Replies

My friend, you’re not going to talk me out of my position (which is that I can accept some answers have not been revealed by God), nor do I expect to talk you out of yours. And my own sins are far too great for me to stand in judgement of anyone. I hope and pray your ministry is a resounding success, and that you lead many souls to Christ.

However, let me remind you, brother, that the opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty. This is one of the many problems that I have developed with my Protestant upbringing. Many, many Protestants in my experience feel the need to have an answer for everything. If everything is known, the answer to every question, there is no room for God. If everything is cut, dried, and certain, ultimately we quit having faith. This, among many other things, has led me to Orthodoxy - that we have to accept some things on faith.

The concept of sola scriptura didn’t exist until the mid-16th century. So I would be careful citing Romans 3:23 - or any other individual verse - by itself to justify a position...let alone individual words within a particular verse. Because the next thing you know you’re handling rattlesnakes and drinking strychnine from mason jars...or stoning people to death for wearing cotton and wool at the same time. The key to Romans 3:23 was to whom Paul was talking and about what...that to live under the Law was not sufficient...obedience without faith is not sufficient.

My primary source of Scripture is the Orthodox Study Bible, which uses the NKJV for the New Testament (and the Septuagint for the Old Testament, as an aside), so to an extent we’re talking off the same page. There is an argument between varying schools of Christian thought about the proper translation of Matthew 1:25, and whether the use of the word “till” (or “to” as it is sometimes translated) implies that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus. The Greek phrase “eos ou” DOES NOT imply he necessarily did. So your assertion that he “obviously did” falls flat, brother. Unless you witnessed the act yourself.

The Church for over a thousand years accepted the verse not only to mean Joseph had not had relations with Mary - but also that state of nature continued on after Christ’s birth. The Orthodox Church still does embrace that.

Before there were Protestants, before the Schism, there was just The Church. And it was the Fathers of The Church who settled upon the Canon of Scripture so many seem to embrace as the only source of truth.

I’m not here to argue. I’ve said all I’m going to.

I will pray for you, because you are wrong on so many aspects of what you just stated that I could write a whole thesis just on what you claim to be knowledgeable of. I too am schooled on koinonia Greek, some Classical Greek, and some Hebrew so we can go on and on about the true meaning of words if you would like.

Regardless of what the Church said for a thousand years, they are wrong and I would refer to the many writings of the ancients who have unequivocally come down on the side of Mary not being a perpetual virgin. From the very beginning with the disciples and on to those they taught, it was a given that Mary and Joseph had James, Jude, and the other children together. To say otherwise is to discount everything they had to say and all who knew what they had to say on the subject.

As for Matthew 1:25 let's look at it briefly.

The Greek word used for "virgin" in the New Testament is παρθένος pronounced, "parthenos", and it occurs 14 times. However, the word does not occur in Matt. 1:25. Instead, the literal Greek says, "and he knew her not until she gave birth to a son and called his name Jesus."

If the author wanted to convey she was always a virgin they would have specified like they always did in the Scriptures to drive the point home. However they did not in this verse because she did not remain a virgin.

Let me add one aside for you, and that is this. The question of Mary's state of purity after the birth of Christ truly matters only to the Roman Catholic theology. That is because if Mary was a perpetual virgin, it elevates her to such a high degree that she seems almost like a goddess and gives her titles such as co-mediatrix, queen of heaven, mother of the church, etc.

For this reason alone it is even a subject of study for the those who disagree on her state of purity after Christ's birth. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the issue of her perpetual virginity in hopes of providing a more biblical position.

However since you stated that you have said all you will say on this matter, I will also leave it alone.