The Apostles of Jesus Christ.

[Scotth1960]

A "special usage" of the word until?
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon <<<click

Please explain this "special usage"..

And admittedly, I do not hold a favorable opinion of "Orthodox tradition".

Dear shroom2, Here is the truth about Matthew 1:25 "until":
"Virgin Until
"At this point, however, [after reading Ezekiel 44:1-3 which shows Mary is Ever-Virgin], a very valid question can be raised. If she remained a virgin, why does the Gospel of Matthew tell us that Joseph knew not his wife until after Christ was born (see Matthew 1:25)?
"From a Scriptural standpoint, the presence of the phrase "till she had brought forth her firstborn Son," does not automatically mean that Joseph must have had a sexual union with her afterward. In both Greek and Hebrew the word until (or till orto) can have several meanings. We find it in II Samuel 6:23: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to (until) the day after her death." It is used again in Matthew 28:20 where the risen Christ says, "Lo, I am with you always, even to (until) the end of the age." And in Deuteronomy 34:6 we read, "[Moses was buried] in a valley in the land of Moab ... but no one knows his grave to (until) this day."
"Obviously the use of the word in these passages does not imply Michal had a child after her death, that Christ will no longer be with us at the end of the world, or that Moses' burial place was discovered the day Deuteronomy 34:6 was written. By the same token, the word until does not mean that Joseph and Mary began a sexual union after Christ was born. Such a teaching is found nowhere in Scripture and is contrary to the consistent voice of the entire early Church." (pages 110-111: Peter E. Gillquist. (1992). Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. Revised and Updated edition. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press.).

God bless us everyone ; Amen and amen. In Erie June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington

 

[shroom2]

Dear shroom2, Here is the truth about Matthew 1:25 "until":
"Virgin Until
"At this point, however, [after reading Ezekiel 44:1-3 which shows Mary is Ever-Virgin], a very valid question can be raised. If she remained a virgin, why does the Gospel of Matthew tell us that Joseph knew not his wife until after Christ was born (see Matthew 1:25)?
"From a Scriptural standpoint, the presence of the phrase "till she had brought forth her firstborn Son," does not automatically mean that Joseph must have had a sexual union with her afterward. In both Greek and Hebrew the word until (or till orto) can have several meanings. We find it in II Samuel 6:23: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to (until) the day after her death." It is used again in Matthew 28:20 where the risen Christ says, "Lo, I am with you always, even to (until) the end of the age." And in Deuteronomy 34:6 we read, "[Moses was buried] in a valley in the land of Moab ... but no one knows his grave to (until) this day."
"Obviously the use of the word in these passages does not imply Michal had a child after her death, that Christ will no longer be with us at the end of the world, or that Moses' burial place was discovered the day Deuteronomy 34:6 was written. By the same token, the word until does not mean that Joseph and Mary began a sexual union after Christ was born. Such a teaching is found nowhere in Scripture and is contrary to the consistent voice of the entire early Church." (pages 110-111: Peter E. Gillquist. (1992). Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. Revised and Updated edition. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press.).

God bless us everyone ; Amen and amen. In Erie June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington

First, "after reading Ezekiel 44:1-3 which shows Mary is Ever-Virgin" is HIGHLY doubtful.

There are plenty of uses of the word "until" indicating "up to a point in time".

Joseph and Mary had children together.

 

[Scotth1960]

[quote=shroom2;470367]First, "after reading Ezekiel 44:1-3 which shows Mary is Ever-Virgin" is HIGHLY doubtful.

There are plenty of uses of the word "until" indicating "up to a point in time".

