Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

Thekla said:

If everything taught must be documented, then without documentation that everything taught must be documented, the claim that it must be documented to be true does not pass its own test of authenticity (unless it can be documented).

[/color][/size][/font]

I said that

Click to expand...

You and Philothei both have the patience of Job.

Thekla said:

If everything taught must be documented, then without documentation that everything taught must be documented, the claim that it must be documented to be true does not pass its own test of authenticity (unless it can be documented).

Click to expand...

WHAT?


Look, it was stated as a matter of fact and as the primary apologetic for the PERPETUAL Virginity of Mary that such was taught, "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN ALL GENERATIONS."

Now, for that to be considered as an apologetic, it needs to be evidenced as true. An unknown does nothing to substantiate anything. So, to be considered as an apologetic, it needs to be evidenced. Otherwise, it's entirely moot as an apologetic (to say nothing of as a statement of fact).

Again, you have never suggested that a non-Orthodox be accepted as true simply because they post something (no evidence for such needed). When I post, you don't say, "Hey, Josiah, that MUST be true cuz you said it!" So, why do you want me to do exactly that for our friend here? Why a 180 degree reversal?

Now, if she doesn't care whether her apologetic is taken seriously or can be regarded at all - that's fine. But if she wants it to be regarded as anything other than entirely moot, it needs to be evidenced. Otherwise, it's not a support for the dogma at hand. It's just another unsubstantiated claim that does NOTHING to support another unsubstantiated claim.

Can you substantiate your claim with more than say-so ?
Please substantiate your claim that I stated that with some solid documentation.

Click to expand...

Let's try it this way (I'm kinda running out of ways to get at this, lol - hope this works!)

You know what this thread is about (read the first word of the title).
You know what the ONLY subject is that I was discussing with you (read the first word of the title of this thread)
You know that the Luke 1:34 passage was brought up because it was claimed this proves the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Now, do you or do you not state that the Koine Greek grammar of the verse requires the view that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin?

IF yes, then we need to continue our conversation because I fail to see that grammatical requirement and all my studies (they have continued) also fail to substantiate that. I still have a few emails out unreplied to - I'm still TRYING to find you some substantiation, but I just haven't. So, you need to educate me. We need to continue our conversation. IF what you are saying is a dogmatic fact - then I need to embrace this as dogma.

IF no, then what were you taking about? You knew the subject of this thread, you know the sole subject I was addressing, you knew this verse was brought up to confirm the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, you knew from reading all my posts that the singular subject for me is whether it mandates the PERPETUAL virginity, so if you knew the subject matter, you knew the claim about the verse, you knew what I was talking about - what were you talking about? And why weren't you talking about what you KNEW is the topic of our discussion?






.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

WHAT?


Look, it was stated as a matter of fact and as the primary apologetic for the PERPETUAL Virginity of Mary that such was taught, "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN ALL GENERATIONS."

Now, for that to be considered as an apologetic, it needs to be evidenced as true. An unknown does nothing to substantiate anything. So, to be considered as an apologetic, it needs to be evidenced. Otherwise, it's entirely moot as an apologetic (to say nothing of as a statement of fact).

Click to expand...

So you mean that evidence = documentation ?

Again, you have never suggested that a non-Orthodox be accepted as true simply because they post something (no evidence for such needed). When I post, you don't say, "Hey, Josiah, that MUST be true cuz you said it!" So, why do you want me to do exactly that for our friend here? Why a 180 degree reversal?

Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that, sorry.
Maybe you could help me here ...

Now, if she doesn't care whether her apologetic is taken seriously or can be regarded at all - that's fine. But if she wants it to be regarded as anything other than entirely moot, it needs to be evidenced. Otherwise, it's not a support for the dogma at hand. It's just another unsubstantiated claim that does NOTHING to support another unsubstantiated claim.

Click to expand...

So nothing that is not documented is true; is that what you mean ?

Let's try it this way (I'm kinda running out of ways to get at this, lol - hope this works!)

You know what this thread is about (read the first word of the title).
You know what the ONLY subject is that I was discussing with you (read the first word of the title of this thread)

Click to expand...

Oh no, that is not accurate. You were quite adamant that I not mention the "adelphi" ... I can document that if you like, though it might take some time to find the post/s.

You know that the Luke 1:34 passage was brought up because it was claimed this proves the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Now, do you or do you not state that the Koine Greek grammar of the verse requires the view that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin?

Click to expand...

I stated: the duration of the condition/action described by the verb is governed by the context.

The time context in the passages related to the Annunciation is the use of the word "shall" ( a verb in the future tense used once by Gabriel and once by Mary).

IF yes, then we need to continue our conversation because I fail to see that grammatical requirement and all my studies (they have continued) also fail to substantiate that. I still have a few emails out unreplied to - I'm still TRYING to find you some substantiation, but I just haven't. So, you need to educate me. We need to continue our conversation. IF what you are saying is a dogmatic fact - then I need to embrace this as dogma.

Click to expand...

