did Mary remain a virgin?

[pawnraider]

Why is Mary still considered a virgin when Scripture details otherwise? The passage in Matthew 13:54-56 states that He had sisters as well as Mark 6:3 and Psalm 69:8 reads, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children” which many regard as prophetical concerning Jesus Christ. :confused:

[Lukaris]

Yes, the reading of John 19:27, "Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." Our Saviour was conferring His mother's role to all faithful disciples affirming her ever virgin. Many non Orthodox disagree but this is the holy teaching of faith.

[buzuxi02]

Why is Mary still considered a virgin when Scripture details otherwise? The passage in Matthew 13:54-56 states that He had sisters as well as Mark 6:3 and Psalm 69:8 reads, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children” which many regard as prophetical concerning Jesus Christ. :confused:
In Mark 6.4 Jesus refers to these brothers and sisters as relatives.
This same word used in Lk 2.44 when Jesus was 12 years old: "...But supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day's journey and sought Him among their relatives and aquaintences.".

In Luke1.36 the word 'relative" (greek: suggeneis) is erroneously translated as "cousin" in the KJV but more properly rendered as relative in the NKJV. The word simply means "kin" and tends to refer to an extended family , Paul used this word to simply refer to his fellow jewish countrymen. There was no word for cousin or nephew in hebrew all called each other brother or sister.

In John 19.25, we read: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas....." In that culture no parent would name two daughters by the same name. Mary the wife of Cleopas was most likely Her sister-in-law. In the scripture Cleopas and Marys children have the same identical names as those given in Mark 6.3.

When Jesus was on the cross, He entrusted his Mother to the beloved disciple John, "Woman behold your Son" and to the disciple he said "Behold your mother". JOHN 19.27- "....And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."
If Mary had other children this pre-supposes that she abandoned them for John. Perhaps she went later on to James house to pack her things and move out of the home of her biological son. Not so, this act by Jesus suggests he was the only child of a widowed mother. The disciple John was also the youngest of the apostles and his biological mother probably had passed away as well. It would be just as wierd to bring home a second mother to the house!

As far as the prophecy we recognize this as well , as to meaning to half brothers, step brothers, cousins not biological siblings etc. We also recognize prophecies that speak of her perpetual virginity such as Ezekial 44.2-"And the Lord said to me, this portal shall be shut, it shall not be opened and no one shall enter by it. For the Lord God of Israel shall enter by it and it shall be shut. For the Prince he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord, He shall go in by the porch of the portal and shall depart by the same way."

[Akathist]

Why is Mary still considered a virgin when Scripture details otherwise? The passage in Matthew 13:54-56 states that He had sisters as well as Mark 6:3 and Psalm 69:8 reads, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children” which many regard as prophetical concerning Jesus Christ. :confused:

There is also St. Joseph's children from his previous marriage. (He was a widower).

She is considered a virgin as she was never sexually intimate with a man her whole life. Even after Christ was born.

[SeraphimSarov]

Why would Christ have given the care of His mother over to someone not in the immediate family if He had brothers? That would have been enormously scandalous in His time and a slap in the face to any brother he might have had...

[- DRA -]

Why is Mary still considered a virgin when Scripture details otherwise? The passage in Matthew 13:54-56 states that He had sisters as well as Mark 6:3 and Psalm 69:8 reads, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children” which many regard as prophetical concerning Jesus Christ. :confused:

Additional Thoughts:

Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

And,

Matthew 1:24-25 - "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."

[Lukaris]

Additional Thoughts:

Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

And,

Matthew 1:24-25 - "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."
1st verse implies prior to conjugal relations in marriage in concept & second verse is correctly translated as "kept her a virgin." For a proper explanation see http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9174.asp

[SeraphimSarov]

You must read these verses as they would have read in the Greek. "Till"
does not imply here that it happened afterwards.

[buzuxi02]

In Greek the word "till" leaves the future aside. For example Paul advises Timothy (1Tim 4.13) "Till i come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine..."

Does this mean after Paul visits , Timothy no longer needs to do these things? He can simply abandon the flock? Of course not.

