Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


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 TENSE 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. 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 annunciation 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 doesn'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 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.



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. It does not prove that 52 years from now, I MUST be a Lutheran. That is not the point of the PRESENT tense - in Greek or English. Your effort to turn a present active indicative into something ENTIRELY different is grammatically baseless - and wrong.


8. 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 my Camry for all perpetuity, I'll own this Camry 50 years from now, I'll die owning my Toyota Camry. That's entirely illogical. Your speculation is logically baseless; it is illogical.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Philothei]

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.

yup and there is no other way it makes sense or Mary was saying she is not getting married to Joseph.....if she was so questioning "how is this possible" she knew she was marrying Joseph so why question the fact she would be pregnant.....? No logic to it otherwise...She does not say "up to now" I know no man and the passage does not give time other than it is a future event..... so if she had marital relations why assume she will not be pregnant?

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.

Yup pretty much when you read the passage that is what Mary tells the Angel...

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 TENSE 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?"

wrong translation and we cannot mistranlate the Greek to claim victory here.... She does not have to say it is there by assosiation when she says gignoskw.... She is not knowing (she knew Joseph) why use a continious tense? no sense to any other translation

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.

Look aboove answer

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,

Pure speculation is to say she is not a ever virgin when the text calls for it... No one is turning it over and over.... Only those who deny the very tradition that compiled the Bible...you hold into your very hands and you aquire authority from.... why bite the hand that feeds us?

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.

Out of this topic....

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 annunciation 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 doesn'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.

We have historical doc. that call for her to be ever virgin by different groups that wanted to discredit Jesus.... why is that?
You still do not give us the source of St. Gregory where he agrees to your interpretation.... still waiting Josiah
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 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.

so is it an eisegesis to the bible to talk about the Holy Trinity..... you will have to agree to that if you agree that Ever Virgin that all fAthers agree is an eisegesis ...

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. It does not prove that 52 years from now, I MUST be a Lutheran. That is not the point of the PRESENT tense - in Greek or English. Your effort to turn a present active indicative into something ENTIRELY different is grammatically baseless - and wrong.

Of course it is textural as Greek on its original does not translate excatly to what you want it to translate.... That is an eisegesis as the interpretation of Maria "not being a virgin " is a later 'discovery" and interpretation of the passage... who is having the eisegesis now?

8. 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 my Camry for all perpetuity, I'll own this Camry 50 years from now, I'll die owning my Toyota Camry. That's entirely illogical. Your speculation is logically baseless; it is illogical.

Illogical? Hmmm..... How so...and do it by the text itself not your Toyota.... What benefit the fathers and all these respectful saints accomplished by confirming her EV? Nothing they were declairing something that is in tune with the incarnation.... For it makes no other sense why Mary would have lived her life but Ever virginity for His sake and for fullfilling God's will and purpose.



Pax back at ya

 

[Thekla]

.


Thekla,


Let's review:

ok

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.

We have thus been the pertinent verse in Luke.
Please consider (as I have asked before) the "active" of the tense.

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.

This has been treated in the grammatical analysis of the verse.

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 TENSE used.

OK

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.

I have agreed with you that the perfect active indicative is used for the verb in the second part of the sentence (following the conjunction).
The sentence starts with the future tense (shall) which provides the time frame of reference. The opening portion is followed by a conjunction; the tense of the verb following the conjunction is in the present active indicative. The duration of the action/condition described by the verb is governed by the future tense of the verb in the opening portion.

As in the various examples I have given you in previous posts, the present tense in Hellenistic is not the same as the simple present tense in English. It covers ongoing action/condition. The duration of the action/condition is determined by context. In this sentence the context is "shall". Shall is in the future tense; thus, the action/condition is ongoing.

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.

You are, quite simply, wrong.

The duration of the action/condition of the present tense is governed by the future tense of "shall" which precedes the conjunction. The duration of the condition is ongoing. The statement "not (am) knowing" is subordinate to the time "shall" which is the future.

There is no statement made by Mary to say when the condition of "not (am) knowing" will cease. The condition is entirely governed by the future tense of "shall".

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.

The "active" of present active indicative exhibits that Mary is the "actor". She actively determines the ongoing state of "not (am) knowing".

4. You seem to want to evade the issue of substantiation to the level of dogma and instead engage in pure speculation.

Please substantiate your accusation with evidence.
Accusation without evidence verges on slander.

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.

It is my point that the verse must be understood with Hellenistic grammatical rules, not English grammar. I have given my supported argument based entirely on scripture.

You have given no counterargument; you have made false accusations that I have not supported my argument. A false accusation is not a counterargument.

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 annunciation 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 doesn'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.

You are now muddled on both time and tense (grammar).

You are confusing your retrospective knowledge with the real time in which the event occurred.

Luke describes the real time event in chronological order. You are denying Holy Scripture.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide scriptural evidence that the "shall" of Gabriel and the "shall" of Mary refer to a particular point in time.

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.

This seems baseless to you because you are confusing the "present active imperative governed by future tense of the introductory verb" with English simple present.

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.

You have as yet provided any evidence that my analysis is what your accusation states it to be.

Repeating the name of the tense is not an argument.

It does not mean that the speaker will die as a virgin, that's NOT the meaning of the PRESENT active indicative.

What is the meaning of the "present active indicative" and how is the duration of its referent effected by context; here is your opportunity to support your position with information beyond the mere repetition of terminology.

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.

Again, accusations without evidence. Frankly, if this goes on, I will consult a Moderator to decide the matter.

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. It does not prove that 52 years from now, I MUST be a Lutheran. That is not the point of the PRESENT tense - in Greek or English. Your effort to turn a present active indicative into something ENTIRELY different is grammatically baseless - and wrong.

Josiah, you have refuse to respond to the content of my analysis.

I have provided analysis, not speculation.

8. 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 my Camry for all perpetuity, I'll own this Camry 50 years from now, I'll die owning my Toyota Camry. That's entirely illogical. Your speculation is logically baseless; it is illogical.

You have not responded to the analysis.

 

[Dorothea]

Was able to fix my previous post and lined info. Going to post it here again since it is easier to read now:

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

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Was able to fix my previous post and lined info. Going to post it here again since it is easier to read now:

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

Moot to the discussion here.

You seem to be confusing a discussion of "Jesus Had No Sibs" (a doctrine in no denomination known to me) with the issue of this thread: "Mary Had No _____." The issue is not Jesus or siblings. The issue is Mary and ____.​

AT MOST (and IMHO it's REALLY stretching things), all that "apologetic" does is say the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not CONTRADICTORY to Scripture. Well, either would be saying that Mary had pink hair, 100 children and lived almost entirely on fish tacos. That's not contrary to Scripture either - but it does not mean that THEREFORE it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that all those things are true.​

NOTHING in anything you posted even protends to offer ANYTHING in support of the dogma that Mary Had No ____ Ever. It's moot to the topic before us.​

.​

​

 

[Dorothea]

Oh well. You can only try. The Truth will be accepted or it will not. God bless.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Oh well. You can only try. The Truth will be accepted or it will not. God bless.

If you present something that confirms that Mary had no ____ ever, I'd welcome that! What you presented seems to be about an entirely different issue, whether it's POSSIBLE that Mary only had one child - Jesus. Different issue for a different thread. And of course, "it's possible" is not confirmation that it's true - much less dogma. Obviously.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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 TENSE 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. 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 annunciation 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 doesn'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 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.



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. It does not prove that 52 years from now, I MUST be a Lutheran. That is not the point of the PRESENT tense - in Greek or English. Your effort to turn a present active indicative into something ENTIRELY different is grammatically baseless - and wrong.


8. 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 my Camry for all perpetuity, I'll own this Camry 50 years from now, I'll die owning my Toyota Camry. That's entirely illogical. Your speculation is logically baseless; it is illogical.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

Thekla,

.... well, I'll give you credit for persistence, lol.

Your entire arguement is that in Greek, the PRESENT active indicative MUST mean that a current reality is an eternal reality (or at least everlasting) - one of perpetuity; what is currently the case MUST be for all perpetuity. Your whole argument hinges on that being the meaning of a present tense verb in Greek. But you've done NOTHING to show this is true. Unless it IS true, the verse is moot to the issue at hand.