Joseph and Mary had children together.[/quote]
Dear shroom2, How do you know that? If the early Church did not believe Mary and Joseph had other children together, why should any of us? The early Church did not believe that Mary and Joseph had other children together. If the early Church was wrong about this, then the gates of hell (the mouths of heretics), did prevail against Christ's Church, and Christ is a liar (and St. Matthew 16:18 is not true!). The Church that Christ founded did believe that Mary is ever-virgin. Who are we to protest and testify against the Faith of the early Church, the Faith once delivered to the saints (St. Jude 3). And as for the plenty of uses of the word "until" indicating "up to a point in time", which are these? And how do you KNOW that these meanings of "until" apply to Matthew 1:25? Who told you that? Which early Christian teacher taught that Mary had children with St. Joseph? And can you trace that teaching to a bishop, and that bishop to an Apostle of Jesus Christ. If your belief lacks apostolic succession, and you can demonstrate from historical evidence that the belief that Mary did not remain a virgin, but had marital relations with Saint Joseph, you should be able to point to oral testimony from Andrew, Peter, John, James, Thomas, Jude, Paul, and so on, and written testimony from the bishops who came from the 12 apostles and St. Paul. Why should I believe a doctrine that was not taught in the early Church? Why should I believe what you say? Why should any of us trust a private interpretation of the Scriptures not taught for 2,000 years of Church history? Do you have a book that contains a writing from a Church Father in English, translated from either the Greek, Latin, Syriac, or other ancient Christian language, Armenian, Arabic, Ethiopian, etc.? Can you prove that your interpretation of Scripture is correct, by an appeal to ancient Christian authors? Which Church Father taught that Mary had children with St. Joseph? And explain why one of these children did not take care of Mary, the mother of Jesus, instead of St. John? Why would Jesus have wasted His time asking St. John to take care of His mother, when one of Christ's half-brothers or half-sisters could have taken care of their mother if they were the children of Joseph and Mary together?
You presume too much and ignore too much church history.
The Scriptures and the Church teach different from what you say they teach.
In Erie PA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington PS God bless you. I just disagree strongly with your doctrine on this matter. Perhaps we will agree on other matters like there are Three Persons in One God, the Holy Trinity, and that salvation in Christ is a free gift of God's mercy that none of us can deserve or merit.
Take care. PS The Church says Ezekiel 44:1-3 teaches the ever-virginity of Mary, and since the Church, not us as individuals, is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 St. Tim. 3:15), we should believe the Church, not the private "traditions of men", especially not traditions that are only 100 years old and come from sectarians and schismatics.

 

[dscherck]

First, "after reading Ezekiel 44:1-3 which shows Mary is Ever-Virgin" is HIGHLY doubtful.

There are plenty of uses of the word "until" indicating "up to a point in time".

Joseph and Mary had children together.

Joseph was a just and devout Jew. He would never have considered knowing Mary in a carnal sense because she was forbidden to himaccording to Jewish rabiinical law. Mary was a virgin till the day she passed away.

 

[shroom2]

Joseph was a just and devout Jew. He would never have considered knowing Mary in a carnal sense because she was forbidden to himaccording to Jewish rabiinical law. Mary was a virgin till the day she passed away.

And yet the bible, plain as day, says he DID "know" her. And that Jesus had half brothers and sisters.

 

[shroom2]

If the early Church did not believe Mary and Joseph had other children together, why should any of us? The early Church did not believe that Mary and Joseph had other children together.

That is not true. The writers of the gospels plainly knew that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

If the early Church was wrong about this, then the gates of hell (the mouths of heretics), did prevail against Christ's Church, and Christ is a liar (and St. Matthew 16:18 is not true!).

Don't forget the possibility that you are wrong in assuming what the early church believed.

The Church that Christ founded did believe that Mary is ever-virgin.

No, they did not.

You're wrong in your assumptions, Scott.

 

[dscherck]

And yet the bible, plain as day, says he DID "know" her. And that Jesus had half brothers and sisters.

No, it does not say that. You're trying to read things into the Scriptures that aren't there. The Scriptures state that he did not know her until the day Jesus was born. It makes no mention of him "knowing" her afterwards.

For example, we know from the Scriptures that Michal, daughter of King Saul had no children until the day of her death. Applying your interpretation of the word "until" means that she had children after her death.
Another example is that we see in the Scriptures that Moses' tomb was not found until this very day. Does that mean that as of today, we know where his tomb is?

 

[dscherck]

That is not true. The writers of the gospels plainly knew that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

And no where in Scripture are they recorded as being Mary's children. We also know that from the Scriptures that Abraham was called Lot's "brother" despite the fact that we would call them uncle and nephew. In the period of the Scriptures, "brethren" could refer to biological brothers, cousins, step-brothers, nephews, uncles, and a variety of other close male relatives.

Don't forget the possibility that you are wrong in assuming what the early church believed.

No, they did not.

You're wrong in your assumptions, Scott.

We have the testimony of the early Church which explicitly identifies Mary as ever-virgin. Not only the early Church, but the early reformers were all united in the belief that Mary was a virgin her whole life. Calvin defended this view from Scriptures, as did Martin Luther and a whole host of others. The idea that Mary had other children is a tradition of men that has no basis in Scripture.

 

[dscherck]

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

And regarding the "brethren"

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

 

[AnandaHya]

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

if that was true why was she betrothed to Joseph? I didn't think Temple virgin's got betrothed.

 

[Warrior44]

if that was true why was she betrothed to Joseph? I didn't think Temple virgin's got betrothed.

She didnt have any choice in the matter. She didnt want to marry joseph. Marriages back then were very different than they are now. Hers was more political and was arrainged by her parents. Theres a good chance he was much older than her too.

 

[AnandaHya]

She didnt have any choice in the matter. She didnt want to marry joseph. Marriages back then were very different than they are now. Hers was more political and was arrainged by her parents. Theres a good chance he was much older than her too.

ummm wouldn't he expect children and husband rights and all that after they are married? when did the Bible ever say that Joseph was married before? and wouldn't the other the kids been mentioned in the whole Bethehem scene? hey they named the donkey and everything I think kids should be of some note.

 

[Scotth1960]

And yet the bible, plain as day, says he DID "know" her. And that Jesus had half brothers and sisters.

Dear shroom2, You haven't read the truth in the ONT (Orthodox New Testament), Vol. I. The Greek, according to the ONT, reads, "he was not knowing her until", and "he kept on not knowing her until". It didn't say he ever knew her. We have already explained the word until; you just chose not to believe it because it doesn't agree with your own man-made private tradition. Take care. God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington June 2011 AD

 

[Scotth1960]

That is not true. The writers of the gospels plainly knew that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Don't forget the possibility that you are wrong in assuming what the early church believed.

No, they did not.

You're wrong in your assumptions, Scott.

Dear shroom2, Can you prove that the Church that Christ founded did not believe Mary was ever-virgin. Find one writing from any recognized Church Father from between 100 AD and 400 AD thank you. Maybe then we could believe it. Also, it would take more than that. It would take the consensus of ALL the Church Fathers, not just one Church Father, to believe it. Do you have quotes from EVERY Church Father that say they believed Mary had relations with Joseph? Please produce them immediately, or it is your assumptions that are false. The Church Fathers are available online in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library and other such sources. If you can find 10 references from 10 Church Fathers that believed Mary was not ever-virgin, maybe then your assumptions would be justified. Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS God bless you.

 

[Scotth1960]

And yet the bible, plain as day, says he DID "know" her. And that Jesus had half brothers and sisters.

Dear shroom2,
You need proof from the early Church Fathers. You can if you want proof of what the Fathers believed, read the CCEL Christian Classsics Ethereal Library. If enough Church Fathers believed Mary was not ever-virgin, then you have a point, and your assumption is not false. But to say my assumption is false, that our assumptions, those of us who believe the ancient Church tradition, is false, needs proof. If the Church Fathers to the last man all believed Mary had relations with Joseph, it should be provable from a study of the writings of the ancient Greek and Latin Church Fathers.
For more on this see:
Jesus&#039; "Brothers" and Mary&#039;s Perpetual Virginity | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington June 2011 AD

 

[shroom2]

Dear shroom2, You haven't read the truth in the ONT (Orthodox New Testament), Vol. I. The Greek, according to the ONT, reads, "he was not knowing her until", and "he kept on not knowing her until". It didn't say he ever knew her. We have already explained the word until; you just chose not to believe it because it doesn't agree with your own man-made private tradition. Take care. God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington June 2011 AD

I suggest that your belief in "ever-virgin" is nothing but religion.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I believe you are stretching things to make that verse say what you believe.

We'll find out at the return.

God bless.

 

[Scotth1960]

I suggest that your belief in "ever-virgin" is nothing but religion.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I believe you are stretching things to make that verse say what you believe.

We'll find out at the return.

God bless.