Well, any respondents will likely do a better job of explaining this concept to you. Many many posts later, and I seem to have made no headway at all.

IF no, then what were you taking about? You knew the subject of this thread, you know the sole subject I was addressing, you knew this verse was brought up to confirm the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, you knew from reading all my posts that the singular subject for me is whether it mandates the PERPETUAL virginity, so if you knew the subject matter, you knew the claim about the verse, you knew what I was talking about - what were you talking about? And why weren't you talking about what you KNEW is the topic of our discussion?

Click to expand...

You're the OP ?

Can you provide evidence that I knew what you were talking about ?
It seems you didn't quite get what I was saying, so its unclear that we were communicating at all.

If you want to ask particular questions re: what I stated, please feel free to do so. But if you only repeatedly ask the same question, I have no sense of what is causing your confusion on the matter and thus cannot assist you to understand using further description. If it is not possible for you to formulate a question that will assist me in a targeted explanation, I do think it is in your best interest to wait for your e-mail replies.

Thekla said:

So you mean that evidence = documentation ?

Click to expand...

Come on....

Read what I posted:

Look, it was stated as the primary apologetic for the PERPETUAL Virginity of Mary that such was taught, "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN ALL GENERATIONS."

Now, for that to be considered as an apologetic, it needs to be evidenced as true. An unknown does nothing to substantiate anything. So, to be considered as an apologetic, it needs to be evidenced. Otherwise, it's entirely moot as such.


Now, IF you are now saying that any statement is a compelling apologetic if one posts it - then I follow you. Just remember that when I post, lol.

The primary apologetic of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that such was taught "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN EVERY GENERATION" cannot be considered and remains moot unless it is evidenced. I know from experience you do not accept anything posted at CF as a valid apologetic simply because the words appear on your monitor, so I again don't know what you are doing here.

Josiah said:

Let's try it this way (I'm kinda running out of ways to get at this, lol - hope this works!)

You know what this thread is about (read the first word of the title).
You know what the ONLY subject is that I was discussing with you (read the first word of the title of this thread)
You know that the Luke 1:34 passage was brought up because it was claimed this proves the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Now, do you or do you not state that the Koine Greek grammar of the verse requires the view that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin?

IF yes, then we need to continue our conversation because I fail to see that grammatical requirement and all my studies (they have continued) also fail to substantiate that. I still have a few emails out unreplied to - I'm still TRYING to find you some substantiation, but I just haven't. So, you need to educate me. We need to continue our conversation. IF what you are saying is a dogmatic fact - then I need to embrace this as dogma.

IF no, then what were you taking about? You knew the subject of this thread, you know the sole subject I was addressing, you knew this verse was brought up to confirm the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, you knew from reading all my posts that the singular subject for me is whether it mandates the PERPETUAL virginity, so if you knew the subject matter, you knew the claim about the verse, you knew what I was talking about - what were you talking about? And why weren't you talking about what you KNEW is the topic of our discussion?


.

Click to expand...

I stated: the duration of the condition/action described by the verb is governed by the context.

The time context in the passages related to the Annunciation is the use of the word "shall" ( a verb in the future tense used once by Gabriel and once by Mary).

Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.

Let me try it this way.

Is your point that the grammar of the verse confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary?

IF it does, we need to talk. Because I need to embrace this as dogma.

IF it doesn't, then did you know realize the topic of this thread (first word of the title), didn't read my posts to know the SOLE subject I was addressing is the topic of this thread (first word of the title), didn't know the topic of the discussion in bringing up this verse was the topic of this thread (first word of the opening post), did you HONESTLY not know that? You thought we were talking about some other subject? IF so, what?


As to "context," AGAIN (I've asked the question many, many times), WHAT context? It's not the "shall" in the sentence because that does not mandate perpetuality - at most it mandates future. And it's not anything in the text because the first simply says the angel appeared to here and said things and she said things - that's the only context there is. So WHAT context? Your speculation about what was going on and what Mary might have been thinking? Because that's YOUR context, not the text's context. So, WHAT context requires this verse to mean PERPETUALITY?

Can you provide evidence that I knew what you were talking about ?

Click to expand...

So, it's now your position that in all our exchange, you didn't realize the subject was the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? REALLY?





.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Come on....

Read what I posted:

Look, it was stated as a matter of fact and as the primary apologetic for the PERPETUAL Virginity of Mary that such was taught, "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN ALL GENERATIONS."

Click to expand...

I did read what you posted. But here you are quoting Philothei quoting an article (linked by her).

Now, for that to be considered as an apologetic, it needs to be evidenced as true. An unknown does nothing to substantiate anything. So, to be considered as an apologetic, it needs to be evidenced. Otherwise, it's entirely moot as an apologetic (to say nothing of as a statement of fact).

Click to expand...

What sort of evidence = evidence ?
You seem to have something in mind; would you mind saying what exactly you mean by "evidence" ?

Now, IF you are now saying that any statement is one of dogmatic fact and a compelling apologetic if one posts it - then I follow you. Just remember that: If I post something, it's a dogmatic fact and it supports what I'm saying as true. But I know you far better than that!