In Matt 1.18 Mary is called the betrothed. Betrothal was legally binding but conjugal relations were strictly forbidden. Property could be transfered but sexual relations was a no-no.

The phrase in Matt 1.25, "And did not know her till she had brought forth Her first born Son." In the original koine greek the underlined phrase is written in the imperfect tense.
The imperfect tense represents continuous action in past time. The verse demonstrates linear action which begun in the past but continues as status quo.
A more accurate translation would be "And was not Knowing her...."

Thus the passages in question is accurately understood in the original greek as:
Matt 1.18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows; After His Mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, She was found with Child of the Holy Spirit....(24-25) Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and was not knowing Her...."

Another words he took her as a wife in order to cover the law, but the relationship remained as one of betrothal. This is verified in Luke. Although Matthew's gospel says Joseph took Mary as his wife the Lukan account still references them as betrothed at the time of Christ's birth- "....to be registered with Mary his betrothed (wife) who was with child." (2.5)

[pawnraider]

There is also St. Joseph's children from his previous marriage
Where does it say that?

[Lukaris]

Check out this link that explains the belief of St Mary being ever virgin, terms that explain Christ's familial relations, & concluding with the meaning of John 19:27. http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9174.asp

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Additional Thoughts:

Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

And,

Matthew 1:24-25 - "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."

1st verse implies prior to conjugal relations in marriage in concept & second verse is correctly translated as "kept her a virgin." For a proper explanation see http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9174.asp

Let's not overlook the part of Matthew 1:18 that says, "
Before they came together." It implies/infers Mary and Joseph came together sexually as husband and wife after the birth of Jesus.

The same thought is true in Matthew 1:25. "And did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son" implies/infers that Joseph "knew" Mary intimately after Jesus was born. In all fairness to the passage, why would it say that Joseph did not know Mary till after Jesus was born if he never knew her at all?

[Lukaris]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Additional Thoughts:

Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

And,

Matthew 1:24-25 - "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."



Let's not overlook the part of Matthew 1:18 that says, "
Before they came together." It implies/infers Mary and Joseph came together sexually as husband and wife after the birth of Jesus.

The same thought is true in Matthew 1:25. "And did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son" implies/infers that Joseph "knew" Mary intimately after Jesus was born. In all fairness to the passage, why would it say that Joseph did not know Mary till after Jesus was born if he never knew her at all?
It seems that the scripture is speaking within the framework of the Jewish law in which the natural state of marital relations are being superceded by God. St Mary is justified within the law since she had broken no law in bearing our Saviour & her marriage to Joseph sanctified. We believe John 19:27 as a main conclusion upon which the ever virgin Mother St Mary receives her due veneration (as instructed by our Saviour) in the Holy Church.

[Orthosdoxa]

The same thought is true in Matthew 1:25. "And did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son" implies/infers that Joseph "knew" Mary intimately after Jesus was born.

Only if you're thinking of "until" in normative English usage. This does not hold true in other languages... and sometimes not even in English!

I've been told that "he'os ou" (what is discussed below) is the same word that was in Matthew 28:20 -- "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." He's not saying, "And at the end of the age, I'm outta here!"

Sometimes in English, it can have the "and beyond" implication, too... for example, in Matt 28:15 -- "So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Oops... ya mean it stopped the day he said that???

And for a little further brain food...

This is a portion of something that was written on another board by a former member here, a college professor of New Testament Greek:

Now, of course, it is my turn to offer an alternative explanation for St. Matthew's use of "until" in 1:25 that is consistent with the Church's affirmation of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. Let me note from the outset that all reputable commentaries on the gospel, whatever their provenance, are agreed that the use of "he'os ou" (until) in the clause do not imply anything about what may or may not have happened sexually between the Theotokos and t. Joseph the Bethrothed after the birth of our Lord. Gundry is typical:

"By itself, 'he'os ou', which belongs to Matthew's preferred diction (4,2), does not necessarily imply that Joseph and Mary entered into normal sexual relations after Jesus' birth." [6]

While Gundry does go on to deny the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, he does so on the basis of other considerations, such as the later mention of brothers and sisters of the Lord. Why he doesn't base it on 1:25 is clear to any self-respecting Greek student with at least an intermediate grasp of Greek syntax. This very particular construction (conjuction+genitive neuter of the relative pronoun, modifying an aorist indicative verb) cannot be forced to mean anything more than what it literally says: that at least until the birth of the Lord, the Theotokos and the Bethrothed had no sexual union. So at least at the most basic syntactical level in Greek, there's no reason to look beyond that point in time.