The verse does NOT indicate - in Greek or in English - that Mary WILL BE (future tense) a PERPETUAL virgin. And that IS the dogma. Even if your opinion is true (and you haven't even attempted to indicate that it is), the MOST you could say is that on March 25 of that year, Mary was of the view that she'd be a virgin forever (that's assuming you CAN prove that the PRESENT TENSE in Greek indicates the future reality - which you have failed to even try to do), it does not say that when she died, she was a virgin. But THAT is the very issue we are discussing: the dogmatic substantiation you have that when Mary died (or didn't depending on your view there), she was a virgin.

You persistently hold to a theory about what Mary was thinking at the Annunciation. How you know that remains a question for me; we only know what the words tell us. But YOUR theory requires that the present tense verb be replaced. I think my theory is far, far more credible - that actually the angel and Mary were CORRECT, and thus the terms both used are fitting. In any case, whether the theory be yours, mine or Joseph Smiths - theories are not substantiation. I was told (and you seem to be insisting likewise) that this verse confirms that Mary died as a virgin. Red the text. In Greek or English. It doesn't say anything of the sort. You can impose your theory upon it - and thus your imposition will agree with your imposition - but the text doesn't say what you are trying to make it say. I think this is obvious.



.

 

[Philothei]

That's not contrary to Scripture either - but it does not mean that THEREFORE it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that all those things are true.

that is talking both ends of one's mouth ....If you 'do not know" which way to go...then why bother telling one side they are wrong? sitting on the fence is where you are.... If I were you i would just say "I do not know you might be right" whether or not it is dogmatic truth does not matter cause if some Lutherans think this is truth to them it is a belief a belief IS dogmatic or it would be called opinion.... and it is not... YOu either have conviction about "your opinions" based on beliefs .....if you do not ....Then you are not "believing" plain and simple you "doubt" .......................if you doubt then you leave the door open to doubt everything including the Trinity as I mentioned to you before. The Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible are you on the fence for that dogma too ?

 

[Thekla]

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


Thekla,

.... well, I'll give you credit for persistence, lol.

Your entire arguement is that in Greek, the PRESENT active indicative MUST mean that a current reality is an eternal reality (or at least everlasting) - one of perpetuity; what is currently the case MUST be for all perpetuity. Your whole argument hinges on that being the meaning of a present tense verb in Greek. But you've done NOTHING to show this is true. Unless it IS true, the verse is moot to the issue at hand.

The verse does NOT indicate - in Greek or in English - that Mary WILL BE (future tense) a PERPETUAL virgin. And that IS the dogma. Even if your opinion is true (and you haven't even attempted to indicate that it is), the MOST you could say is that on March 25 of that year, Mary was of the view that she'd be a virgin forever (that's assuming you CAN prove that the PRESENT TENSE in Greek indicates the future reality - which you have failed to even try to do), it does not say that when she died, she was a virgin. But THAT is the very issue we are discussing: the dogmatic substantiation you have that when Mary died (or didn't depending on your view there), she was a virgin.

You persistently hold to a theory about what Mary was thinking at the Annunciation. How you know that remains a question for me; we only know what the words tell us. But YOUR theory requires that the present tense verb be replaced. I think my theory is far, far more credible - that actually the angel and Mary were CORRECT, and thus the terms both used are fitting. In any case, whether the theory be yours, mine or Joseph Smiths - theories are not substantiation. I was told (and you seem to be insisting likewise) that this verse confirms that Mary died as a virgin. Red the text. In Greek or English. It doesn't say anything of the sort. You can impose your theory upon it - and thus your imposition will agree with your imposition - but the text doesn't say what you are trying to make it say. I think this is obvious.



.

I don't have much time, so I'll start here (adding to the examples I already cited in Luke and John):

from 2 Corinthians 12:

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient (present active indicative) for you, for my power is made perfect (present active indicative) in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.

vs. 9

That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight (present active indicative) in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

vs. 10

Please identify at what time the Lord's grace becomes insufficient.

Please identify when Paul ceases to delight in weaknesses, etc.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

that is talking both ends of one's mouth ....If you 'do not know" which way to go...then why bother telling one side they are wrong?

That's what YOU are doing....

Of the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, or the 100,000+ denominations our Orthodox friend here insist exists, there are only 2 that tell others they are wrong. One of them is yours.

Like those 99,998 denominations, I don't say you are right. I don't say you are wrong. I don't say. (To be abundantly frank, I don't care - I don't even regard it as any of my business - but all that is moot to the discussion here). But 2 of the 100,000 regarded it as a dogmatic fact of the highest importance. THAT is what I'm trying to understand: why THIS? And I'm trying to understand the substantiation for this issue regarded as of uppermost importance and highest certainty. When I believe something, a Catholic asks me to substantiate it. When a Mormon believes something, an Orthodox demands substantiation. Well, you are telling me that Mary had no _____ EVER. And this is DOGMA. Okay, where's the documentation for it? Documentation of a nature you'd accept from me or our Mormon friend (goose....gander)? Again, YOU are the one saying that 99,998 denominations are wrong. No one is saying you are wrong.

And, friend, if I said that "soul sleep" is taught in the Bible - you'd ask for the Scripture (I'm guessing, lol). And if that verse said no such thing, what would be your reply?


Some here seem to be confusing two different issues: Whether some believe Mary had no ____ ever with it is confirmed that Mary had no ____ ever. They are not the same issue. This thread is not about who believes what - we already know that. Two denominations believe she never once had ____, the other 99998 are silent on the issue. The issue is: is it true?

If I were you i would just say "I do not know you might be right"

EXACTLY what I've been saying for 4 years here.

Not only COULD you be right - you have a lot of old, ecumencial Tradition on your side, and Scripture certainly does not contradict it, or in my view, even make it problematic. But we're not talking about whether it COULD be true. With God, ALL things are possible. COULD it be true that Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair, 100 children and loved fish tacos? Yup. Could be. But we don't create dogmas from "could be." If THAT were the case, I suspect you'd need to accept 90% of what the LDS teaches and your denomination doesn't. COULD BE is a pretty bad substantiation for dogma, IMHO.

whether or not it is dogmatic truth does not matter cause if some Lutherans think this is truth to them it is a belief a belief IS dogmatic or it would be called opinion.... and it is not... YOu either have conviction about "your opinions" based on beliefs .....

No.

This is why I have explained - dozens of times - the Protestant concept of pious opinion. Not always identically understood in Protestantism, it is found almost throughout. A pious opinion is a view (however passionately held - doesn't matter) that is NEITHER confirmed or denied by Scripture (some would add AND Tradition). Such may be believed, confessed and taught - but it cannot be insisted upon as dogma. Yes, this dogma is one of those. In 99,998 denominations, this is pious opinion. People MAY affirm it, MAY hold no position at all on it, MAY disagree with it. As I've noted, my Lutheran pastor accepts that Mary had no ____ as pious opinion. Okay. As I've noted, I have no position at all on the matter. Okay. As I've noted, probably most Lutheran pastors these days are of the veiw that she PROBABLY did. Okay. No one is excommunicated, defrocked or declared a heretic for ANY of those views; no one's salvation is questioned; no one's relationship to Christ or state of grace is questioned vis-a-vis their pious opinion on this.

Now lest you think this moot, remember the EO's days still united with Rome. One of the major issues was Rome's desire to declare things as dogmatically true that the East was uneasy with. The East didn't think Rome should make creedal that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. "Don't ADD that!" Ah, what IS and IS NOT dogma matters to the East, too. And what about the INFALLIBILITY of the Papacy, since 1872 that is an dogma of HIGHEST importance!!!! Does the East think that's a problem? Remember: Lutherans and Catholics share the same history. Luther was booted out. Lutherans probably agree with 95% of what the RCC currently teaches (the percentage would have been significantly higher in 1521 but the CC has added some things, widening the gap). MUCH of the "issue" is this very point: What is dogmatic? Is insisting as a matter of highest importance that Pope Leo CANNOT err in matters of faith such an issue? Ah. It matters.

It matters on a personal level, too. I no longer participate in the RCC in large part because I was required to accept everything in that 800 page Catechism "with docility" as "Jesus speaking." There were some things I didn't think were wrong, but dogmatic facts? Transubstantiation? Purgatory? Infallibility of the Pope? POSSIBLE? Okay. DOGMATIC FACTS OF HIGHEST IMPORTANCE AND ONE'S SALVATION IS IN QUESTION OVER THIS? Hummmm...... I was told: agree or leave. I left. So, what IS dogma and what IS "pious opinion" is important on a personal level, too.


So.....

The issue is NOT what is your faith. We all know and highly respect that.
The issue is: Is it true?
And then, is it DOGMA?