Click to expand...

Well, that is reminiscent of my experience with you. It seems to be the case, for example, when you discuss verb tenses.

The statement of fact and the primary apologetic of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that such was taught "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN EVERY GENERATION" cannot be considered and remains moot unless it is evidenced. I know from experience you do not accept anything posted at CF as a dogmatic fact and a valid apologetic simply because the words appear on your monitor, so I again don't know what you are doing here.

Click to expand...

I do not sure what exactly is "evidence" in your understanding. So, I ask you what you mean by "evidence" ?

I do think, on CF etc., that what someone says they likely believe to be true.

You didn't answer the question.

Let me try it this way.

Is your point that the grammar of the verse confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary?

Click to expand...

Well, it indicates that the "how" refers to a future conception, and the how must be asked because the statement "know not man" is a condition the duration of which is governed by the future "shall".

IF it does, we need to talk. Because I need to embrace this as dogma.

Click to expand...

If you need to embrace it, then you will.
This is a characteristic of humans when met with their own "needs".
Of course, we often confuse needs with desires.

IF it doesn't, then did you know realize the topic of this thread (first word of the title), didn't read my posts to know the SOLE subject I was addressing is the topic of this thread (first word of the title), didn't know the topic of the discussion in bringing up this verse was the topic of this thread (first word of the opening post), did you HONESTLY not know that? You thought we were talking about some other subject? IF so, what?

Click to expand...

You seem to want every thing "of a sudden", all at once. I don't know of much learning or development that happens that way.

As to "context," AGAIN (I've asked the question many, many times), WHAT context? It's not the "shall" in the sentence because that does not mandate perpetuality - at most it mandates future.

Click to expand...

How long is "shall" ?

And it's not anything in the text because the first simply says the angel appeared to here and said things and she said things - that's the only context there is. So WHAT context? Your speculation about what was going on and what Mary might have been thinking? Because that's YOUR context, not the text's context. So, WHAT context requires this verse to mean PERPETUALITY?

Click to expand...

Can you tell me what I was "speculating" ?
I only recall considering the text; scripture.

Perhaps you might want to reread the pertinent passages in Luke; then you can describe the information and context. We'll compare notes, so to speak, to see if either of us missed anything.

So, it's now your position that in all our exchange, you didn't realize the subject was the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? REALLY?

Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that

Thekla,

Did you know the discussion here and between us is about the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary? Yes/No?

Josiah said:

Let me try it this way.

Is your point that the grammar of the verse confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary?

IF it does, we need to talk. Because I need to embrace this as dogma.

IF it doesn't, then did you know realize the topic of this thread (first word of the title), didn't read my posts to know the SOLE subject I was addressing is the topic of this thread (first word of the title), didn't know the topic of the discussion in bringing up this verse was the topic of this thread (first word of the opening post), did you HONESTLY not know that? You thought we were talking about some other subject? IF so, what?


As to "context," AGAIN (I've asked the question many, many times), WHAT context? It's not the "shall" in the sentence because that does not mandate perpetuality - at most it mandates future. And it's not anything in the text because the first simply says the angel appeared to here and said things and she said things - that's the only context there is. So WHAT context? Your speculation about what was going on and what Mary might have been thinking? Because that's YOUR context, not the text's context. So, WHAT context requires this verse to mean PERPETUALITY?

.

Click to expand...

Well, it indicates that the "how" refers to a future conception, and the how must be asked because the statement "know not man" is a condition the duration of which is governed by the future "shall".

Click to expand...

So, now you are back to the "context" is the word "shall?

Then, I'll ask YET AGAIN, how does that indicate perpetuity? Unless you're talking about some different subject than the one of this thread and conversation and the "shall" applies to.... you haven't said.

"Shall" even if taken apart and separated from the PRESENT active indicative, means FUTURE. It could just as well be 1 minute in the future as 52 years in the future, it does not mandate perpetuity - and thus does not confirm the dogma of the PERPETUAL Virginity of Mary - a point I made some TWENTY PAGES ago and you have been debating that point with me ever sense.

How long is "shall" ?

Click to expand...

For it to substantiate the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, it MUST and ONLY mean until death. Does it?





.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Thekla,

Did you know the discussion here and between us is about the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary? Yes/No?

Click to expand...

Yes, Josiah.

So, now you are back to the "context" is the word "shall?

Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't recall "leaving" it.

Then, I'll ask YET AGAIN, how does that indicate perpetuity? Unless you're talking about some different subject than the one of this thread and conversation and the "shall" applies to.... you haven't said.

Click to expand...

No, the "shall" does not apply to me (haven't said).

"Shall" even if taken apart and separated from the PRESENT active indicative, means FUTURE.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly; shall is in the future tense and means 'in the future'.

It could just as well be 1 minute in the future as 52 years in the future, it does not mandate perpetuity - and thus does not confirm the dogma of the PERPETUAL Virginity of Mary - a point I made some TWENTY PAGES ago and you have been debating that point with me ever sense.