Why didn't St. Matthew use a more concrete expression, then? I think a good place to start to look for the answer is the great quotation from St. John Chrysostom's homilies provided by Steve above. Note how St. John, a native speaker of Greek, points out that there are many places in the Greek Bible where the same expression is used without implying that the supposedly limited action happened afterwards. Though thought-provoking, this fact in itself does not greatly advance the argument. Yet, it should strike the careful reader that these examples are drawn from the Old Testament, written originally in Hebrew and Aramaic, but read by St. John in Greek translation; through his Greek Old Testament, he was able to see a parallel between the Matthew 1:25 text and the examples he cites. I think this is possible because Matthew 1:25 itself has a Semitic linguistical background that must not be overlooked. Papias, quoted by Eusebius in his _Ecclesiastical History_, states:

"Matthew composed the sayings in Hebrew idiom, and each interpreted them as best as they could." [7]

Papias claims, and not without reason, that the gospel of St. Matthew, while written in Greek, is filled with Semitisms and Semitic enhancements. [8] The most widely known of these, perhaps, is the use of the word "raqa" in Matthew 5:22. This is clearly an Aramaic term of abuse, and yet the author felt no need to "translate" into Greek, the language in which he was writing; and the same is true of several other idioms present in the gospel. My contention, on the basis of all this, is that "heos ou" in Matthew 1:25 is one such Semitism/Semitic enhancement, exactly corresponding to expression used in 2 Samuel 6:23 and other places cited by St. John Chrysostom. As a Semitic idiom, then, it should be taken to mean what the expression means in Hebrew/Aramaic, and not simply what it might mean in Greek (though, as we have seen, even in Greek it does not require to mean more than what it quite literally states). Thus, I see no grammatical, syntactical, or linguistical reason why the "heos ou" idiom should threaten the Church's faith about the perpetual virginity of our Most Holy Lady Theotokos.
This was 2001. I was an inquirer. I questioned him on it and his further response was:

My point there is that, according to reasonable grammatical theory acknowledged by all, the "he'os ou" says nothing about what happened after the Lord's birth. I think the problem is getting stuck in the notion that "until" necessarily means the something happened afterward. Please understand that it clearly does not, as any reputable Greek scholar can guarantee. So the "until" says nothing outside the time frame between the virginal conception and the birth. My thesis that it's a Semitic expression equivalent to that in I Sam. 6:23, is an independent point trying to establish the the implications of the text. The first point that "he'os ou" does mean anything happened after the Lord's birth is _not_ a disputed one, and again, any person with an intermediate education Greek can attest to that - not to mention that specialized standard commentaries are all agreed on the point.

As for the grammatical construction, let me try my best without having to teach you Greek. :-) "He'os" is a here used as a preposition. (I realized I erroneously said it was a conjunction earlier; this is in fact it's main use and I fell pray to typing a default grammatical category!) Since it is not regularly used as a preposition, it is called an "improper preposition." For matters of grammatical agreement, all improper prepositions take the genitive case, with neutral gender. This construction does NOT indicate any temporal relations. (Daniel Wallace says as much, for instance, in his _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids MI:Zondervan, 1996), page 360, when he calls this undisputed fact as proof refuting an argument of those attempting to assign temporal relationships to improper prepositions.) In this case, the construction modifies an aorist indicative. The aorist tense captures a "snapshot" (to use Wallace's expression) of an action, whereas other tenses describe actions as they progress. This tense in its indicative mood usually denotes certainty. So quite literally, the snapshot action of "knowing" (sexually) certainly did not occur anywhere between the conception and the birth, and since the prepostional construction has no time referece built into it anyway, it means that "until" imples nothing about what happened beyond that point in time

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Additional Thoughts:

Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

And,

Matthew 1:24-25 - "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."



