Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Dorothea]

Remember: of the 50000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, only two think it has ANY importance at all: The CC and EO. Everyone else is silent on the bedroom activities of Mary and Joseph. Two elevate the issue to the very highest level possible. You tell me why.

Yeah, and there will probably be 100,000 more "denominations" in a decade with all the splitting, splintering, go make their own churches groups/sects out there. What's your point. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the largest in the world equally somewhere around 1 billion 250 million (combining the two), where the Protestants have some time to catch up if you want to talk numbers. But they may very well do that if the constant new sects sprout up every week, month or year.

The point is The Church has said this from the beginning when the virginity of Mary was disputed some many, many, many centuries ago. The Holy Spirit has led the Church from the beginning when the Apostles handed down the traditions, teachings, etc. of Christ to our bishops. So, to put it bluntly, you are following something that was disputed and thrown out years ago because it was a false teaching. Why? Probably because of the breaking off sometime in the past 500 years. It's hard to keep the Truth when you keep moving further from it (you in a general sense). So, to be blunt again, if you're interpreting scripture that does not line up with what the Church's teachings and interpretations have been from the beginning, you're interpretation is in error. Plain and simple.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Remember: of the 50000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, only two think it has ANY importance at all: The CC and EO. Everyone else is silent on the bedroom activities of Mary and Joseph. Two elevate the issue to the very highest level possible. You tell me why.

.

Yeah, and there will probably be 100,000 more "denominations" in a decade. What's your point.

Here's what you post:

"Why it is important to know the excact details about her virginity?

Since there are only TWO that think it's important, and none of them are Protestant, you're asking the wrong people. You need to ask this question of the CC and EO - the ONLY ones that insist that it IS so very, very important.

The point is The Church has said this from the beginning

1. That's no apologetic for it being true.

2. Okay, give me two quotes (I don't care from whom - they can be heretics if you like) from before 50 AD that state, "Mary had no ____ ever." Just two.

3. Actually, the "interpretation" you gave of the Lucan verse was FIRST suggested around the year 400AD. NOT "from the beginning."

So, to put it bluntly, you are following something that was disputed and thrown out years ago because it was a false teaching.

AGAIN (and you STILL haven't answered any of my questions, included the repeated ones about this issue), how is a non position a false teaching? We have TWO denominations that have a position about Mary's _____ life. It's a very bold, focused one that Mary Never Had ____ EVER. That's the only position out there. Of the 100,000 other denomination YOU claim exist, NONE of the them has any position at all. So how can it be "false?" They do exact as the Bible does: silence. They do exactly as the earliest Christian Tradition does: silence. How is not having a position holding to a false position?

How does the reality that 100,000 denominations say NOTHING about Her ____ life show they regard it as a matter of highest importance, but the fact that only two regard it as a matter of highest importance reveal that they don't? I'm not following your logic at all.

if you're interpreting scripture that does not line up with what the Church's teachings and interpretations have been from the beginning, you're interpretation is in error. Plain and simple.

1. The "interpretation" you offered is NOT "from the beginning." It's from 400 AD and after. And it wasn't by any church, it was by a single individual man.

2. An "interpretation" is from a word. But this individual did NOT interpret it at all. He ignored it, simply replacing it with an entirely different one. The tense is PRESENT. I can't help that, my friend, it's just what it is. It says, "I AM a virgin." It doesn't say "I will forever be a virgin." So, to say, "This means that Mary will forever be a perpetual virgin" is OBVIOUSLY not an interpretation of the text, it's IGNORING the text. It's eisegesis, not exegesis. Obviously.




.

 

[Thekla]

The present tense in Hellenistic Greek is not precisely equivalent to the present tense in English.

In Hellenistic Greek, the present can mean both:

I know
I am knowing (progressive)

It is context that distinguishes the present simple vs. the present progressive (which includes a continuous tense).

Consider (Luke 1:34):

"Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall (future) this be, seeing I not know (present) a man? "

In this instance, Mary - betrothed - asks how a future conception can occur.

Thus, based on context (the future tense of to be, shall), in English this would logically be"

"How shall this be seeing I not knowing (progressive) a man."
more accurately:
"How shall this be seeing I (shall) not knowing (progressive) a man."

In order for " I not know" to be logically associated with the future tense of shall, the progressive tense (which includes the future of shall) is appropriate.

Thus, it is a statement of condition (progressive includes the future, and the context for the future continuous is more explicitly provided by the future of "shall") and is not time sensitive.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

"I AM a virgin." PRESENT active indictative. It is what it is.
Now, you may think that Mary actually meant to say, "I will forever be a virgin" but that's NOT what she said. So, what she SAID in no way teaches that Mary had no ____ ever or that herein she is making a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin.

Interpretation requires that we do so according to what is there, not what is not there; what is written not what we think might have rather been meant. For the first time know, the individual around 400 AD did not "interpret" the verb, he ignored it and replaced it with another.


Now, I don't argue that we're left unclear about what Mary was thinking here. Her comment is not clear (thus, hardly documentation for a DOGMA!). Now, IF (big word there!) she had made some vow to perpetual virginity (and there's ZERO evidence of that), but then her verb choice is very odd. Why didn't she say, ".... since I will forever be a virgin?" or "Since I have made a vow to perpetual virginity?" But she does ask the question in the future, "How will this be?" There's simply not enough here to know. IMHO, the most likely case is that She (CORRECTLY!) understands that the incarnation is now - not several months in the future when She and Joseph planned to come together. The "will" is in reference to the next minutes, days, weeks. The "AM a virgin" applies to now and won't change for some time. But, I don't think that's NEARLY strong enough or certain enough to make it DOGMA: just what seems most likely.

But our discussion of this verse was this: It was stated that the dogma of Mary Had No ____ ever is taught in the Bible, as was that She made a vow to God of perpetual virginity. I asked for where. This verse was given. I think it's obvious it doesn't say Mary had no ____ ever and there's nothing there about any vow to perpetual virginity. She askes, "how will this be?" And states, "I AM - present tense - a virgin." It does NOT say, "I will forever be a virgin" and it doesn't say, "I took a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin" and it doesn't say, "I will have no ____ ever." What we have here on the part of the CC and EO is eisegesis, not exegesis. A view is imposed on the text (verb tense not withstanding), it doesn't teach the view. Now, I agree, IF the view is TRUE, it becomes a possible THEORY as to what Mary may have meant here in her question - a difficult one, but a possible one. But that's a whole other issue than whether this verse teaches that view. I strongly suspect you know that.




