don't. Who has the burden of proof for their position?

.

prodromos · Oct 23, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
She quotes from some source that shows her foundational argument was wrong, the Greek present active indicative does NOT mandate that the action continue for all perpetuity.

Strawman fallacy. She has never stated such.

So, the scholar says that the proper, full way to translate the verse to keep the meaning of the tense is this:

"We (disciples of Jesus) are presently in the process of perishing."

Thekla's apologetic, founded on her point of koine Greek Grammar, is that the present active indicative mandates future perpetuality, so that the verse would be REQUIRED to be translated thusly, "We (the disciples of Jesus) are perishing for all perpetuity."

You continue to misrepresent what she has actually claimed. I'll repeat what she posted

"In the above verse, the context indicates that the continuous state is limited by the ending of the situation."

If you continue to make these false accusations I am going to start reporting your posts.

John

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 23, 2009

prodromos said:
Strawman fallacy. She has never stated such.
You continue to misrepresent what she has actually claimed. I'll repeat what she posted

prodromos said:
"In the above verse, the context indicates that the continuous state is limited by the ending of the situation."If you continue to make these false accusations I am going to start reporting your posts.

If you've been reading our exchange, the whole point has been that the greek grammar of the present active indictative is that perpetuality is mandated - thus the verse, correctly translated in keeping with the present active indicative would be: I WIIL for ALL PERPETUITY never know a man." Never mind that not a single translation (Catholic or otherwise) can be found that translates the way our friend INSISTS is the only possible way to do it, so perhaps no Greek scholar knows of the rule she is asserting here?

As for "context," originally the "context" she wanted to supply was her insistance that Mary had no ____ ever." Classic eisegesis. Then her assumptions about what Mary was thinking (I assume no mind reading ability was implied). Then the "shall." But "shall" doesn't imply perpetuity either, it simply implies future. We went round and round with that, with her position being that "shall" also mandates perpetuity. So that if I post, "I shall buy a car" this means that every day until I die, I will buy a car. It's neither grammatically correct or logical.

Let's look at the very example her source quotes: The disciples of Jesus state, "we are perishing." Thekla insisted this MUST - by grammatical mandate - be translated as, "We will forever more and perpetually be perishing until the day of our death" so that we may then establish a DOGMA that the Disciples of Jesus perished continually, perpetually. But as the Greek source noted, that's NOT what the tense means.

Either this source she quoted - FINALLY after all my numerous requests - doesn't support her point at all, or it actually contradicts her point.

Again, the point here is the PERPETUALITY of Mary's virginity, that Mary had no _____ EVER. And her insistance that Luke 1:34 proves this because of this verb in the present active indicative. Does it? Not that I can see, and not that she's been able to confirm from any Greek scholar, and not that ANY translation of the verse in ANY Bible (Catholic or Protestant) I can find confirms. Her apologetic falls flat.

.

Thekla · Oct 23, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
.

THANK YOU!
You just proved my point and destroyed yours.

So, you are now retracting your entire argument. Now you quote from some source that notes you have been wrong, the present active indictive does NOT mandate perpetuality! Your insistence that the verb tense REQUIRES that Mary be a PERPETUAL virgin is incorrect. That was the result of my research on the grammar, too.

I never stated that it mandated perpetuity. Please quote the post where I stated such a thing.

I stated that the duration of the action/condition described by the verb (present tense) is governed by context.

The future tense of "shall" is the context for the duration of the action/condition of the present tense verb "know".

Please provide evidence from scripture that there is any contextual limiting other than "shall".

Ah, so NOW you are saying that the verb tense in Luke 1:34 means that Mary is CURRENTLY in the state of virginity. It does NOT say, "is perpetually in the future a virgin."

The grammar states that the action/condition of the present tense is continuous unless limited by context. The context in verse 34 is "future/shall". There is no other contextual determinant in the surrounding verses. If I have missed a contextual determinant in the scripture, please provide it.

Ah, NOW all makes sense. This is why I could find NOTHING to confirm you foundational apologetic. This is why I could not find even a Catholic Bible that translated the verse the way you insisted it MUST be according to koine Greek grammar, the way the grammar mandates. This is why I could not find a single scholar who made the apologetic you did. Because that's not what the grammar is. The PRESENT active indictive shows continuous action IN THE PRESENT - not for all perpetuity. It doesn't preclude that, but it doesn't mandate that. I was correct all along.

What limits the duration is the context. Provide the scriptural context that limits the duration of "knowing".

Or do you mean to argue that if we follow Christ for ten minutes and then deny Him, we are still "saved" ?

As the grammar book you quote notes from the example, the grammar does NOT mandate that we translate that verse, "The disciples of Jesus will for all perpetuity be perishing."

Context.

Okay, so after pages of your posts to the contrary, read the quoted post from me. We're right back where you entered the discussion. So, how does Luke 1:34 substantiate that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin, that Mary had no _____ EVER? You know agree the grammar of the verb does not teach that, so since the grammar of the verb doesn't teach that, and the word doesn't teach that, and nothing in the text teaches that, then how does this verse teach that?

You have repeatedly claimed to speak for me. You are not welcome to do so. Further, I consider your doing so to be demonstrable misrepresentation and the insistence on continuing to do so at the very least condescending.

The duration of the continuous action/state described by the present tense verb is determined by the context. The duration of the condition of "know" is governed by "shall".