Let's not overlook the part of Matthew 1:18 that says, "
Before they came together." It implies/infers Mary and Joseph came together sexually as husband and wife after the birth of Jesus.

The same thought is true in Matthew 1:25. "And did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son" implies/infers that Joseph "knew" Mary intimately after Jesus was born. In all fairness to the passage, why would it say that Joseph did not know Mary till after Jesus was born if he never knew her at all?

It seems that the scripture is speaking within the framework of the Jewish law in which the natural state of marital relations are being superceded by God. St Mary is justified within the law since she had broken no law in bearing our Saviour & her marriage to Joseph sanctified. We believe John 19:27 as a main conclusion upon which the ever virgin Mother St Mary receives her due veneration (as instructed by our Saviour) in the Holy Church.

Matthew 1:19 gives us a glimpse into Joseph's feelings about his wife-to-be being with child. He knew the baby couldn't be his, and was evaluating his options per Jewish law (i.e., the law of Moses). However, God sent an angel to Joseph, who explained what was occurring. Joseph did as God instructed, and did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus was born per Matthew 1:18,25.

Mary's virginity isn't a consideration in John 19:27. However, just a quick thought. Jesus is speaking specifically to John in that passage. Other disciples were also there. Does Jesus tell all the disciples that Mary is their mother, or only John? Why would he just say that to John, if he really meant for all of them to do it? Also, was Mary really John's mother. Or, did Jesus mean for John to see about her as if she were his mother? Think about it.

[- DRA -]

You must read these verses as they would have read in the Greek. "Till"
does not imply here that it happened afterwards.

Consider the context. Matthew 1:18 says that Mary was carrying a child before she and Joseph came together (i.e., had sexual relations as husband and wife). It implies/infers they came together, but it was after the birth of Jesus per verse 25.

Likewise, Matthew 1:25 implies/infers that Joseph did not know Mary (sexually) until after Jesus was born. I am trying to be fair with the passage and its meaning. It just doesn't say that Joseph didn't know Mary - and just end with that thought. It says that Joseph didn't know Mary until after Jesus was born. That's the thought. It is given to show that prophecy was fulfilled (note Matthew 1:23). Mary conceived while a virgin. After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary came together as husband and wife. No harm is done to the prophecy with the sequence of events.

[Thekla]

Consider the context. Matthew 1:18 says that Mary was carrying a child before she and Joseph came together (i.e., had sexual relations as husband and wife). It implies/infers they came together, but it was after the birth of Jesus per verse 25.

Likewise, Matthew 1:25 implies/infers that Joseph did not know Mary (sexually) until after Jesus was born. I am trying to be fair with the passage and its meaning. It just doesn't say that Joseph didn't know Mary - and just end with that thought. It says that Joseph didn't know Mary until after Jesus was born. That's the thought. It is given to show that prophecy was fulfilled (note Matthew 1:23). Mary conceived while a virgin. After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary came together as husband and wife. No harm is done to the prophecy with the sequence of events.
if you haven't yet, perhaps post #14 - above - may help

[Ishida]

Wonder why they didn't, if they didn't. They were married after all. What exactly is the significance of Mary's supposed "ever-virginity"? Didn't know Joseph was a widower, where'd you learn that?

[All4Christ]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Additional Thoughts:

Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

And,

Matthew 1:24-25 - "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."



Let's not overlook the part of Matthew 1:18 that says, "
Before they came together." It implies/infers Mary and Joseph came together sexually as husband and wife after the birth of Jesus.



The version you're using - with the punctuation especially - gives a different viewpoint than the original Greek - or than that from many other English translations. Especially when you look at the history of Mary and Joseph's role as her "protector". I'll be back with more information.

[All4Christ]

Wonder why they didn't, if they didn't. They were married after all. What exactly is the significance of Mary's supposed "ever-virginity"? Didn't know Joseph was a widower, where'd you learn that?
In regards to this - I also will find information and bring it here. Had a wonderful catechism class - and Father Tim explained this very well.