.

 

[Thekla]

.

"I AM a virgin." PRESENT active indictative. It is what it is.

In Greek the context determines the sense of which sort of present tense it would be in English. Greek is not the same as English. It is important to remember this. Despite your protestations, your personal umbrage does not alter the Greek.

If we consider the English translation alone (without referring to the fact of the meaning of the present tense in Hellenistic Greek), you still have not provided any explanation (much less a logical or rational explanation) for her response concerning a future event. (Note that the future "shall" is not only included in the announcement of Gabriel, but in the words that Mary speaks, Luke 1:34.)

Now, you may think that Mary actually meant to say, "I will forever be a virgin" but that's NOT what she said. So, what she SAID in no way teaches that Mary had no ____ ever or that herein she is making a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin.

The future "shall" is in the introductory (conditional) portion of the words spoken by Mary. The sense of the remainder of the remaining portion of the sentence is covered by the conditional "shall", the future. The Hellenistic Greek present is not the same as the English present tense. Reiterating your opinion does not alter the facts of the Hellenistic Greek language.

Interpretation requires that we do so according to what is there, not what is not there; what is written not what we think might have rather been meant. For the first time know, the individual around 400 AD did not "interpret" the verb, he ignored it and replaced it with another.

What is there is a statement by Mary which notes that the manner of a future conception is unknown because she is "shall ... not (am) knowing a man".

You have yet to substantiate your claim re: St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Given the facts of Hellenistic Greek, your claim re: St. Gregory of Nyssa is moot. Unsubstantiated accusations approach wanton slander.

Now, I don't argue that we're left unclear about what Mary was thinking here. Her comment is not clear (thus, hardly documentation for a DOGMA!). Now, IF (big word there!) she had made some vow to perpetual virginity (and there's ZERO evidence of that), but then her verb choice is very odd. Why didn't she say, ".... since I will forever be a virgin?"

In the Greek, she did (without using the term virgin).
Even in English, where the present tense is unlike the Greek present tense, the tense of the verb "shall" (future) covers the remainder of her statement (a progressive continuous).

or "Since I have made a vow to perpetual virginity?" But she does ask the question in the future, "How will this be?" There's simply not enough here to know. IMHO, the most likely case is that She (CORRECTLY!) understands that the incarnation is now - not several months in the future when She and Joseph planned to come together.

You seem to expect that the Holy Scripture be written in terminology you would prefer.

Consider -- why would Mary think that she would conceive before marriage (during the period of betrothal) ? Is there anything in Gabriel's statement that indicates the immediate future ?

The "will" is in reference to the next minutes, days, weeks. The "AM a virgin" applies to now and won't change for some time. But, I don't think that's NEARLY strong enough or certain enough to make it DOGMA: just what seems most likely.

What is the sense of "when" in the future given by Gabriel ?

But our discussion of this verse was this: It was stated that the dogma of Mary Had No ____ ever is taught in the Bible, as was that She made a vow to God of perpetual virginity. I asked for where. This verse was given. I think it's obvious it doesn't say Mary had no ____ ever and there's nothing there about any vow to perpetual virginity. She askes, "how will this be?" And states, "I AM - present tense - a virgin." It does NOT say, "I will forever be a virgin" and it doesn't say, "I took a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin" and it doesn't say, "I will have no ____ ever." What we have here on the part of the CC and EO is eisegesis, not exegesis. A view is imposed on the text (verb tense not withstanding), it doesn't teach the view. Now, I agree, IF the view is TRUE, it becomes a possible THEORY as to what Mary may have meant here in her question - a difficult one, but a possible one. But that's a whole other issue than whether this verse teaches that view. I strongly suspect you know that.

"Know a man" is sufficient to cover the more explicit statements desired by you personally.

You have yet to exhibit any evidence for the claim of "eisegesis" on the part of the EO or RC. The claim must be supported by evidence. As evidence, you have referred to your opinion of the Greek, but not the facts of the Hellenistic Greek language. You have made accusations against St. Gregory of Nyssa, but have failed to substantiate your claim or even offer any evidence that this is other than your opinion.

As to what you think I do and do not know -- that is eisegesis.

 

[Thekla]

Consider (from the first chapter of Luke, verse 63):

Zachariah writes, "his name is (present indicative) John".
At what point in the future is John's name no longer John ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In Greek the context determines the sense of which sort of present tense it would be in English.

It's PRESENT TENSE. The GREEK verb is PRESENT TENSE. I'm not talking about how every single translation I've seen in English translates the PRESENT tense Greek verb with a PRESENT tense English verb, the Greek. Sorry. That's just what it is.

If we consider the English translation alone (without referring to the fact of the meaning of the present tense in Hellenistic Greek), you still have not provided any explanation (much less a logical or rational explanation) for her response concerning a future event.

1. In the Greek, it's PRESENT tense, not future tense. Which is why every translation say, "I AM a virgin."

2. I don't need to have an "explanation." I don't have a position. Only two do on the planet - the CC and EO. THEY need to substantiate their dogmatic, bold insistence that Mary had no _____ ever. The ball in is THEIR court, not in the 50000 denominations (or over 1000000 according to Dorothea) that have no position.

3. I gave what seems like the most reasonable reading of this, but such is moot. What we were told is that the Bible says that Mary had no ___ ever and that Mary made a vow to God of perpetual virginity. I asked for the verse or verses where that is stated. This is the verse that was given. In it, Mary says "I AM a virgin." PRESENT tense. It does NOT say, "I will not have ___ even once throughout my lifetime." It does not say, "I am a perpetual virgin." It does not say, "I hereby give my vow to God to not have ___ even once!" Nope. It says, I AM a virgin (PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE). Well, I am a virgin, too. I'm NOT thereby declaring as a dogmatic fact that I will not have ____ even once.

You have yet to substantiate your claim re: St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Given the facts of Hellenistic Greek, your claim re: St. Gregory of Nyssa is moot.

He lived in the late 4th century. He is the first known to have made this bit of eisegesis. Unless you think he lived before 31 AD, and that his view that the Greek is FUTURE tense rather than PERSENT tense, then I think my observation stands.