The grammar I cited points to the context which limits the duration of the continuous state described. If you are correct you will be able to provide the scriptural context which limits the duration of "know".

continuous |kənˈtinyoōəs|
adjective
forming an unbroken whole; without interruption : the whole performance is enacted in one continuous movement.
forming a series with no exceptions or reversals : there are continuous advances in design and production.

You might want to consider the definition of continuous and apply logic instead of bluster to your thinking.

.

[/quote]

Thekla · Oct 23, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
If you've been reading our exchange, the whole point has been that the greek grammar of the present active indictative is that perpetuality is mandated - thus the verse, correctly translated in keeping with the present active indicative would be: I WIIL for ALL PERPETUITY never know a man." Never mind that not a single translation (Catholic or otherwise) can be found that translates the way our friend INSISTS is the only possible way to do it, so perhaps no Greek scholar knows of the rule she is asserting here?

.

(I have quoted post #832)

You continue to misrepresent what I have stated.Please quote my post/s where I have stated that the present tense mandates perpetuity. I have repeatedly asked you to quote the post/s where I state this, as you are misrepresenting what I said. Please provide evidence or withdraw your statement.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 23, 2009

Thekla said:
You continue to misrepresent what I have stated.Please quote my post/s where I have stated that the present tense mandates perpetuity. I have repeatedly asked you to quote the post/s where I state this, as you are misrepresenting what I said. Please provide evidence or withdraw your statement.

WHAT? It's been your entire point!

Do you know the topic of this thread (read the title for help there)?
Do you know the context of our conversation (that Luke 1:34 proves the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary)?

AGAIN.....

1. The topic of our discussion is the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary (read the title of the thread). That Mary had no _____ EVER. That IS the subject of our conversation.

2. Our Orthodox sister stated that the dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity is confirmed and taught in the Bible.

3. I asked her for those Scriptures.

4. She gave one, Luke 1:34.

5. I noted it does not teach what she claimed.

6. YOU jumped into the discussion, taking the ball for her, insisting that the grammar of the present active indictative requires this.

7. If you are now backing off, and claiming that the verse does NOT mandate the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, then what in the world have you been doing for all these pages? You kept claiming that the GRAMMAR proves the point (and what is that point? The PERPETUALITY of Her virginity, that She had no _____ EVER!). Now that you have FINALLY given something to try to support that, but that actually indicates such is NOT the case, you seem to be backing off.

Friend, if you want to NOW say that actually the grammar does NOT mandate the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary - fine. I don't mind all the time spent on this, we all learn and that's a good thing. If you STILL (even after the quote you gave from the Greek grammar) want to insist that PERPETUALITY is MANDATED by the grammar, then I'm at a loss why you quoted as your supportive source something that reveals you wrong; you need to find something that shows your position correct.

Now, lest you think I'm missing something, we've been all over your "context" point. But I reject your eisegesis of imposing your assumption and then using THAT as the context, noting that you agree with yourself. The TEXT doesn't have that context. There's NOTHING in the text about perpetuity (including the verb - if you are now admitting that). And if the context is your assumptions about what Mary might have been thinking, again, that's not the textual context, that's just YOU imposing YOUR context. And if the context is the verb "shall" such does not mandate perpetuality - and thus your whole argument falls. And note: according to the verse example, you'd need to disagree with the scholar about the proper translation of that verse so that it would read, "We (the disciples of Jesus) will be perishing for all perpetuity" and the scholar you quote disagrees.

.

Thekla · Oct 23, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
WHAT? It's been your entire point!

Please provide evidence by quoting my posts and providing post #s that you are accurately represented what I said.

I am formally requesting that you provide evidence or desist from making the claim.

If you pretend to speak for me, why do you need to converse with me at all ?

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 23, 2009

WOW! 84 pages and this topic still has not be resolved. Looks like a "perpetual" thread ehehe

Standing Up · Oct 23, 2009

Mary will have a son in the future.

She asks, How will I have a child in the future, I am a virgin presently.

Your barren cousin became pregnant; nothing is impossible with God.

Standing Up · Oct 23, 2009

Bump

Standing Up said:
Thank you for the time and effort.

Like I've said, Vines, Strongs, Harpers all simply identify sister as sister- physical or spiritual. They do not say that the greek word sister may mean aunt.

They do, however, say brother may mean uncle, as you point out. But not for sister.

As well, the folks quoted in Matthew who say, Jesus had sisters, certainly weren't involved in some 2000 year old, hmmm, "contest". Obviously they were referring to His physical sisters. That is what the greek word meant.

They said Jesus' brothers, but maybe they meant His uncles. (Course did He have four uncles at that time?). Anyway, they said also Jesus' sisters. That word according to Vines, Strongs, and Harpers only means sister.

To add Thayer's Lexicon also says sister is sister (physical or spiritual).

Thekla · Oct 23, 2009

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

Gabriel announces a future conception ("shall").
Mary is betrothed, which is typically followed by marriage.
Mary responds by asking how this future conception (shall) can take place as she does "know not man". Thus, the duration of the condition "know not man" is governed by "shall/future" which includes all of the future if not limited by context (including statement). There is no limit provided by context.
Thus, per Hellenistic grammar the duration of "know not man" is continuous.
The "active" in present active indicative denotes that this is decided and acted on by Mary (she is the actor). This is her decision.

Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

On and on

On and on

Thekla

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency