Try to follow my train of thought.
I have never said that Jesus is NOT the WORD of God. John 1 clearly states thus.
MY ENTIRE POINT WAS THAT THE GREEK ORTHODOX COMMENTATOR DISHONESTLY IMPLIED THAT THE VERSE IN QUESTION STATED THAT HE WAS THE FIRSTBORN WORD. THAT SPECIFIC VERSE STATED NO SUCH THING. IT DID NOT MENTION LOGOS PERIOD. His argument was that since Jesus is the firstborn WORD that firstborn doesn't have to imply a second born since there was only one WORD of God. It was a dishonest argument since his proof text did NOT mention the WORD but only the phrase firstborn. As a matter of fact, I don't know that the phrase firstborn word even appears ANYWHERE in Scripture.
Regardless,it is a fallacious argument to say that somehow anything in Scripture negates Mary having other children. Even though Jesus is wholly unique in his person, and there isn't another like Him, he was still Mary's blood child. He was her firstborn blood child. His unique nature has nothing to do with whether or not there is a second born child and the natural understanding of things is that if there is a first there is a second - else, you would see something like John 3:16 which calls Him God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. There is a difference between first and only, would you not agree?
There was a general agreement before the 300s as to what was Canonical and what wasn't. All of the Hebrew OT was settled long before the 300s. Lists of books circulated before then which included what we have as canonical today. The vote was a formality for the most part.
Regardless, the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity did come later than anything written by the early church that was canonical.
You say that the Greek Orthodox commentary was dishonest. Okay, then I ask you are you honest? Did you actually read the Greek text of Mat 1:25 when you say that the word used is "first-born?"
The Greek original uses the word uioV which means son, not firstborn, not fisrt-begotten, just son.
Frankly I don't know where KJV is getting the "firstborn" in this passage, but to me it sounds like some wild poetic license the part of the men who made KJV, for there is no "firstborn" prwtotokoV in the ORIGINAL Greek. Talk about dishonesty!
Here is the whole verse:
I don't see prwtotokoV. Do you?
Lesson learned: what you read in English is not necessarily what was written. I have said that on this forum many times. Bibles come in many varieties and leave equally varied impressions.
Here we are having a tug-of-war over a word that doesn't exist in the original but was fraudulently introduced in the English version 1,600 years after Christ, and we take it as authoritative "word of God." Is that not the ultimate in deceit and dishonesty?
You say that the Greek Orthodox commentary was dishonest. Okay, then I ask you are you honest? Did you actually read the Greek text of Mat 1:25 when you say that the word used is "first-born?"
The Greek original uses the word uioV which means son, not firstborn, not fisrt-begotten, just son.
Frankly I don't know where KJV is getting the "firstborn" in this passage, but to me it sounds like some wild poetic license the part of the men who made KJV, for there is no "firstborn" prwtotokoV in the ORIGINAL Greek. Talk about dishonesty!
Here is the whole verse:
I don't see prwtotokoV. Do you?
Lesson learned: what you read in English is not necessarily what was written. I have said that on this forum many times. Bibles come in many varieties and leave equally varied impressions.
Here we are having a tug-of-war over a word that doesn't exist in the original but was fraudulently introduced in the English version 1,600 years after Christ, and we take it as authoritative "word of God." Is that not the ultimate in deceit and dishonesty?