Click to expand...

Could you post any other verses from the passages describing the Annunciation that govern the duration of "shall" ?

Unless you can find another passage providing an additional contextual referent, I think "shall" is it. Mary is betrothed (which is typically followed by marriage); without further contextual statement (which I was unable to find) "shall" covers the period of betrothal any marriage that might occur. (Unless there was no intention to marry; scripture is silent on any marriage between Mary and Joseph.)

For it to substantiate the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, it MUST and ONLY mean until death. Does it?

Click to expand...

Can you find a passage or word that limits the duration of "shall" ? If you can, it would be helpful of you to provide it.

Unless there was an intention to divorce, or remarry if widowed -- perhaps you might know of a scriptural comment on this possibility as well.

Standing Up said:

Tons of examples. David (Bathsheba).

Click to expand...

He ceased to be King and went back to herding sheep did he?

Samson (Delila).

Click to expand...

He ceased being one of the Judges and began taking strong drink did he?

Peter (get behind Me; vision of clean/unclean; confrontation w/ Paul).

Click to expand...

He ceased being an Apostle and went back to being a fisherman did he?
You seem to equate errors of judgement with returning to ordinary life.

John

.


Thekla,

Thekla said:

Yes, Josiah.
To be honest, I don't recall "leaving" it.
No, the "shall" does not apply to me (haven't said).
Yes, exactly; shall is in the future tense and means 'in the future'.

Could you post any other verses from the passages describing the Annunciation that govern the duration of "shall" ?

Click to expand...

It seems...

1. You know and knew the issue before us in PERPETUALITY, the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.

2. It seems you are are not now insisting that the verse (by its grammar or its context or your context) supports PERPETUALITY.

3. Thus, the verse does not support the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

AFTER 20 PAGES OF POSTS, you seem to be now joining the others in abandoning that apologetic. After 20 pages of posts, you seem now to be giving up your point and agreeing with me; this verse does not confirm the dogma. That was my point 20 pages ago - when you began the debate with me over that.







Yes, of course, the context says NOTHING demanding perpetuality. The grammar says NOTHING about perpetuality. That's been my point for 20 pages. The Angel says, "You will be with child." That could be one minute in the future, it does not require that this conception will be on the day of her death/undeath. Three verses later, Mary says, "How will this be since I do not know a man?" NOTHING there about what will or will not be the case 52 years from then. She's simply asking how this will happen, being that she's a virgin (PRESENT active indictative). There's NOTHING mandating PERPETUALITY, thus nothing that confirms the dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.

Now, I realize that since you think she was a perpetual virgin - that's the context you assume and impose - "read" this text confirming that. And as I said 20 pages ago, it certainly doesn't contradict it. But it doesn't teach it, either. The context is this: The Angel says "you will conceive" and she says "I don't know a man." THAT is the full context - all the rest is not the text's context but imposed viewpoints - thus resulting in eisegesis, not exegesis, it's just self agreeing with self not self agreeing with the text. Since you now seem to agree perpetuality is not confirmed here, I think its obvious this doesn't confirm the perpetuality of Mary's virginity. And that IS the point. No one is denying that She was a virgin at the Annunciation and Incarnation, the issue before us is the first word of the title of this thread, and THAT is unsupported by this verse. The apologetic is baseless.




.

.

Philothei -

Philothei said:

The Orthodox Christian Church has

Click to expand...

Philothei said:

always held her to be in truth Ever-Virgin knowing her personally from the beginning and then passing the truths on from one generation to the next, never expanding nor subtracting from what was known in the beginning.

Click to expand...

Ah. So like the CC, the EO uses the apologetic that this dogma is true because it's been taught, "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN EVERY GENERATION."

If you want this apologetic to be considered, it needs to be evidenced as correct. Otherwise it's moot.

Now, I know there is some dispute of whether "the beginning" is the Annunciation (or even earlier) or Pentecost, but either way (or any point in between), could you please share the evidence for this apologetic? If you would, show that it was taught by the church in 5 BC - 30 AD (wherever in there you regard as the "beginning") and then just like a few examples from each generation (ever 20 or 25 years or so) throughout the first century to evidence that it was believed "one generation to the next."

Thanks!!





.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.Thekla,
It seems...
1. You know and knew the issue before us in PERPETUALITY, the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.

Click to expand...

OK

2. It seems you are are not now insisting that the verse (by its grammar or its context or your context) supports PERPETUALITY.

Click to expand...

Here is what I find confusing; you seem to not understand the grammatical points, so its difficult to know how to respond to you on this.
Can we at least determine what you mean by "perpetual" ?

BTW, I have not changed my position.

3. Thus, the verse does not support the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Click to expand...

I never stated that, so I'm unsure how you came to that conclusion.

AFTER 20 PAGES OF POSTS, you seem to be now joining the others in abandoning that apologetic. After 20 pages of posts, you seem now to be giving up your point and agreeing with me; this verse does not confirm the dogma. That was my point 20 pages ago - when you began the debate with me over that.

Click to expand...