I'm STILL hoping some progress can be made in this discussion. But the defensiveness, the evasiveness seems EXTREMELY difficult to get through. I'm not quiting, however


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Philothei]

Hmmmmm.......nice explaination of the tense translation Thekla....Bravoooooooo

I do not see why it applies to one but would not apply for the other? Then inconsistancy is one of the characteristics of illogical thinking....

 

[Philothei]

The issue is NOT what is your faith. We all know and highly respect that.
The issue is: Is it true?
And then, is it DOGMA

is trinity true? is trinity a dogma? is thinity as a word mentioned in the Bible? NO....why do you accept it as such then?

 

[Philothei]

No one is excommunicated, defrocked or declared a heretic for ANY of those views; no one's salvation is questioned; no one's relationship to Christ or state of grace is questioned vis-a-vis their pious opinion on this.

No one said that EO did excommunicate either or go on witchhunts...to see if you believe 100% on this dogma or that dogma..... We burned no witches so your accusations are moot.

 

[Miss Elly]

Traditionally, I have not believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary citing the numerous times in the Gospels that Jesus' brothers (Greek=adelphois) as proof that Jesus must have had siblings. Of course I am aware of the the counter argument that adelphos (this is the singular of adelphois) can also mean cousin but traditionally I have rejected that idea with the reasoning that the 'usual' meaning of adelphos is brother and that there was no reason to use the secondary reason.

However, I thought of something recently. In the Gospel of John 19 (the crucifixion) it says this.



Now if Jesus had siblings, he was obviously the oldest and thus would ahve been charged with caring for his mother once his father was out of the picture (and seeing as Joseph never appears, we can assume that he is dead by this point). Upon the death of the oldest son, care for the mother would pass to the next oldest son. However, that is not what happens here. Jesus instead asks a friend to care for his mother and commands them to know each other as if they were mother and son.

I know that this does not prove the perpetual virginity. After all, one can have sex without concieving or Joseph and Mary could have had only females (who in the society would not have been able to care for Mary for the same reasons that Mary could not care for herself). But I do think that it lends credence to translatingadelphois as 'cousins' and certainly makes the idea of the perpetual virginity much more plausible.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Did I miss anything or is this already common knowledge?

BTF

Matthew Chapter 1:24, 25

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife.

And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son and he called his name Jesus.

All through the bible, when a man "knew" his wife, they had sexual relations. I believe that Mary and Joseph did enjoy a normal married relationship, Mary did have other children and no she was not a perpetual virgin. She was not equal with God, Jesus did not have her DNA, he was a "brand new" Adam. Mary certainly deserves her place of honor in history, as one of God's obedient saints and God alone chooses the saints. All of his children are saints in his eyes. You can tell I am not catholic.

It is very offensive to me to argue about Mary, she was a wonderful child of God and I don't believe in running her name through the mud in any shape, form or fashion. She was Jesus earthly mother, not his heavenly mother, she is not in heaven interceeding for us, that is Jesus Christ's job, because he said pray to the father in my name and also he is our high priest. It sounds to me that my catholic friends have added a bunch of stuff to the bible. I can't judge you about it, because if we believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our salvation, then we will all go to heaven. The spirit of God enlightens us to the holy scriptures.

 

[Thekla]

Matthew Chapter 1:24, 25

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife.

And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son and he called his name Jesus.

All through the bible, when a man "knew" his wife, they had sexual relations. I believe that Mary and Joseph did enjoy a normal married relationship, Mary did have other children and no she was not a perpetual virgin. She was not equal with God, Jesus did not have her DNA, he was a "brand new" Adam. Mary certainly deserves her place of honor in history, as one of God's obedient saints and God alone chooses the saints. All of his children are saints in his eyes. You can tell I am not catholic.

It is very offensive to me to argue about Mary, she was a wonderful child of God and I don't believe in running her name through the mud in any shape, form or fashion. She was Jesus earthly mother, not his heavenly mother, she is not in heaven interceeding for us, that is Jesus Christ's job, because he said pray to the father in my name and also he is our high priest. It sounds to me that my catholic friends have added a bunch of stuff to the bible. I can't judge you about it, because if we believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our salvation, then we will all go to heaven. The spirit of God enlightens us to the holy scriptures.

