Search results

The passage isn’t self‑centered at all; it’s prophetic. When Jesus tells the women, “Do not weep for me—weep for yourselves,” He isn’t demanding self‑pity; He’s correcting the direction of their grief. His suffering is voluntary and salvific, the very mission He came to fulfill, so pitying Him...

Your comment about marital submission doesn’t actually address the textual question in Matthew 1:25. Matthew is not evaluating Mary’s character as a wife, nor discussing Joseph’s marital rights. He is explaining the circumstances of Jesus’ conception and birth, and he uses heos simply to mark...

Your reply doesn’t actually address the points I raised. Your quotation of Luke 1:35 actually reinforces the point I’m making. Luke describes a supernatural conception brought about by the Holy Spirit, not a sexual act and not a natural conception involving a man. That is precisely what Matthew...

Your initial statement — “the scriptures does not imply in any way a virgin birth” — doesn’t match your later comment that Mary’s conception was “of the Holy Spirit.” Those two claims can’t both be true, so I want to be sure I understand your position before addressing the rest of your points...

The claim that “Scripture does not imply a virgin birth” is simply incorrect. Matthew states it outright: 1:20 — “That which is conceived in Her is of the Holy Spirit.” 1:23 — “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son…” My point about heos is about post‑nativity relations, not the...

I know because the author is describing a woman who is dead. Childbearing after death is not an “unstated assumption”; it is a biological impossibility. That is why no reader infers a reversal in 2 Samuel 6:23. Matthew 1:25 is different: intercourse after birth is possible, but Matthew is not...

The Michal example involves an impossible state, which is why no reader infers a reversal; the heos clause simply marks the boundary. Matthew 1:25 is different: intercourse after birth is possible, but Matthew is not addressing that topic. His focus is Jesus’s origin and Joseph’s role, and heos...

You’re still repeating the same assumption, not defending it. Your argument is: If Mary were a source, Luke would have recorded Jesus’ entire childhood and Joseph’s life. Luke did not record those things. Therefore Mary was not a source. But that is not an argument grounded in Scripture or...

I agree that ginosko ("knew") is a standard idiom for sexual relations—Matthew is using it that way. But heos (“until”) does not, in Koine Greek or in Scripture, inherently imply that the opposite happened afterward. Scripture itself disproves that assumption. For example, 2 Samuel 6:23 says...

Michal’s case involves an impossible state, which is why no reader infers a reversal; the heos clause simply marks the boundary. Matthew 1:25 is different: intercourse after birth is possible, but Matthew is not addressing that topic. His focus is Jesus’s origin and Joseph’s role, and heos marks...

In 2 Samuel 6:23, the author’s understanding of Michal’s condition after death is obvious: childbearing is impossible. That’s why no reader infers a reversal. The heos clause simply marks the boundary. In Matthew 1:25, the boundary is likewise determined by context — the period before the birth...

Matthew’s silence on Joseph and Mary’s later relations is not a signal; it’s simply silence because Matthew is not addressing that topic. Heos marks the period before the birth because that is where Jesus’s origin and Joseph’s role are relevant. As you’ve acknowledged, heos does not inherently...

The Greek form is the same precisely because Matthew isn’t indicating either outcome. Heos marks the period before the birth because that is where Jesus’s origin and Joseph’s role are relevant. Matthew 1:25 is not signaling that they did or did not have intercourse afterward; it is simply not...

Probabilistic inference isn’t relevant here because Matthew isn’t communicating uncertainty. He isn’t indicating anything about Joseph and Mary’s later relations; he’s underlining Jesus’s origin and Joseph’s role. Heos marks the period before the birth because that is where the paternity issue...

Matthew isn’t indicating Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Jesus’s birth but the status of Jesus’s origin and Joseph’s role. Heos marks the period before the birth because that is where the paternity issue is relevant. As you’ve acknowledged, heos does not inherently imply either...

Matthew isn’t indicating Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Jesus’s birth but the status of Jesus’s origin and Joseph’s role. Heos marks the period before the birth because that is where the paternity issue is relevant. As you’ve acknowledged, heos does not inherently imply either...

Appealing to “normal marital patterns” doesn’t determine the meaning of heos. The examples you listed show exactly why heos cannot be assumed to imply reversal: sometimes it marks a boundary with no change (2 Samuel 6:23), sometimes it marks a temporal limit without commenting on what follows...

Appealing to “normal marital patterns” doesn’t determine the meaning of heos. The examples already on the table show that heos sometimes marks a boundary with no implied reversal (2 Samuel 6:23), and sometimes marks a temporal limit without commenting on what follows (Matthew 16:28). That’s...

Appealing to “normal marital patterns” doesn’t change how Koine Greek works. Matthew isn’t describing Joseph and Mary’s marriage; he’s marking the period before Jesus’ birth when the question of paternity matters. Greek heos with a negative clause does not imply that the opposite happened...

1 Peter 3 does say that Christ "preached to the spirits in prison," but notice that Peter himself immediately identifies which spirits he means: those who were disobedient in the days of Noah. The text doesn’t say Christ preached to everyone in Sheol, nor does it describe a general...