[All4Christ]

Well - this isn't directly from the source - but I don't have time to dig up the actual sources right now. This gives a general overview of the Orthodox (and I think Catholic?) viewpoint.


An Elderly Joseph
The New Testament Apocrypha speak of Joseph as an elderly man, a widower with adult children, who was quite reluctant to be included among those from among whom a protector for Mary would be chosen. Although the Apocrypha were not included in the canon of Scripture their importance is great and much in evidence in the liturgical texts of some of the great Feasts.
However the Gospels too give evidence for an elderly Joseph. For example he is no longer mentioned after Jesus' trip to the temple as an adolescent. Note also that as Jesus was dying upon the Cross He asked John to look after His mother. That would have been unnecessary - and even insulting to Joseph had he been alive. But as an elderly man he would have reposed well before Jesus' crucifixion at the age of 32-33. Mary, however, would only have been in her middle age.
The New Testament clearly speaks of Jesus' brothers and sisters. Had they been Mary's as well as Joseph's they would have been able to take care of their mother and again, He would not have had to entrust her to John's care. (Life for a woman without a male protector would have been enormously difficult in those days). These brothers and sisters must have been Joseph's children from his previous marriage. As such they would still have been considered Jesus' brothers and sisters.
It is not strange, as things usually go with us imperfect (but perfectible!) humans, that they would have looked with disapproval upon Jesus and His Mother - who was likely younger than they were! This would especially be the case since Jesus' origins would be the subject of suspicion all His life (and indeed for as long as His story would be told) - for only by faith would people accept that His conception was of the Holy Spirit and not as a result of Mary's infidelity to her betrothed, Joseph.
Joseph himself had problems with doubts, as is portrayed in his posture in the Icon of the Nativity (and also in the liturgical texts for that glorious Feast). It is interesting that Mary is looking towards him as he is sitting deep in thought, addressed by a man dressed in an animal skin (some say Adam, some say the Tempter). She is praying for him to find victory over his doubt of what she alone KNOWS by personal experience to be true - that this wonderful Son comes from the Most High Himself without the mediation of a human father. Joseph did indeed win that victory and his faith, love and dedication remained consistent all his life - and for all eternity!
Apparently Joseph's children also came to believe as he did - but only after Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection. Of them all James seemed to be most like his wonderful, kind, merciful, loving father, Joseph, for (again based on the Apocrypha) he declared that Jesus was his Brother when his siblings were disputing with Joseph about whether or not Jesus should be included among his inheritors.
James told his father not to be troubled about this for whatever he received he would share with Jesus, His brother. Hence the title "Brother of Jesus" - at first a mocking epithet which later became the honorific "Brother of the Lord", when James' siblings also came to believe that the young fellow they had thought they knew - and resented - was indeed the Messiah, the Lord from Heaven! James is still called this by the Church and we celebrate him together with Joseph His father on the Sunday after the Nativity (also Jesus', Mary's and their ancestor, David the King)
The idea that the Christian East's portrayal of an aged Joseph (who would not have had much interest in conjugal relations) is the product of their desire to underscore Mary's perpetual virginity is interesting. However, it does not really work that well.
For one thing, it is simply not the case that older people are not concerned with sexuality. Joseph's nobility is shown by the fact that he transcended his male jealousy and decided to deal mercifully with his betrothed (whom he suspected of infidelity since she was pregnant). He could have had her stoned! After he had won that struggle, God rewarded him with the angelic visitation in the dream which gave him a basis for his faith that Mary's conception of Jesus was of the Holy Spirit - something all Orthodox (and orthodox "heterodox") Christians hold on to - in faith!

The story of the Holy Family is our own family history, precious and dear. The Christian East's picture of Joseph as a courageous, faithful, God-centred elderly widower rings true. It also tells us that "old people" are quite capable of being chosen for and embarking upon extraordinary adventures in which they obtain remarkable success by God's mercy and provision. This picture may not be very attractive - particularly in a youth-fixated culture such as ours in which "old" has become a pejoritive expression. One can understand the appeal of the youthful Joseph. But truth may have an attraction all its own. And ageism is just another "ism".


http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/articles_a/joseph.htm
-----------------------------------------

The take on Mary needing to be protected is as follows:

For the record - this is found in some apocryphal books. Granted - it wasn't used in the Canon of the Bible - but the record of Church Fathers often accepted this to be the correct view.

Mary is taken into the temple when three years old - when she could no longer stay in the temple due to becoming of age (i.e. menstrual cycle = unclean) - she had to leave. As she had taken a vow of virginity - she needed someone to protect her. Joseph is - as mentioned above - considered to be elderly. This was the custom in Jewish practices at the time for girls who served in the temple. An elderly man - often widowed - would "marry" the girl as her "protector". It's really not an unheard of concept at the time. Again - I don't have the exact source at the moment. I'll get it later - when it's not midnight. So - he is thought to be a widower - had previous children, etc.

OK - I know when I was Protestant, I'd have serious issues with this. The apocrypha wasn't supposed to be authoritative. And honestly - I admit - these particular books aren't a part of the biblical canon. BUT - the Biblical canon doesn't refute this. Especially if you don't read into what it says. So - the overwhelming interpretation of the fathers - plus the fact that it isn't contradicted by the Bible - makes me think that it is quite convincing.

[rusmeister]

The arguments generally brought out to say that Mary had relations after the birth of Christ depend entirely on English translations of the Bible, and English understandings of those translations.

It is a fact of translation that if a word has multiple meanings, generally only one of them survives the translation process. A good example is the Tim Allen film "The Santa Clause" (which we watched last night) - the translation into Russian reads simply "Santa Claus". Both the definite article 'the' (which doesn't exist in Russian) and the play on words 'Claus/clause' are lost, so Russians just never hear, much less get the joke of 'the Santa clause'. When it is explained in the film it seems to come out of nowhere "...Not Santa Claus. The Santa Agreement." And Russian viewers go, "Huh?"

In the translations from Greek to English, concepts like 'until' and 'brother' are stricter/more limited than in other languages. To back up post #14, in comparing modern Russian to English, the words 'brat' (brother) and 'sestra' (sister) are used for cousins as well as immediate family. I have a heckuva time teaching kids (using English only) getting across to my pupils that the English words mean immediate family only! They tell me how they have 4 brothers and 5 sisters when I know well that the Russian standard is 1-2 kids per family. (3 is considered large family and eligible for social services).

Similarly the Russian word 'poka' (pah-KAH) is better translated as 'while' and until is rendered as 'poka ne' (pah-KAH NYEH), and even then it is not clear that the action finishes at that time. In general another phrase will be added when necessary to stress the concept of 'ending at that time'.

The same is true in a number of eastern languages, and evidently in Greek and possibly even Aramaic. Thus, it becomes clear that the Sola Scriptura approach that "I don't need a Church - just the (English) Bible and me" is flawed and leads to false understandings.

[Lukaris]

I suggest anyone who contends that St Mary did not remain ever virgin read all the details provided here. Personally I have posted a link to the Greek Archdiocese website twice here offering detailed explanation by Fr John Hainsworth that verifies the Holy Tradition of the ever virgin Mother per John 19:27. Basically, if Jesus Christ had other siblings from His mother, her care would have been entrusted to one of them (but none existed) so he chose the apostle St. John & conferred the title "your mother" to the apostle who was not her biological son obviously. This is a true & holy tradition & detractions from it are rationalizations from man made tradition. Of course circumstantial upheavals caused some groups of Christians to distrust hierarchy & revert to sola scriptura & those oppressed are not to be judged but groups of Orthodox & Roman Catholics have experienced oppression too. It is puzzling that St Mary who was conferred a title of veneration to St John who would undoubtedly preached it by providing it in his gospel should be shunned aside by some Christians since she was permitted by God to say, "all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48). This is done in proper veneration in the Orthodox Church & even early Reformationists like Martin Luther upheld the holy tradition of the ever virgin Mary.