Dear Shroom2, What do you make of Mark 6:3, which calls Jesus "the son of Mary", not "a" son of Mary? Also, you still have not explained how your belief can be the truth if it wasn't taught in the early church. Can you come up with a long list of Church Fathers who believed Mary and Joseph had children together. Unless you can, your belief is modern religion and modern innovation. Why believe any belief that is only between 100 and 800 years old at most, going back to John Wycliffe, the first Protestant? Did Wycliffe believe that Mary was ever-virgin, or did he believe she had children with Joseph. Your assumptions come from Protestantism, not from the Bible as it was read in the early Church. And not all Protestants read the Bible the way you do. You start with your assumption that you can read the text of the Bible on your own and come up with the truth, minus 2000 years of Church tradition. Your tradition is either self-made or comes from one of your Protestant/evangelical teachers. If it does not agree with what Christians believed between 100 AD and 400 AD, how can it be the truth? The early Church era really lasted until 451 AD and the council of Chalcedon. These Christians were the successors of the apostles. After the last of the 12 apostles and St. Paul died, the leaders of the Christians were the bishops the apostles left behind to shepherd the Church. Take care. God bless you. In Erie PA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington

 

[zone]

Dear loveschild, There is no Scripture that says "the children of Mary and Joseph"; and if Mary had other children of her own with Joseph, then Jesus Christ would not have asked St. John to take care of her. Christ on the cross asked St. John to take care of His mother. That would not have happened if Mary had other children of her own, who could take care of her. Case closed. Mary is Ever-Virgin. In Erie PA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington

nope.
not case closed. that' OC's dialectic.

john was the disciple Jesus loved....why wouldn't He say she is your mother; he is your son?

peter questioned Jesus about what would happen to John, after learning of his own fate: Jesus brushed him off answering, "what is that to YOU? Follow me"

Matthew 12
Jesus&#8217; Mother and Brothers
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, &#8220;Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?&#8221; 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, &#8220;Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.&#8221;'

wouldn't the above have been a good time for Jesus to make a statement about Mary by stopping everything and bringing her forward to stand beside Him, or with Him? saying something like 'bring forward my mother, the mother of God?'

instead what does He say?

i wonder why that's in scripture?

 

[zone]

nope.
not case closed. that' OC's dialectic.

john was the disciple Jesus loved....why wouldn't He say she is your mother; he is your son?

peter questioned Jesus about what would happen to John, after learning of his own fate: Jesus brushed him off answering, "what is that to YOU? Follow me"

Matthew 12
Jesus&#8217; Mother and Brothers
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, &#8220;Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?&#8221; 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, &#8220;Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.&#8221;'

wouldn't the above have been a good time for Jesus to make a statement about Mary by stopping everything and bringing her forward to stand beside Him, or with Him? saying something like 'bring forward my mother, the mother of God?'

instead what does He say?

i wonder why that's in scripture?

Matthew 12
Jesus&#8217; Mother and Brothers
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, &#8220;Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?&#8221; 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, &#8220;Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.&#8221;'

Orthodox Church 12
Jesus&#8217; Mother and Her Other Sons (that Joseph brought to the marriage)
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and her other sons that Joseph brought to the marriage stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, &#8220;Who is my mother, and who are my mother's other sons that Joseph brought to the marriage?&#8221; 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, &#8220;Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.&#8221;'

 

[Scotth1960]

nope.
not case closed. that' OC's dialectic.

john was the disciple Jesus loved....why wouldn't He say she is your mother; he is your son?

peter questioned Jesus about what would happen to John, after learning of his own fate: Jesus brushed him off answering, "what is that to YOU? Follow me"

Matthew 12
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”'

wouldn't the above have been a good time for Jesus to make a statement about Mary by stopping everything and bringing her forward to stand beside Him, or with Him? saying something like 'bring forward my mother, the mother of God?'

instead what does He say?

i wonder why that's in scripture?

Dear Zone, We have the ever-virgin Mary's testimony in Scripture: "All generations will call me blessed." Are we going to disagree with that? What she said is true. God bless the ever-virgin Mary. She is the Blessed Mother of God, the ever-virgin Theotokos. This disrespect for the Virgin Mother of God came along with Protestant insistence on sola Scriptura, and modern Protestant traditions of women ministers, same sex-unions and gay clergy men being ordained among the Episcopalians and the Presbyterian Church in the USA and other liberal Protestant denominations like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (which I used to be a member of). Today it's almost anything goes in the liberal Protestant mainline denominations here in the USA, and they all profess "by the Bible alone". But where does the Bible teach "gay ordination" or, God forbid, "gay marriage"?
All of this happens when the individual gets alone with the Bible and ignores 2000 years of Orthodox Church tradition; he/she can come up with any meaning of "the Bible alone" that he/she wants the Bible to say. Individuals can make the Bible mean anything whatsoever that they want it to mean. Even to justify polygamy, as the Mormons, and some other non-Mormon sects do. Take care. God bless you. In Erie PA USA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington