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.
I have ready plenty of COMMENTARIES with which a commentator has tried to make his viewpoint fit the text. The lexicon was specific. No. I do not trust your Greek Orthodox Source. Mary's perpetual virginity wasn't a doctrine until after Jesus's time. It was asserted in some gnostic sources and then picked up on by the Roman church at a time where true heresy began to slip in. Yes, UNTIL can mean these things, but when found with other words it does NOT. The GOC has a vested interest in interpreting that way. In the Hebrews passage, which you quoted from the same source, they imply that the Bible says that Jesus was the first begotten WORD - and somehow that negates Mary's first begotten Son. Number one, Jesus as the WORD is not found in that passage. It was dishonest and showed the agenda from the beginning. I gave you scripture that indicated that Jesus would be the firstborn of many brethren (those of us who have been adopted and have become sons and daughters of God). You have ignorred that.
Saying that just because they speak Greek that they the best sources to go to regarding the issue is fallacious. Koine Greek and Modern Greek are two different things.
I didn't address the woman behold your son passage because the argument doesn't make sense. John was Jesus' beloved apostle. His brothers had not shown themselves at that point to be the great pillars that they would become when they became believers. Jesus was entrusting Mary to someone trustworthy. It in no way disqualifies Mary from having had other biological children.