Search results

That’s fine, but unless you’re willing to defend those words in a public discussion, they’re considered weightless by those who are actually engaging — and best kept to yourself.

And I’ve already explained why that didn’t answer the question. Again, Mary does not say: “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” She says: “How will this be, since I know not a man?” (present tense, expressing an ongoing state) Both your preferred translations, ESV and NIV, footnote the...

Then you shouldn’t have bothered quoting my opening post and replying with “Sorry, not persuasive” if you weren’t actually willing to engage with the reasoning. Otherwise, it’s just weightless words.

I’m not claiming Mary explicitly says She will be a lifelong virgin. I’m asking you to explain why She asks how She will conceive if She’s expecting relations — now or later. Saying “Mary is not saying She will be a lifelong virgin” doesn’t even address the question. It’s like asking: “Why is...

You’re asserting Mary is “clearly speaking past and present tense,” but that is not what the Greek text says. The inspired wording is: οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα — “I do not know a man.” (present tense, expressing an ongoing state) NIV and ESV do not translate the Greek literally here. They paraphrase...

Simply saying “not persuasive” isn’t an argument. If you think something is wrong, you need to show where the reasoning fails.

The ERV is a paraphrase. The Greek text does not say “I am still a virgin.” Mary literally says: “I do not know a man.” (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα — present tense, expressing an ongoing state) If She expected to know a man later — as any normal married woman would — She would not ask how conception...

This is not what the text says. Mary does not say: “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” She says: “How will this be, since I know not a man?” (present tense, ongoing state) If She expected to “know a man” later — as a normal married woman would — She would not ask how conception would...

Scripture teaches Mary’s lifelong virginity the same way it teaches the Trinity — not by a single proof‑text, but by the combined witness of prophecy, identity, narrative logic, and the inspired author’s description of Mary as the virgin who asks how conception is possible despite being...

How can those verses prove Mary didn’t take a vow of lifelong virginity when Mary Herself explicitly asks Gabriel, "How will this be, since I know not man?" after hearing, "You will conceive in Your womb and bear a Son." At this moment Mary is already betrothed to Joseph — legally bound to him...

Mark, you didn’t refute anything — you simply avoided every point and declared victory. But you still haven’t answered the central question that your entire argument depends on: If “carpenter’s son” in Matthew 13:55 does not force biological fatherhood, why must “brothers” in the same verse...

You keep repeating the same claim, but you’re still avoiding the central point: You’re assuming “familial relationship” = “biological sibling.” That’s the very thing under dispute. You can’t demand I prove Matthew uses adelphos for “familial relationships other than biological brother” when...

You’re misrepresenting my argument. I never said adelphos “means cousin.” I said — correctly — that its familial definition in biblical Greek is “brother, kinsman, or relative.” Cousins fall under that broad semantic range, but the word itself does not specify which type of relative is meant...

You’re not simplifying anything — you’re rewriting your claim again because the previous versions were refuted. Your new statement, “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship,” is simply false. Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships repeatedly — just not in the...

Your rule keeps changing. First it was “named individuals,” then “named individuals in the immediate context,” and now it’s “adelphos must identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.” You’re not defending a linguistic principle — you’re inventing narrower and narrower...

Calling my entire post a “strawman” without addressing a single point isn’t an argument — it’s just avoiding the evidence. Your new rule — “adelphos must refer to biological brothers when the individuals are named in Matthew” — is something you invented after your earlier rule collapsed. And it...

You’re still not engaging the argument. Repeating “show me the verse” doesn’t address the textual, linguistic, genealogical, or historical evidence I’ve already given. Scripture doesn’t have to use your exact modern phrasing (“Mary remained a perpetual virgin”) for a doctrine to be biblical. You...

You’re still not engaging the argument. Saying “I don’t need to do anything” and repeating your conclusion doesn’t address the textual, linguistic, genealogical, or historical evidence I presented. You keep insisting that “Scripture never says Mary remained a virgin,” but that doesn’t answer...

You’re not engaging the argument. Repeating your conclusion doesn’t address the textual, linguistic, genealogical, or historical evidence I presented. If you want to continue, you’ll need to respond to those points directly — not just restate your belief.

You haven’t addressed anything I actually argued. Saying “I’ve addressed your excuses” and repeating your conclusion isn’t a rebuttal — it’s just avoiding the evidence. You keep asserting that “the Bible never says Mary remained a virgin,” but that doesn’t answer the point I made: Matthew 1:25...