I'll try to sketch it out a bit; perhaps this will help:

When Gabriel speaks to Mary, Mary is betrothed. (Betrothal is typically followed by marriage.) This is contextual.

Gabriel announces a future conception. This is contextual.

Mary responds re: a future conception. This is contextual.

There is no indication of when in the future; thus, the future is from the "now" of the announcement until death. This is contextual.
The future of "shall" is not limited by context; it is ongoing.
The future of "shall" includes as a 'subset' betrothal and (typically) pending marriage.

I have not found anything scriptural that limits the when of "shall" to a particular (shall we say) subset. So the entire future of Mary's life is included in the future of "shall".

Yes, of course, the context says NOTHING demanding perpetuality.

Click to expand...

If this is the case, then you have found a scriptural statement that limits the duration of "know not a man".

The grammar says NOTHING about perpetuality.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean:
1. in every instance of the present active indicative, regardless of context, the tense mandates perpetuity
2. in this case (Luke 1:34) the context limits the duration of
a. the timing of "shall" ( a "when" statement)
b. the duration of "know not a man"

Perhaps you would be willing to clarify -- either as a selection of above statements, or something else which did not occur to me.

That's been my point for 20 pages. The Angel says, "You will be with child." That could be one minute in the future, it does not require that this conception will be on the day of her death/undeath.

Click to expand...

The future of "shall/will be" is not limited by a "when" statement.

Three verses later, Mary says, "How will this be since I do not know a man?" NOTHING there about what will or will not be the case 52 years from then.

Click to expand...

Correct; there is no scriptural limitation on the "when" of shall; thus the entire life is covered.

She's simply asking how this will happen, being that she's a virgin (PRESENT active indictative). There's NOTHING mandating PERPETUALITY, thus nothing that confirms the dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.

Click to expand...

There is no statement limiting the duration of how long "know not a man" is; thus, the statement "know not a man" is Mary's entire future.

Now, I realize that since you think she was a perpetual virgin - that's the context you assume and impose - "read" this text confirming that. And as I said 20 pages ago, it certainly doesn't contradict it. But it doesn't teach it, either. The context is this: The Angel says "you will conceive" and she says "I don't know a man." THAT is the full context - all the rest is not the text's context but imposed viewpoints -

Click to expand...

If you claim that I have "imposed" an eisegesis, it is incumbent upon you to show where I have done such a thing.

The experiential present (Mary's experience of the event) includes the entire future of Mary; there is nothing in the context that limits the duration of that future to a "when".

Refer back to the grammatical citation I gave; as a parallel, you seem to be saying the apostles didn't really think they were perishing.

thus resulting in eisegesis, not exegesis, it's just self agreeing with self not self agreeing with the text.

Click to expand...

Josiah, you will need to support that position; you have not done so thus far.

Since you now seem to agree perpetuality is not confirmed here, I think its obvious this doesn't confirm the perpetuality of Mary's virginity. And that IS the point. No one is denying that She was a virgin at the Annunciation and Incarnation, the issue before us is the first word of the title of this thread, and THAT is unsupported by this verse. The apologetic is baseless.

Click to expand...

It is not baseless.

You have failed to provide any evidence that the future of "shall" is limited to "right now" (at the time of the announcement).

As you have failed to provide any grammatical or scriptural evidence, you seem to be drawing your interpretation from a retrospective bias.

prodromos said:

He ceased to be King and went back to herding sheep did he? He ceased being one of the Judges and began taking strong drink did he? He ceased being an Apostle and went back to being a fisherman did he?
You seem to equate errors of judgement with returning to ordinary life.

John

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

I found it interesting in that long quote by Philoliel (sic), that brothers of the Lord were mentioned and explained in ways (Joseph was older, cousins), but, as usual, the word sister was not mentioned or explained.

Thekla said:

I'll try to sketch it out a bit; perhaps this will help:

When Gabriel speaks to Mary, Mary is betrothed. (Betrothal is typically followed by marriage.) This is contextual.

Gabriel announces a future conception. This is contextual.

Mary responds re: a future conception. This is contextual.

There is no indication of when in the future; thus, the future is from the "now" of the announcement until death.

Click to expand...

Well.... running with that.... I'm following you UNTIL the very last illogical, noncontextual, assumptive leap.
It does NOT mandate UNTIL DEATH.

Either the future is indefinate in which case it does NOT confirm perpetuality OR it means "until the moment of your death/undeath" in which case you've failed to show that's the sole meaning of the of PRESENT active indicative. The sole question is this: Does the grammar here mandate PERPETUALITY. There's no dispute that she was a virgin at the moment she said that she was.

The future of "shall" is not limited by context; it is ongoing.

Click to expand...

It's indefinate, it does not require perpetuality. "I will go to Hawaii" does not mean that I will be going to Hawaii all the days of the rest of my life and will die going to Hawaii.

The Orthodox Christian Church has always held her to be in truth Ever-Virginknowing her personally from the beginning and then passing the truths on from one generation to the next, never expanding nor subtracting from what was known in the beginning.

Click to expand...

The future of "shall" includes as a 'subset' betrothal and (typically) pending marriage.

I have not found anything scriptural that limits the when of "shall" to a particular (shall we say) subset. So the entire future of Mary's life is included in the future of "shall".

Click to expand...

Sorry, I fail to see how all this confirms that the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary was taught 'ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN EVERY GENERATION."

If this is the case, then you have found a scriptural statement that limits the duration of "know not a man".

Click to expand...

Moot.

No one said the Scripture forbids the understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. YOUR point is that it CONFIRMS it. This verse is YOUR apologetic for YOUR point - PERPETUALITY.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean:
1. in every instance of the present active indicative, regardless of context, the tense mandates perpetuity
2. in this case (Luke 1:34) the context limits the duration of
a. the timing of "shall" ( a "when" statement)
b. the duration of "know not a man"

Click to expand...

You seem to forget, I didn't bring up this verse. You did.
I didn't suggest that this verse confirms my view (I don't have one). You did.

If you are going to continue to reference this verse as your apologetic for the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, then you need to evidence that the mandated meaning is PERPETUALITY. Otherwise, the apologetic is moot.

IMHO, you can't argue both sides of the coin at the same time: The future (??!!) is indefinate AND it means until She died/undied.

The point was made here that the GRAMMAR of the verse mandates perpetuality. Perhaps you disagree with that point. If you do, then we are left with the words themselves - and as we all know, there's nothing here about perpetuality.


There is no context that mandates that Mary will not know a man on the day of her death/undeath. She speaks of her virginity in the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. There's no context here that speaks of ANYTHING when Mary would be 72 years old. Much less on the day of her death (or undeath depending on your view - I don't know what the Orthodox teach as to whether She died or not).

Josiah, you will need to support that position; you have not done so thus far.

Click to expand...

You seem to forget I have no position to support.
You do.
It's YOU insisting that this verse confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.
Not just future virginity (whether such be 1 minute or 62 years - the verse doesn't explicitely state), but PERPETUALITY.

No, I never said the verse FORBIDS that understanding, it's your position that it REQUIRES that understanding.

The ball is YOURS. It's been in your court for 20 PAGES of posts now. There have been several attempts to pass it to me, but I've never said this verse confirms the perpetual virginity of Mary - you did. I never said the grammar requires that - that's the position you are defending. I never said this is my apologetic for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, I never even said I think the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is true!!! It's YOUR position, YOUR apologetic, YOUR point.






.

Thekla said:

-snip-

It is not baseless.

You have failed to provide any evidence that the future of "shall" is limited to "right now" (at the time of the announcement).

Click to expand...

Your 'base' for 'shall' is that it was a vow, no? a perpetual vow to God to remain a virgin

Ever-Virginity

One of the more puzzling traditions regarding the Theotokos for modern Christians is the teaching that she is Ever-Virgin, that is, that she remained a virgin before, during, and eternally after the birth of Jesus Christ.
That the Holy Virgin Mary is Ever-Virgin (Aeiparthenos) is not to elevate her to some special status or to incite us to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Rather, it is an affirmation of who Christ Jesus is. Because He has chosen her to be his mother, to conceive Him, to give flesh to Him, to give birth to Him, we understand her as a finite dwelling place of the infinite God. Thus, because she is in this sense this new Holy of Holies, her ever-virginity is a natural characteristic of such an awesome reality.
The whole tradition of the Orthodox Christian Church has always held her to be in truth Ever-Virgin,[3][4] knowing her personally from the beginning and then passing the truths on from one generation to the next, never expanding nor subtracting from what was known in the beginning. Except for a few instances here and there in history, never have Christians regarded her in any other fashion until relatively late in the Protestant traditions. There are many testimonies to her ever-virginity, so let's consider a few:
Testimony from Scripture

