Kosta-
Congratulations on having a "ready answer" for such an objection. However, the Greek Orthodox church has the same dog in the race that the Catholic church does - and therefore, is not exactly beyond question concerning this issue. If someone will actually look up the lexicon link that I provided, it acknowledges that there are several usages of eos in Scripture. It spells them out. For this particular verse in Matthew, the usage is until the time when and with the relative pronoun ou it gets the force of a conjunction. I do believe the lexicon is Thayers in this case.
Concerning firstborn, I also take issue with their interpretation. First, what they imply is that the Bible says Jesus was the firstbegotten Word of God. That isn't what the verse says. Rather, it says "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." They are pushing an agenda with that interpretation (and don't think that these writers don't in their commentaries which is essentially what you've given me as infallible Greek logic). Second, I disagree in that Scripture says that Jesus gave us power to become the sons of God. Jesus is also called the firstborn of many brethren. In either case, he isn't an only child for we have been adopted by the Father (Galatians 4:5)through the sacrifice of Jesus our Lord.
Now, you can turn that to say, well Mary adopted Joseph's children. Such is eisegesis, but you could say that if you wish. Just recognize, the text does not say that she and Joseph did NOT consumate their relationship (it strongly implies that they did) or have children together. (again, it is an understanding outside of the norm that says that they were cousins or children of Joseph's from another marriage).
But my point is that the people who speak the language, and have used it for the past 2,000 years (the NT Greek is the official language of the Greek Orthodox Church, and is the same language used in LXX and the NT) know the language like no other source does, because they use it.
How would you feel is some non-American source claimed that certain phrases used colloquially in America are not really as we understand them simply because they don't fit the grammatical framework of English, even of American English? Some new phrase pops up almost every week.
You'd tell him to take a hike! This is how we speak and this is how it is understood. But, again, you are free to believe whatever you want. Saying that the Greeks have an agenda to defend, no doubt the Protestants do to.
Which is why I said that the issue is dead. You stated your disbelief and we stated our belief and what are you going to do about it? Accept it or reject it and move on. I am not sure what all this lingering is all about other than a vain hope of some on the Protestant side to "prove" the other side wrong.
You are basing your beliefs on your interpretation. We are basing in on the collective and uninterrupted interpretation of the Church throughout the past 2,000 years, based on the concepts, culture, beliefs, language and other issues within context of the biblical society in which they lived, or relatively shortly thereafter. It's all written down. You can take it or leave it.
You also cleverly avoid the issue of "Woman behold your Son," and the strong indication that, especially in the cultural reality of first century Israel, any of the Lord's brothers, if they were truly His blood relatives, would have been the ones to assume responsibility for Mary, instead of, giving your mother to someone unrelated by blood.
The Church spent 24/7 for almost 2,000 years living and learning every word of the Holy Script, familiar with the customs and language, with the realities of the world in which our Lord lived and died, and that is how the Church interpreted the events in the collective consciousness of that Body of Christ.
Were there new pronouncements of the existing faith? Sure. The Church found itself forced to define the Holy Trinity, the Divine Economy, even the manner in which the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father. We find it in the New testament, but the Jews don't! We find Isaiah prophesying Christ, but the Jews and Muslims don't!
That's the way it is. Take it or leave it brother.
That is simply not true. You are misreading the lexicon. The first section in the lexicon under this term lists the conjunctive uses, the second section lists the prepositional uses. Matt 1:25 is in the second section, not the first.
As I explained to you #1368, nothing in Thayers shows which of the two possible ways this term should be taken. You keep appealing to Thayers, but Thayers does not say that this word means only 'up to but not continuing past'. In fact, there are many places where it clearly doesn't mean 'up to but not continuing past'.
-A8