It seems to ME, the reality is the oldest Tradition about Mary's ____ life is silence. I realize that began, but it seems to be the oldest Tradition. It also is the tradition of 50,000 (or maybe 100,000) denominations. Two disagree with it. They have a very bold, strong, focused stance of the very highest importance: Mary had no _____ ever.

Consider -- why would Mary think that she would conceive before marriage (during the period of betrothal) ? Is there anything in Gabriel's statement that indicates the immediate future ? What is the sense of "when" in the future given by Gabriel ?

Your personal open-ended questions are not substantiation for ANYTHING.

Gabriel says, "you will conceive." That, of course, could be within the minute. Mary says, "how can this be for I AM (PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE) a virgin." So, what do we know? Gabriel says she will conceive. Mary says she is a virgin. There you are. That's what the verse says. Now, where does Mary say, "But I hereby make a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin?" Where does Mary say, "But I am a perpetual virgin?"

If you want to play pure baseless speculation, okay. Maybe Mary misheard or misunderstood the "will" in Gabriel? Maybe she believed (CORRECTLY) that the incarnation was SOON - not months away when she planned to be joined with Joseph? I guess anyone could speculate until Jesus returns. It's moot. This isn't speculation. It's DOGMA. You need more than, "well.... in turns of pure speculation, it seems like one possiblity." I asked for the verse she said taught this dogma and that Mary had this vow. This is the verse she gave. It does NEITHER. It ONLY says that at the Annunciation, Mary was a virgin. NOTHING about "now and 52 years from now.' Come on.



.

 

[Thekla]

It's PRESENT TENSE. The GREEK verb is PRESENT TENSE.

The Greek present tense is unlike the English present tense. You cannot analyze the Greek of the passage using the English understanding of the present tense.

I'm not talking about how every single translation I've seen in English translates the PRESENT tense Greek verb with a PRESENT tense English verb, the Greek. Sorry. That's just what it is.

You have still not even accounted for - in English- the "shall" of Gabriel's announcement, and the "shall" of Mary's response which provides the condition (future) to which the "not (am) knowing" refers.

1. In the Greek, it's PRESENT tense, not future tense. Which is why every translation say, "I AM a virgin."

You are ignoring grammar, linguistics and logic. Thus, you skip scripture.

2. I don't need to have an "explanation." I don't have a position. Only two do on the planet - the CC and EO. THEY need to substantiate their dogmatic, bold insistence that Mary had no _____ ever. The ball in is THEIR court, not in the 50000 denominations (or over 1000000 according to Dorothea) that have no position.

Then how do you say the creed ? You have still not provided an analysis of the Greek of the creed to support your position (that it supports your no-position).

3. I gave what seems like the most reasonable reading of this, but such is moot. What we were told is that the Bible says that Mary had no ___ ever and that Mary made a vow to God of perpetual virginity. I asked for the verse or verses where that is stated. This is the verse that was given. In it, Mary says "I AM a virgin." PRESENT tense. It does NOT say, "I will not have ___ even once throughout my lifetime." It does not say, "I am a perpetual virgin." It does not say, "I hereby give my vow to God to not have ___ even once!" Nope. It says, I AM a virgin (PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE). Well, I am a virgin, too. I'm NOT thereby declaring as a dogmatic fact that I will not have ____ even once.

Narrowing the scope of your question to require a particular wording is perhaps an escape from the evidence, but does not refute the evidence present in scripture.

He lived in the late 4th century. He is the first known to have made this bit of eisegesis. Unless you think he lived before 31 AD, and that his view that the Greek is FUTURE tense rather than PERSENT tense, then I think my observation stands.

You have not quoted St. Gregory on this matter, nor provided evidence that he engaged in "eisegesis". You have failed to conclusively establish that he was the first to have understood the passage in this way. You have failed to provide evidence that the passage was, prior to St. Gregory of Nyssa, understood in another way by orthodox (small o) Christians. Further, by not grasping the difference in the English and Hellenistic Greek languages, it is not unlikely that you have engaged in "linguistic eisegesis" for your claim against St. Gregory.

It seems to ME, the reality is the oldest Tradition about Mary's ____ life is silence. I realize that began, but it seems to be the oldest Tradition. It also is the tradition of 50,000 (or maybe 100,000) denominations. Two disagree with it. They have a very bold, strong, focused stance of the very highest importance: Mary had no _____ ever.

Here again, you narrow the question in a personalized manner - to be "all about "____". Sufficiently narrowed, all questions cease to be about the subject of the thread.

Your personal open-ended questions are not substantiation for ANYTHING.

The questions are not "personal"; they specifically refer to the time frame iterated in the scriptural account. Gabriel announces a future conception to a betrothed Mary; Mary questions that a future conception can even occur. Thus, Mary's response of "how" referring to the "not (am ) knowing" logically and semantically points to the future, which covers the entire period of time when the "shall" can occur. I am inviting you to support your argument by referencing scripture to describe the range of time the "shall" of Gabriel and the "shall" of Mary covers.

Gabriel says, "you will conceive." That, of course, could be within the minute. Mary says, "how can this be for I AM (PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE) a virgin." So, what do we know? Gabriel says she will conceive. Mary says she is a virgin. There you are. That's what the verse says. Now, where does Mary say, "But I hereby make a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin?" Where does Mary say, "But I am a perpetual virgin?"

From where do you (scripturally) derive the time frame of "any minute" ? What time frame does "any minute" (a continuous possibility in place until "that minute" when "any minute" comes to be) cover, scripturally ? The present active indicative is governed by the introductory "shall" of Mary's statement. As before, the present tense in Greek covers immediate, progressive and continuous meanings. The future tense of "shall" describes the time span covered by the "not (am) knowing" in Greek. As before, do you mean to say that "his name is (present indicative) John" (Luke 1:63) indicates that at some point John's name was no longer John ?

If you want to play pure baseless speculation, okay. Maybe Mary misheard or misunderstood the "will" in Gabriel? Maybe she believed (CORRECTLY) that the incarnation was SOON - not months away when she planned to be joined with Joseph? I guess anyone could speculate until Jesus returns. It's moot. This isn't speculation. It's DOGMA. You need more than, "well.... in turns of pure speculation, it seems like one possiblity." I asked for the verse she said taught this dogma and that Mary had this vow. This is the verse she gave. It does NEITHER. It ONLY says that at the Annunciation, Mary was a virgin. NOTHING about "now and 52 years from now.' Come on.

.

[/quote] Thus, you seem to speculate that the following scenarios are possible: 1. Luke got it 'wrong' (Mary understood, Luke recorded the event erroneously). 2. Mary got it 'wrong' (Mary did not understand, and thus said yes to God based on an impaired understanding, and God went ahead anyway, but Luke recorded the event accurately). What is your scriptural support for the scenarios you suggest ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You cannot analyze the Greek of the passage using the English understanding of the present tense.

I didn't. I noted that in GREEK, the GREEK verb is PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. It's not future.... anything.

The verse does NOT indicate that for the rest of her life, she will not have _____ even once. And it does NOT indate that here Mary makes a vow to God to be a Perpetual Virgin. It does NOT teach this dogma.

You are ignoring grammar.

It's PRESENT tense. That's just the reality. Sorry. Can we move on?

Thus, you skip scripture.

No. The only Scripture reference is one where Mary at the Annunciation says, "I AM a virgin." Not "I will be a virgin all the days of my life" or "I hereby make a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin."

Then how do you say the creed ?

Let's see:

Nicene ".... incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary"
Yup, at the incarnation, Mary was a virgin.
Does it say, "...the perpetual virgin Mary?" Nope.
Does it say, "... and Mary had no ____ ever!" Nope.

Apostles: "... born of the virgin Mary."
Yup, at the birth of Jesus, Mary was a virgin.
Does it say, "...the perpetual virgin Mary?" Nope.
Does it say, "... and Mary had no ____ ever!" Nope.

St. Gregory on this matter, You have failed to conclusively establish that he was the first to have understood the passage in this way.

I know of none earlier. Do you? If you do, please quote them where they indicate that this verse teaches that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin and that what Mary is saying is that she will NEVER have _____. Ever.

Here again, you narrow the question to be "all about "____".

YET AGAIN, yes AGAIN, I have NEVER said the dogma is "ALL ABOUT." I have posted many, many times that I realize that eventually, other issues came to be associated with this dogma. I know that. I've said that. For at least the past 9 years. But it is what it is, and the dogma itself is that Mary never once had ____; that is the "core" as I typicallly speak of it.

Now, does this passage in Luke teach that Mary will NEVER have ____? Does it teach that herein Mary vows to God to be a Perpetual Virgin? If not, then I'm still waiting for the verses I was told prove this.

Gabriel announces a future conception to a betrothed Mary; Mary questions that a future conception can even occur.

Perhaps. So, let's see what it says. Gabriel says there will be a future conception (albeit it could be a micro second in the future - you admit). Mary questions how this can be. Mary says she IS a virgin. Okay. Now, how does that substantiate to the highest possible level that Mary will NEVER ONCE have ____? Say 62 years later? Is she saying that in this verse, by use of a single verb in the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE TENSE? Really?

From where do you (scripturally) derive the time frame of "any minute" ?

IF she had used a FUTURE tense verb, and she did not, future refers to the future. It does not necessarily refer to forever. I will feed my rabbit does not mean that I hereby vow to God to perpetually feed my rabbit (who of course may not even live as long as I will).

Look, Gabriel speaks of a conception not of the past or that EXACT moment. It logically, linguistically and grammatically could be one second in the future - it would still be future. Mary speaks in the PRESENT, not in the future. Mary says she doesn't understand. "How can (present tense) this be (present tense) because I am (present tense) a virgin?" NOTHING in her response about the future. Now, I honestly dont' know how in the world ANYONE can get ANYTHING dogmatically out of this little exchange except what's here - Gabriel says she will conceive and Mary says she IS a virgin. Nothing about any vow to God to be a perpetual virgin. Nothing about what Mary's ___ life might be 50 years in the future. The text just doesn't speak to that.

Now, since you seem determined to engage in pure speculation, then I'll speculate that the angel was (CORRECTLY) referring to an incarnation to happen VERY soon - perhaps as he was speaking, perhaps that minute. Tradition usually embraces the Annunciation as the moment of the Incarnation. In the Lutheran and Catholic churches, the Festival of the Annunciation of Our Lord is March 25 (count 9 months later - ahha, the incarnation and the Annunciation ON THE SAME DAY according to Tradition). And Mary understood (CORRECTLY according to Tradition) his announcement to be soon - not several months in the future after she and Joseph had come together but TODAY. Now, that's pure speculation. It's textually very possible - but I don't have anything to support it thus it's JUST pure personal speculation. Not theory. Not opinion. Not a viewpoint. Not a teaching. Not doctrine. Not dogma. A bit of speculation - possible in view of the text. Substantiation for NOTHING of ANY level. Frankly, I don't see how your bit of speculation is possible since you need to change the verb tense Mary uses, and it STILL doesn't work. But, friend, a bit of pure speculation that is textually POSSIBLE as mine is but yours seems not to be, is not substantiation for DOGMA. Or anything. It's not the same thing as "this verse teaches this." I think you know that.





.

 

[Thekla]

I didn't. I noted that in GREEK, the GREEK verb is PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. It's not future.... anything.

The verse does NOT indicate that for the rest of her life, she will not have _____ even once. And it does NOT indate that here Mary makes a vow to God to be a Perpetual Virgin. It does NOT teach this dogma.






It's PRESENT tense. That's just the reality. Sorry. Can we move on?

You are again ignoring the span of meaning of the Greek present tense. You are mistaking the English simple present for the Greek present tense (which includes the English simple present, the English progressive present, and Greek continuous). Mary's statement begins with "shall" which governs the range of the present tense in Greek and contextually denotes whether the range of the Greek present covers (in English terminology) simple present, progressive present of (Greek) continuous. You may be confused by the terminology (Greek present tense) - but the Greek present tense is not the same as the span or meaning of the English present tense. To perpetually repeat that "not (am) knowing" is in the present active indicative does not respond to the meaning of the Greek tense, and confuses the Greek language for the English language. They are not the same. Thus, your reiteration does not support your position on the passage, and skips understanding the passage at all. For example, it skips the "shall" (future) that contextually governs the range of the "not (am) knowing". Even in the English, it should occur to the reader that logically the passage does not make sense, as it covers first future tense and then an embedded present tense, unless Mary's "not know" covers the range of the conditional future (shall) that provides the context for the meaning of the "not (am) knowing". Further, given that Mary is at the time betrothed (engaged) and the time frame in which the future conception will occur is not mentioned, her response is either illogical, irrational, or consistent with the clearer meaning in the Greek.

No. The only Scripture reference is one where Mary at the Annunciation says, "I AM a virgin." Not "I will be a virgin all the days of my life" or "I hereby make a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin."

Let's see:

You are again ignoring the differentiation between Greek and English; further, you have not yet responded to the English translation. Repeating "present tense" is not a counter-argument.

Nicene ".... incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary"
Yup, at the incarnation, Mary was a virgin.
Does it say, "...the perpetual virgin Mary?" Nope.
Does it say, "... and Mary had no ____ ever!" Nope.

Apostles: "... born of the virgin Mary."
Yup, at the birth of Jesus, Mary was a virgin.
Does it say, "...the perpetual virgin Mary?" Nope.
Does it say, "... and Mary had no ____ ever!" Nope.

I requested a linguistic analysis of the Greek of the creed; your supposition on the matter is not a linguistic analysis. It is an unsupported personal interpretation.

I know of none earlier. Do you? If you do, please quote them where they indicate that this verse teaches that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin and that what Mary is saying is that she will NEVER have _____. Ever.

Can you provide the title and quote the work that you are referring to ? IE, can you support your claim ? And, as you seem to ignore Greek grammar, it is not unlikely that your misunderstanding of Greek tenses led you to assume that St. Gregory had argued an innovation. It is your claim, that St. Grgory introduced this novel and erroneous reading. It cannot be known by you to be novel and erroneous without knowing what was previously believed by orthodox Christians. Thus, you need to support your claim. Given your novel understanding of the Greek present tense, it is not unlikely that it is this misunderstanding that led you to think of St. Gregory's understanding to be erroneous. In all likelihood, he just knew Greek better than you do.

YET AGAIN, yes AGAIN, I have NEVER said the dogma is "ALL ABOUT." I have posted many, many times that I realize that eventually, other issues came to be associated with this dogma. I know that. I've said that. For at least the past 9 years. But it is what it is, and the dogma itself is that Mary never once had ____; that is the "core" as I typicallly speak of it.

You claim that other meanings came to be "attached", but you have as yet failed to provide evidence that this is the case. It is another example of claiming an unsupported supposition or accusation is correct because you say it is. This is not the same as providing evidence or an argument to support your position.

Now, does this passage in Luke teach that Mary will NEVER have ____? Does it teach that herein Mary vows to God to be a Perpetual Virgin? If not, then I'm still waiting for the verses I was told prove this.

You have perpetually skipped any cogent or involved discussion of the passage at all. To change the subject by evading the evidence and discussion does not nullify the sense of the passage.

Perhaps. So, let's see what it says. Gabriel says there will be a future conception (albeit it could be a micro second in the future - you admit). Mary questions how this can be. Mary says she IS a virgin. Okay. Now, how does that substantiate to the highest possible level that Mary will NEVER ONCE have ____? Say 62 years later? Is she saying that in this verse, by use of a single verb in the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE TENSE? Really?

Where is your evidence that Mary was alive, or Joseph was alive, 62 years later ? It could be a millisecond, it could be 62 years later. The future "shall" includes that and more. Consider examples from the OT; from this scriptural evidence some sense of the time range of God's "shall" can be ascertained for comparison (especially as Mary must have had some familiarity with the OT portion of salvation history). But again, your treatment of the passage relies on a refusal to understand the Hellenistic "present tense". If scripture is important, then this matter is important.

IF she had used a FUTURE tense verb, and she did not, future refers to the future. It does not necessarily refer to forever. I will feed my rabbit does not mean that I hereby vow to God to perpetually feed my rabbit (who of course may not even live as long as I will).

The Holy Scripture states there is no marriage in heaven. I think your range of demand is a bit exaggerated. If your rabbit dies, then your rabbit has no more chance to eat. I am not sure what this has to do with Mary, as I think the use of a rabbit for pregnancy testing came much later -- and was unneeded for Mary who wholly trusted God.

Look, Gabriel speaks of a conception not of the past or that EXACT moment. It logically, linguistically and grammatically could be one second in the future - it would still be future. Mary speaks in the PRESENT, not in the future. Mary says she doesn't understand. "How can (present tense) this be (present tense) because I am (present tense) a virgin?" NOTHING in her response about the future. Now, I honestly dont' know how in the world ANYONE can get ANYTHING dogmatically out of this little exchange except what's here - Gabriel says she will conceive and Mary says she IS a virgin. Nothing about any vow to God to be a perpetual virgin. Nothing about what Mary's ___ life might be 50 years in the future. The text just doesn't speak to that.

Thus, you only need to provide scriptural evidence that Gabriel explained the time range of "shall". And that Mary meant the same time range for her "shall". And that this time range was in the immediate (seconds or minutes) future.

Now, since you seem determined to engage in pure speculation, then I'll speculate that the angel was (CORRECTLY) referring to an incarnation to happen VERY soon - perhaps as he was speaking, perhaps that minute. Tradition usually embraces the Annunciation as the moment of the Incarnation. In the Lutheran and Catholic churches, the Festival of the Annunciation of Our Lord is March 25 (count 9 months later - ahha, the incarnation and the Annunciation ON THE SAME DAY according to Tradition). And Mary understood (CORRECTLY according to Tradition) his announcement to be soon - not several months in the future after she and Joseph had come together but TODAY. Now, that's pure speculation. It's textually very possible - but I don't have anything to support it thus it's JUST pure personal speculation. Not theory. Not opinion. Not a viewpoint. Not a teaching. Not doctrine. Not dogma. A bit of speculation - possible in view of the text. Substantiation for NOTHING of ANY level. Frankly, I don't see how your bit of speculation is possible since you need to change the verb tense Mary uses, and it STILL doesn't work. But, friend, a bit of pure speculation that is textually POSSIBLE as mine is but yours seems not to be, is not substantiation for DOGMA. Or anything. It's not the same thing as "this verse teaches this." I think you know that.

.

[/quote] This is based on retrospective knowledge, but not on any scriptural support that Mary understood "shall" to be "just about now". If she understood "just about now", or Gabriel stated "just about now", then please provide scriptural evidence. Finally, I have not changed the verb tenses in the passage. If you look at the passage, you will find that I have nothing of the sort. Instead, I have explained grammar. Grammar, like Physics, has rules. Traditional logic is closely related to grammar. But the insistence that English present = Greek present is ungrammatical and illogical. I am asking that you provide a logical grammatical argument to support your position. I already have. Your counterargument relies on doing the same.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

 

[Thekla]

. Thekla, Let's review: 1. I was told by an Orthodox poster that the Dogma of Mary Had No ____ Ever is taught in the Bible. Curious, I respectfully asked for the Scripture or Scriptures that do so. She listed one: Luke 1:34. Here we have the teaching that Mary was a virgin until her death/undeath AND that Mary here makes a vow to God to remain a virgin PERPETUALLY. 2. We therefore looked to the verse for what we were informed was there: Confirmation that Mary never once had _____ ever and that she made a vow to God to remain a perpetual virgin. 3. Does the verse teach those two things? Yes, I looked at the verse IN GREEK. I actually did NOT get out ANY of my English translations, I looked it up IN GREEK. And I noted the VERB TENSES used. The key word here is in the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE. Present. Sorry, but that's what it is. I can't change that reality, and nor should you try to. Does the verse say, "I will remain a virgin for all time, until my death/undeath?" Does the verse say, "I will forever be a perpetual virgin?" Does the verse say, "I herein make a holy vow to God to be a perpetual virgin?" Does this verse say ANYTHING about Mary's ____ life say 5 years from now? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? At the moment of Her death/undeath? Is there ANYTHING here relevant to that? Nope. It says, "I AM a virgin." PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE. Nothing about 52 years from now. Nothing that indicates a state that is eternal. Nothing that indicates any vow - to God or otherwise, about her ____ life or otherwise. "I AM a virgin." PRESENT tense. 4.

[/quote] Your treatment of the Greek present active indicative as = to the English simple present is inaccurate. You are basing your entire counterargument on a grammatical error. You have not yet provided a factual grammatical analysis of the passage in either Greek or English translation (Both open with shall/future tense as the condition governing the span of not (am) knowing/Greek present (which is not the same as the translator's) English simple present. Repeating your misunderstanding of the Hellenistic Greek present tense does not constitute a counter-argument. It should not be conceptually too hard to grasp that Hellenistic Greek and Modern English are not precisely the same language with precisely the same grammar.

 

[Thekla]

Since you repeat that "not (am) knowing" is in the present active indicative: what role does the "active" of the term "present active indicative" play in the meaning of the verb ?

 

[Thekla]

As paragraphing still doesn't work today, I am asking this as a second part to the previous post: Zachariah records that "his name is (present indicative) John" (Luke 1:63). At what point does John's name cease to be John ?

 

[Dorothea]

[/color][/font]
AGAIN (and you STILL haven't answered any of my questions, included the repeated ones about this issue), how is a non position a false teaching? We have TWO denominations that have a position about Mary's _____ life. It's a very bold, focused one that Mary Never Had ____ EVER. That's the only position out there. Of the 100,000 other denomination YOU claim exist, NONE of the them has any position at all. So how can it be "false?" They do exact as the Bible does: silence. They do exactly as the earliest Christian Tradition does: silence. How is not having a position holding to a false position?

How does the reality that 100,000 denominations say NOTHING about Her ____ life show they regard it as a matter of highest importance, but the fact that only two regard it as a matter of highest importance reveal that they don't? I'm not following your logic at all.

All of those thousands and thousands of broken off off shoot denominations are lacking the whole Truth, so they come up with incorrect interpretations of such issues are Mary's ever-virginity, because they haven't read their church history and seen it was disputed by the Church centuries ago, and thrown out as an incorrect/false/heretical teachings. Look it up. You will find it. All you have to do is some research on the Ecumenical Councils and the history of the Church. It's not a secret. It's not hidden. On can find this info if one is determined to find Truth and correct teachings.Mary bore Our Savior, our Salvation, and that was her purpose in this life. Her purpose wasn't to go home and have babies with Joseph. Her purpose was always to serve God through total dedication and chastity. Again, you will disagree because you'll look for something that may or may not say that in the Bible. Tradition teaches this. History teaches this. You can be sincerely trying to tell me that what I've said isn't true. You can be sincerely wrong. If the Church says Mary is ever virgin, then she is. Period. Why? Because the Church is continually lead by the Holy Spirit, and those who put the Bible together, led by the HS, did so correctly without error. This continues on through the Church.

 

[Dorothea]

Here, I even looked up some info on this subject:

A brief study regarding the Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Theotokos (God-bearer)event, and still after.

This question was asked at Bible study: ​

"Doesn't Matthew 1:25 say that Joseph did not know Mary until she had born a son? That pretty much implies that they had sexual relations afterwards, doesn't it?"
​

It is first of all important to remember that Mary and Joseph were only betrothed, not married. (Notice in Matthew 1:18b, for example the NRSV[1] says "engaged" NIV says "pledged to be married" and NKJV says "betrothed.") In the Jewish tradition, betrothal lasts for a year and was legally binding. There is no mention in the original Greek that they were ever married. Thus, the Church had always taught that the fact that they were never married is further evidence that there was no physical sexual relationship.

The specific passage in question: Matthew 1:25a

"...but he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." (NIV)
"...but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; (NRSV)
"...and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." (NKJV)

But first, a word about "firstborn"

Many ancient texts include the word "firstborn" (proto-tokon)

According to the Orthodox Study Bible, "firstborn" means having been born first, and never implies the birth of others. It is common in scripture and ancient writings to show that something is the “only” using the word “first” in order to emphasize pre-eminence, elevation or honor.

Here are some cross references using the same Greek word to illustrate this: ​

See Isaiah 44:5 - “I am God, the First, and with Me there is no other”
See Psalm 88:27 - “I will set Him firstborn high among the kings of the earth”
According to St. Cyril of Alexandria: "To show that the Virgin did not bring forth a mere man, there is added the word “firstborn”, for as she continued to be a Virgin, she had no other son but Him who is of the Father.”

And now, a brief study of the concept of "until" as used in Matthew 1:25a

"...but he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." (NIV)
"...but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; (NRSV)
"...and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." (NKJV)

The Greek word most often translated as "until" is eos (pronounced āōs), and is negated by ouk at the beginning of the phrase, meaning "not."
​

The modern-day meaning of the word "until" might lead us to think that Joseph "did not know her until..." but that he did afterwards. However, the biblical usage is quite different. In ancient and biblical usage, the word eos is used to designate a "boundary formed by a historical event."[2]

The Greek conjunction eos (till), like the Hebrew ad-ki and the Latin donec, while expressing what has occurred up to a certain period, leaves the future entirely aside"[3]

Here are some cross references to illustrate that ouk...eos it more accurately translated as "not until this important event, but still not after" (i.e. never.)