The principal understanding of the Virgin Mary as Ever-Virgin in Scripture is expressed in terms of her being a new Ark of the Covenant, a created thing which somehow contained the uncontainable God. The reason that St. Joseph the Betrothed (as tradition names him) did not enter into marital relations with her is that he understood her as one would understand the Ark, that she had been set aside for use by God, and that her womb had in some sense been made into a temple. The language used for the Virgin in the New Testament parallels that used for the Ark in the Old:
From a Roman Catholic source:[5]
For the first time God's presence has descended upon a person as the new ark of the Covenant. . . . Rene Laurentin speaks of the subtle use of ark imagery [early in Luke]. For instance, he shows how in II Samuel 6, there was a journey to the hill country of Judah that the ark of the covenant took. Likewise, the same phrase is used to describe Mary's journey to the hill country. . . . Both David and Mary "arose and made the journey." In II Samuel 6:2 and Luke 1:39. Laurent goes on to describe how when the Ark arrived and when Mary arrived, they were both greeted with "shouts of joy." And the word for shout or the word for Elizabeth's greeting, anafametezein, is very rare. It's only used in connection with the OT liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the Ark. It literally means to "cry aloud, to proclaim or intone." Elizabeth greets Mary the same way the Ark of the Covenant was greeted. The entrance of the Ark and the entrance of Mary are seen then as blessing an entire household. Like Obededom's household was blessed, so Elizabeth sees her household as blessed. Laurentin goes on to talk about how both David and Elizabeth react with awe. "How shall the Ark of the Lord come to me?" David says in II Samuel 6:9. And likewise Elizabeth says, "Why should the mother of the Lord come to me?" The Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of our Lord are in a sense two ways of looking at the same reality which is becoming clearer and more personal with Our Lady. Then finally, the Ark of the Covenant and Mary both remain in the respective houses for three months, II Samuel 6:11 and Luke 1:56. In Luke 1 and 2 we have the annunciation of Gabriel to Zachariah and six months later the annunciation by Gabriel to Mary, then nine months later Jesus is born, and thirty days later He is presented in the temple. You add up 180 days in the six months, 270 days in the nine months, and the 40 days in the presentation and it adds up to 490, which is a very rare number that is found in one of the most memorable prophecies in the OT, Daniel 9. . . . Luke is once again giving a surplus value, a surplus meaning to those who are really willing to dig deep into the text to see all of the inspired meanings behind what God has done to inaugurate the New Covenant salvation in Christ and in His Blessed Mother. This is the Ark of the Covenant. Now let's go back and conclude our time in Revelation 11 and 12. We have Mary the Ark of the Covenant. We have Mary the true tabernacle. We have in Mary a figure for the New Jerusalem because at the end of Revelation, how is the New Jerusalem described? As being a bride that is pure and yet also being a mother of God's children Well, how is it that you could be at the same time virginally pure and maternally fruitful? It seems impossible in human nature, but not for Mary, not only in mothering Jesus, but in John 19 at the cross and also in Revelation 12 where we read at the very end of the chapter, verse 17, we discover that Mary becomes by grace the mother of all God's children. How is it that our Lord would have brothers? Many look at the story of Ss. Mary and Joseph and see a young couple about to embark on their married life together, but Church tradition holds differently. St. Joseph was a much older man, a widower, and had children by his previous marriage, thus his sons were in some sense Christ's step-brothers, and their being older than Jesus can also account for some of the way he is treated by them as being the baby of the family, somewhat out of his mind. Joseph takes in Mary as something like his ward, because in leaving her life as a Temple virgin, she could not go out into the world alone (cf. Protevangelion of James). That is why Joseph, a righteous, respected man, was chosen to take her in. His being much older than she also accounts for the notion that they should have had relations—she had already dedicated herself to a life of virginity, whereas he was a much older man who had already had his children and whose wife had died. Another possible understanding is that these "brothers" of our Lord were his cousins—St. Jerome holds this view, that these were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas, who had died and left his children and widow in Joseph's care, according to Jewish custom.
Additionally, both the Hebrew and Greek terms for "brother" are often used to refer to relatives who are not necessarily what we in English would term "brothers," i.e., perhaps a cousin or an uncle, or some other relative. For example, Abraham and Lot are called adelphoi in Gen. 14:14 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the Apostles), though they are certainly not what we would call "brothers." Jacob and Laban are also called "brothers" (Gen. 29:15), though Laban would have been Jacob's uncle. In any event, the words do not mean the precise thing that the modern English "brother" does.
Beyond that, it is nowhere to be found in Scripture that any man other than the God-man Jesus Christ is called the child of Mary.
Some would cite the use of the "until" in Scripture ("...and he knew her not until (Greek eos) her having brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)) to indicate that after she gave birth to the God-man, that St. Joseph then "knew" her maritally. Again, this is a translation problem.
From this webpage:
This verse seems to be often translated as "he knew her not until after..." This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original, eos, indicates the true meaning, of "he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth." The Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression. This same term and meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it clearly does not indicate what the heterodox (non-Orthodox) claim it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus. At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that "Joseph knew her not till after...", but in fact, he never "knew" her at all. In another example, the Bible says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? Of course not! Hence, the Bible does not say that "Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus." Another testimony from Scripture is that on the cross, our Lord gave his holy mother into the care of the Apostle John (John 19:26). This might seem a merely practical thing to do, but if we recall the Mosaic Law would have dictated that she be given into the care of other natural children, since her firstborn son was dying. Christ, who kept the Law perfectly, would not have violated it in any detail, and so when he gave his mother to the apostle to look after, he did so only because she had no other children who could take her in, St. Joseph having long since passed away.

Theotokos - OrthodoxWiki

i think we need to refresh this thread with something more edifying and consentrate on the basics

It is not baseless.

You have failed to provide any evidence that the future of "shall" is limited to "right now" (at the time of the announcement).

Click to expand...

Future is future is future up to EOS.... the end of time...... in Hellenistic that is what is indicated

very well said

I'll try to sketch it out a bit; perhaps this will help:

Click to expand...

When Gabriel speaks to Mary, Mary is betrothed. (Betrothal is typically followed by marriage.) This is contextual.

Gabriel announces a future conception. This is contextual.