There is no scriptural evidence that Mary had other children.

Paul instructs us to pray (intercede) for one another.

 

[Philothei]

Now lest you think this moot, remember the EO's days still united with Rome. One of the major issues was Rome's desire to declare things as dogmatically true that the East was uneasy with. The East didn't think Rome should make creedal that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. "Don't ADD that!" Ah, what IS and IS NOT dogma matters to the East, too. And what about the INFALLIBILITY of the Papacy, since 1872 that is an dogma of HIGHEST importance!!!! Does the East think that's a problem? Remember: Lutherans and Catholics share the same history. Luther was booted out. Lutherans probably agree with 95% of what the RCC currently teaches (the percentage would have been significantly higher in 1521 but the CC has added some things, widening the gap). MUCH of the "issue" is this very point: What is dogmatic? Is insisting as a matter of highest importance that Pope Leo CANNOT err in matters of faith such an issue? Ah. It matters.

the first part is not valid...we Are not united with Rome..... and we were never "united": with Rome....We were one church...get the facts straight here ....

what does this has to do with "adding" the Fillioque ..??? out of topic obvviously or your thinking was going all over the place here.... We deny it as it was an ADD on.. Ever virginity started in the EAST the commemoration of Theotokos as virgin is mentioned in the liturgy of St. James the ("brother" of Christ *cousin) why would his 'b rother" call his mom ever virgin if he was her Son....Problem for ya to solve ....me thinks

So the EV is not a ROMAN thing it is a first Church belief . The reason it became a dogma is because the fathers accepted it as such...like the Trinity etc.


We were ONE Church as I said before and after the Schism TWO churches.... this does not mean the ROMANS 'created' this 'dogma' .... by far it was a common belief.

we do not have the same idea about "infalibility" of a dogma as the West does that is where we differ .....To us doctrine is developed and dogma is not... The incarnation is dogma etc. The EV became as such after the decision of the Ecumenical council not accidently .... The whole church agreed upon its tradition to accept it. period

 

[Philothei]

Ever virginity started in the EAST the commemoration of Theotokos as virgin is mentioned in the liturgy of St. James the ("brother" of Christ *cousin) why would his 'b rother" call his mom ever virgin if he was her Son....Problem for y
all to solve.... Of course since those doc. were probably rewritten just like the Bible was in many many copies may not represent validity but they are still documents that the early liturgical tradition Theotokos is called Ever Virgin

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the first part is not valid...we Are not united with Rome..... and we were never "united": with Rome....We were one church...get the facts straight here ....

what does this has to do with "adding" the Fillioque ..??? out of topic obvviously or your thinking was going all over the place here.... We deny it as it was an ADD on.. Ever virginity started in the EAST the commemoration of Theotokos as virgin is mentioned in the liturgy of St. James the ("brother" of Christ *cousin) why would his 'b rother" call his mom ever virgin if he was her Son....Problem for ya to solve ....me thinks

So the EV is not a ROMAN thing it is a first Church belief . The reason it became a dogma is because the fathers accepted it as such...like the Trinity etc.


We were ONE Church as I said before and after the Schism TWO churches.... this does not mean the ROMANS 'created' this 'dogma' .... by far it was a common belief.

we do not have the same idea about "infalibility" of a dogma as the West does that is where we differ .....To us doctrine is developed and dogma is not... The incarnation is dogma etc. The EV became as such after the decision of the Ecumenical council not accidently .... The whole church agreed upon its tradition to accept it. period

You TOTALLY missed the entire point. Sorry.

My point in that paragraph (did you read the rest of the post, too?) was that what IS and IS NOT regarded as necessary to believe is not, from my perspective, a UNIQUELY western issue. It didn't begin in 1517 with Luther. I would think the Orthodox would know something of this issue vis-a-vis Rome.



.

 

[Secundulus]

Mary did have other children and no she was not a perpetual virgin. She was not equal with God, Jesus did not have her DNA, he was a "brand new" Adam.

If he did not have her DNA then he was not really human. He was simply a God faking it. This destroys the concept of the atonement and also was a heresy condemened by the Church in 431.


Secondly, if she had other Children, then why did Jesus give her to John the Apostle just before he died on the Cross? Was Jesus' last act on earth to offer a grave insult to his brothers?