1) Note Luke 2:36-37, the story of Christ's Presentation at the Temple. The verse describes Anna the prophetess as having lived with her husband for 7 years after their marriage, and then, "she has lived as a widow until (eos) ." At the time of The Presentation of Christ she is still a widow, and will continue to be so after this. The "boundary" historical event is the Presentation of Christ.

2) Another good example of this is Acts 8:40. The verse says "Phillip.... traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until (eos) he reached Caesarea" (NIV) Did Phillip the deacon preach the gospel after he reached Caesarea? Of course he did. The "boundary" historical event is Phillip the deacon's arrival in Caesarea and the word eos is used to denote the importance of this event. He preached before, until this significant event, and still after.

3) Another example is Matthew 24:21, where the use of the word (eos) as having an action as continuing into the future is actually clarified in the text: "then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until (eos) now – and never to be equaled again." This great distress has not been seen until now, and still, will never be seen again.

4) See John 5:17. Jesus is speaking: "My Father is always at work to (eos) this very day, and I, too am working." (NIV) or "My Father has been working until (eos) now..."(NKJV) "My Father is still working, (eos) and I also am working." Clearly Jesus did not mean that His Father was working only until that very day, but still. Jesus' presence on earth was a "boundary" historical event. The Father worked until that day, and still afterwards.

5) other examples: Genesis 8.7 "Noah...sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro till the waters were dried up from the earth."
Psalm 110.1 "the Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool."
See also Isaiah 22.15, Matt 12.20, 1 Tim 4.13, Psalm 90.2, Psalm 72.7
​

Here's the link:

Ever Virginity - Matthew 1:25

 

[Thekla]

Does this verse say ANYTHING about Mary's ____ life say 5 years from now? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? At the moment of Her death/undeath? Is there ANYTHING here relevant to that? Nope. It says, "I AM a virgin." PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE. Nothing about 52 years from now. Nothing that indicates a state that is eternal. Nothing that indicates any vow - to God or otherwise, about her ____ life or otherwise. "I AM a virgin." PRESENT tense. 4.
You seem to want to evade the issue of substantiation to the level of dogma and instead engage in pure speculation. I'm sincerely unclear on what personal speculation has to do with substantiation or dogma - but you keep returning to it over and over. It is your point that if Mary was a virgin when she said she was, ERGO it is a dogmatic necessity that she MUST be a virgin decades later when she died (or didn't die depending on your view there). Well, since you want to evade the issue of substantiation and instead discuss pure speculation, I offer the next point. 5. The Tradition you hold so dear says that the Annunciation (Luke 1:34 - the verse we are discussion) and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY. The Festival of the Annunication: March 25. The Festival of the Nativity of Our Lord: December 25. Do the math. SAME DAY. Okay, since you believe that true, my point of speculation would be that perhaps the angel was actually CORRECT. BEFORE the incarnation happened, he announces it. "You will conceive." The angel knows that conception will happen TODAY. Mary is also CORRECT. She understands that the annunication is NOT about something that will happen 52 years in the future. Not 12 years later when Mary and Joseph might have a "quiver of children" which the Book of Psalms notes as a great blessing from God. Not even one year in the future when she and Joseph might be together. Rather, like the angel, Mary is CORRECT. The incarnation is a current event - not one that will occur years or decades LATER. Thus, her statement, "how can this be since I AM a virgin." Purposeful use of the PRESENT active indicative. Because she is CORRECT - this is a current, present thing, not something many months, years or decades in the future. Now my pure speculation "fits" what is said and does't require me to change the tense of the verb she used. But, it's PURE speculation - not substantiation of any nature or level for any teaching of any level. But at least it fits the text. 6. You seem insistant that if something is a CURRENT reality, it MUST ergo be an eternal reality. If Mary was a virgin on that day, ergo, she MUST be a virgin until her death. Your point is that PRESENT tense indicates an eternal reality. This seems baseless to me. And it's NOT the meaning of the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. "I am a virgin" does not mean that it is a dogmatic fact of highest certainty and importance that I will be 52 years from now. I find your position not only illogical and textually unfounded, but beyond any credibility. It does not mean that the speak will die as a virgin. And it does not mean that the speaker is making a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin. Friend, your position has nothing to do with the text. It is eisegesis: you are assuming the position to be true, and then working backwards, impose it upon the text. The text says no such thing.

[/quote] You have added to your post after I responded to your initial (unedited) post. Curiously, you still fail to recognise that the Greek present active indicative is not the same as the English simple present. You have not demonstrated an understanding of "active" in the grammatical description "present active indicative". You have instead resorted to speculation, but neither grammar or logic to make your point. You are not relying on scripture, you are avoiding Holy Scripture. Your umbrage is not a counter-argument, nor your accusations. You have failed to demonstrate why my argument is "illogical" while actively avoiding the application of a correct understanding of Hellenistic Greek grammar and logic to the passage.

 

[Thekla]

Sorry. Either CF or my computer has something wrong and I cannot post as desired. . Thekla, Let's review: 1. I was told by an Orthodox poster that the Dogma of Mary Had No ____ Ever is taught in the Bible. Curious, I respectfully asked for the Scripture or Scriptures that do so. She listed one: Luke 1:34. Here we have the teaching that Mary was a virgin until her death/undeath AND that Mary here makes a vow to God to remain a virgin PERPETUALLY. 2. We therefore looked to the verse for what we were informed was there: Confirmation that Mary never once had _____ ever and that she made a vow to God to remain a perpetual virgin. 3. Does the verse teach those two things? Yes, I looked at the verse IN GREEK. I actually did NOT get out ANY of my English translations, I looked it up IN GREEK. And I noted the VERB TENSES used.
The key word here is in the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE. Present.

You've got the verb tense correct; you do not understand the tense correctly.

In Hellenistic Greek, the "present" tense covers immediate and ongoing (regular or habitual) action. It is ongoing unless the context or other statement indicates otherwise. In Luke 1:36 the context is shall/future. This governs the dependent statement which follows the conjunction and indicates that the action/condition is continuing.