Mary responds re: a future conception. This is contextual.

There is no indication of when in the future; thus, the future is from the "now" of the announcement until death. This is contextual.
The future of "shall" is not limited by context; it is ongoing.
The future of "shall" includes as a 'subset' betrothal and (typically) pending marriage.

I have not found anything scriptural that limits the when of "shall" to a particular (shall we say) subset. So the entire future of Mary's life is included in the future of "shall".

Click to expand...

wow I could have not put it better............

Philothei said:

The whole tradition of the Orthodox Christian Church has always held her to be in truth Ever-Virgin, knowing her personally from the beginning and then passing the truths on from one generation to the next,

Click to expand...

So, your primary apologetic for the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary is that this view has been held, "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN ALL GENERATIONS."

Okay, if you want this apologetic to be consider and to be regarded as anything but moot, you need to evidence that what you claim is true. Otherwise, you are just piling up entirely unsubstantiated claims upon another; no apologetic AT ALL.

How is it that our Lord would have brothers? Many look at the story of Ss. Mary and Joseph and see a young couple about to embark on their married life together, but Church tradition holds differently. St. Joseph was a much older man, a widower, and had children by his previous marriage, thus his sons were in some sense Christ's step-brothers, and their being older than Jesus can also account for some of the way he is treated by them as being the baby of the family, somewhat out of his mind. Joseph takes in Mary as something like his ward, because in leaving her life as a Temple virgin, she could not go out into the world alone (cf. Protevangelion of James). That is why Joseph, a righteous, respected man, was chosen to take her in. His being much older than she also accounts for the notion that they should have had relations—she had already dedicated herself to a life of virginity, whereas he was a much older man who had already had his children and whose wife had died. Another possible understanding is that these "brothers" of our Lord were his cousins—St. Jerome holds this view, that these were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas, who had died and left his children and widow in Joseph's care, according to Jewish custom.
Additionally, both the Hebrew and Greek terms for "brother" are often used to refer to relatives who are not necessarily what we in English would term "brothers," i.e., perhaps a cousin or an uncle, or some other relative. For example, Abraham and Lot are called adelphoi in Gen. 14:14 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the Apostles), though they are certainly not what we would call "brothers." Jacob and Laban are also called "brothers" (Gen. 29:15), though Laban would have been Jacob's uncle. In any event, the words do not mean the precise thing that the modern English "brother" does.
Beyond that, it is nowhere to be found in Scripture that any man other than the God-man Jesus Christ is called the child of Mary.
Some would cite the use of the "until" in Scripture ("...and he knew her not until (Greek eos) her having brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matthew
From this webpage:
This verse seems to be often translated as "he knew her not until after..." This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original, eos, indicates the true meaning, of "he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth." The Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression. This same term and meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it clearly does not indicate what the heterodox (non-Orthodox) claim it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus. At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that "Joseph knew her not till after...", but in fact, he never "knew" her at all. In another example, the Bible says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? Of course not! Hence, the Bible does not say that "Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus." Another testimony from Scripture is that on the cross, our Lord gave his holy mother into the care of the Apostle John (John 19:26). This might seem a merely practical thing to do, but if we recall the Mosaic Law would have dictated that she be given into the care of other natural children, since her firstborn son was dying. Christ, who kept the Law perfectly, would not have violated it in any detail, and so when he gave his mother to the apostle to look after, he did so only because she had no other children who could take her in, St. Joseph having long since passed away.

Click to expand...

Moot.

This thread is not about Jesus, it's about Mary.
This thread is not about siblings, it's about ____.

This entire apologetic is meaningless and irrelevant UNLESS you can substantiate that every single act of ___ results in the birth of a child specifically mentioned in the Bible. Otherwise, EVEN IF your claim is true (Jesus had no brothers) that's entirely moot to whether Mary ever had ____.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

Philothei said:

Future is future is future up to EOS.... the end of time...... in Hellenistic that is what is indicated

very well said

Click to expand...

Ah, so now you need to substantiate that in koine Greek grammar, the present active indictative mandates that the activity continues in perpetuity until death.

"I am drinking coffee" thus means I will continue to drink coffee until the moment of my death (that's too much coffee even for me!) And does that statement PROVE that I'll I CANNOT drinking coffee when I'm 92 years old, the statement FORBIDS that?

Even change this to an entirely different tense. "I will drink my coffee." THAT mandates that I will be drinking my coffee for all the days for the rest of my life, ceasing only the second I die?" Is THAT what the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE requires in koine Greek? If so, evidence it. Otherwise, your apologetic falls flat.


.

Philothei said:

wow I could have not put it better.....

Click to expand...

If so, then you are now stating that the EO's understanding is POSSIBLE, not that it's mandated by the text. And, after 21 pages, are finally agreeing with what I said, what you have been debating and arguing against for so long.

This text doesn't DENY the dogma, but it doesn't mandate it, either. Thus, it fails as an apologetic. The point (that I questioned 21 pages ago) that this verse proves the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary simply isn't the case. The apologetic fails.



.