If the action or condition will come to an end in the future, a different tense would be used. Either Luke got it wrong and used the wrong tense, or Luke lied, or Mary got it wrong and used the wrong tense, or Mary lied. If the problem is with Mary, then God abrogated her will by continuing His plan despite her impairment or prevarication. If Luke got it wrong, then scripture is undermined.

Throughout the NT, Christ gives commands in the present imperative. The imperative denotes a command (do this). Because He uses the present tense, the command is ongoing/continuous. He does not say (in Greek) "follow Me", He says "be following/keep following Me". This is also true of (for example) "keep on seeking", "keep on knocking", etc. It is clear that the idea of OSAS is likely a product of mistaking the English simple present for the Hellenistic present (continuous).

Sorry, but that's what it is. I can't change that reality, and nor should you try to. Does the verse say, "I will remain a virgin for all time, until my death/undeath?" Does the verse say, "I will forever be a perpetual virgin?" Does the verse say, "I herein make a holy vow to God to be a perpetual virgin?" Does this verse say ANYTHING about Mary's ____ life say 5 years from now? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?

You've got the tense right, you just don't understand it. The tense, framed by the future "shall" is continuous. By narrowing what statement you will accept from the Theotokos, and requiring the scriptures to be written in "Josiah-speak" you skip what scripture does say. For a Sola Scripturist, a disinterest in what scripture actually does say is shocking.

 

[Thekla]

You seem to want to evade the issue of substantiation to the level of dogma and instead engage in pure speculation. I'm sincerely unclear on what personal speculation has to do with substantiation or dogma - but you keep returning to it over and over. It is your point that if Mary was a virgin when she said she was, ERGO it is a dogmatic necessity that she MUST be a virgin decades later when she died (or didn't die depending on your view there). Well, since you want to evade the issue of substantiation and instead discuss pure speculation, I offer the next point.

I have not "evaded" a description of the grammar and logic of the verse. You seem to have missed the last several posts which describe this. You could also consult a Hellenistic Greek grammar, and review also logic and English grammar and logic (to apply tot he translations you use).

5. The Tradition you hold so dear says that the Annunciation (Luke 1:34 - the verse we are discussion) and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY. The Festival of the Annunication: March 25. The Festival of the Nativity of Our Lord: December 25. Do the math. SAME DAY. Okay, since you believe that true, my point of speculation would be that perhaps the angel was actually CORRECT. BEFORE the incarnation happened, he announces it. "You will conceive." The angel knows that conception will happen TODAY. Mary is also CORRECT. She understands that the annunication is NOT about something that will happen 52 years in the future. Not 12 years later when Mary and Joseph might have a "quiver of children" which the Book of Psalms notes as a great blessing from God. Not even one year in the future when she and Joseph might be together. Rather, like the angel, Mary is CORRECT. The incarnation is a current event - not one that will occur years or decades LATER.

You need to apply logic and reason here. The timing of the conception is known retrospectively. Both Gabriel and Mary use "shall" (future indicative). You have failed to provide any scriptural or grammatical evidence of when "shall" will occur.

You have provided no counterargument.

Thus, her statement, "how can this be since I AM a virgin." Purposeful use of the PRESENT active indicative. Because she is CORRECT - this is a current, present thing, not something many months, years or decades in the future.

Both Gabriel and Mary use "shall" (future tense). Please support your assertion; making an assertion is not an argument.

Now my pure speculation "fits" what is said and does't require me to change the tense of the verb she used.

I haven't changed the tense. You don't understand the tense.
I have repeatedly tried to explain that Hellenistic Greek is not the same as modern English.

But, it's PURE speculation - not substantiation of any nature or level for any teaching of any level. But at least it fits the text. 6. You seem insistant that if something is a CURRENT reality, it MUST ergo be an eternal reality. If Mary was a virgin on that day, ergo, she MUST be a virgin until her death. Your point is that PRESENT tense indicates an eternal reality.

For example, Christ states in John 14:6, "I am the way..." in the present indicative. At what point in time does Christ stop being "the way, the truth ...".

In Luke 1:63, Zachariah writes, "his name is John" (present indicative).
At what point does John's name cease to be John ?

This seems baseless to me. And it's NOT the meaning of the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. "I am a virgin" does not mean that it is a dogmatic fact of highest certainty and importance that I will be 52 years from now. I find your position not only illogical and textually unfounded, but beyond any credibility.

And on what grammatical and logical basis do you make this claim ?
Please support your accusation.

It does not mean that the speaker will die as a virgin, that's NOT the meaning of the PRESENT active indicative. And it does not mean that the speaker is making a vow to God to be a perpetual virgin. Friend, your position has NOTHING to do with the text. It is eisegesis: you are assuming the position to be true, and then working backwards, you impose it upon the text. The text says no such thing.

I have asked you to describe what the "active" means in Hellenistic Greek. Would you mind doing so now to support your claim ?

Please provide also more than the name of the tense (perfect active indicative) and explain what the definition and scope of the perfect active indicative is.

I have provided an argument from scripture which includes grammar.
You have responded with claims, assertions, and speculation. Please provide a counterargument.

 

[Thekla]

7. Your speculation is not textual. The tense of the verb is PRESENT tense, which you continually ignore. It does NOT indicate eternity or perpetuality. "I am Lutheran" does NOT prove that when I die, I will be a Lutheran. Your effort to turn a present active indicative into something ENTIRELY different is grammatically baseless - and wrong. And your speculation is entirely illogical. "I own a Toyota Camry" does not mean that THEREFORE it is a dogmatic fact that I will continue to own it for all perpetuity, I'll die owning my Toyota Camry. That's entirely illogical. Your speculation is grammatically and logically baseless. And, friend, that's obvious.

I have not speculated. I have repeatedly supported my argument using scripture and Hellenistic Greek grammar.

I agree, the sentence is introduced by a verb in the future tense, followed by a conjunction linking to a verb in the present active indicative.

The future tense of the first verb provides the context which govern the sense of the dependent part of the sentence (linked by a conjunction).

You can do what you want with your car. Both cars and languages are systems. Your car likely runs on gas. If you put water in the tank, it will not run well. Likewise Hellenistic writing runs on Hellenistic Greek grammar. If you put English grammar into the Hellenistic Greek text, it won't run well either.

If scripture is your "sola", don't you think you ought to take an interest in what scripture actually says ?
What a text says depends on the grammar of the language in which it was written.