Christian: Is The Perpetual Virginity of Mary a true Christan Doctrine

[Scuba Pete]

I think the concept of perpetual virginity comes from our mistaken beliefs that sex is evil. How can something created by God ever be considered evil?

 

[michel]

I think the concept of perpetual virginity comes from our mistaken beliefs that sex is evil. How can something created by God ever be considered evil?

How can we believe sex to be evil ? Ah, sorry, you did say 'mistaken'
I hope I will be forgiven a little levity here:-
And so it was to be, that after the waters receded, Noah commanded all
the animals to "Go forth and multiply." Wow, quick response - thank you.

The ark quickly emptied, except for two small snakes, who stayed behind.
When Noah asked them why, they replied, "We can't multiply. We're
adders."

Noah, being the resourceful man he was, immediately got busy cutting
down trees and building a large table with the unfinished lumber
therefrom.

And he saw that it was good.

The snakes were overjoyed when Noah picked them up and placed them on
it. Noah and the snakes both knew that even adders could multiply on
a log table.


So there!

 

[may]

I think the concept of perpetual virginity comes from our mistaken beliefs that sex is evil. How can something created by God ever be considered evil?

this is true, the bible does not say sex is evil this is a false teaching

Does​

the Bible teach that sexual relations are sinful?


​

Gen. 1:28: "God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.’" (Fulfilling this divine command would require that they have sexual relations, would it not? Doing so would not be sinful but would be in harmony with God’s purpose for the populating of the earth. Some persons have thought that the ‘forbidden fruit’ in Eden was perhaps a symbolic reference to a divine restriction or even a prohibition of sexual relations on the part of Adam and Eve. But that conflicts with God’s command quoted above. It also conflicts with the fact that, although Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit in Eden, the first mention of their having sexual intercourse was after they had been expelled from there.—Gen. 2:17; 3:17, 23; 4:1.)​

Gen. 9:1: "God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: ‘Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.’" (This further blessing, together with a restatement of the divine command to procreate, was given after the global Flood in Noah’s day. God’s viewpoint toward lawful sexual relations had not changed.)​

1 Cor. 7:2-5: "Because of prevalence of fornication, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife her due; but let the wife also do likewise to her husband. . . . Do not be depriving each other of it, except by mutual consent for an appointed time, . . . that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-regulation." (What is wrong is thus shown to be fornication, not proper sexual relations between husband and wife.)

 

[Chris]

And so it was to be, that after the waters receded, Noah commanded all
the animals to "Go forth and multiply." Wow, quick response - thank you.

The ark quickly emptied, except for two small snakes, who stayed behind.
When Noah asked them why, they replied, "We can't multiply. We're
adders......"

Cool.

Noah, being the resourceful man he was, immediately got busy cutting
down trees and building a large table with the unfinished lumber
therefrom.

Now had he truly been resourceful he would have just used the wood from the ark, no?

 

[No*s]

I think the concept of perpetual virginity comes from our mistaken beliefs that sex is evil. How can something created by God ever be considered evil?

Nope . It comes from a concept of holiness, that that which was set apart for God's Incarnation is holy, just like the Ark of the Covenant was holy.

 

[Chris]

The historical argument is hardly anecdotal.

That's nearly the definition of anecdotal evidence. But to be fair, one could argue that both sides evidences are anecdotal.

So what if I have to expand my number from "one who taught it" to "two who taught it." It still remains that the overwhelming number supported it.

It still remains, we're still counting the number of people with your view on one hand. We're up to two, because of an oversight on my part. It's hardly flattering, when I demonstrate an agreement to the opposite among so many other authors, though.

So now theology turns into a democracy? Popular vote wins?
Of all those early Christian fathers you so heavily depend upin, I wonder how many of them believed in the creation story? I'd be willing to bet that most all of them would have rigorously defended it. So does that make it true? Because 95%, or more, of the church believed it - including the church fathers?
How many more things did they believe back then that we don't believe today?

No, he was not in better standing than Origen. Origen never tried to schism away and claim to have it all figured out. Tertullian did. Both were immensly popular, but Tertullian decided to make himself an enemy of everyone else. Origen never took that step.

Origen was anathematized by the 5th Ecumenical Council.
The point of that isn't to say he was a bad man. I appreciate Origen and some of his works (others would be considered heretical....), and I don't believe you should discount him because of that council. Neither do I believe (and I don't think you do either), that Tertullian should be ignored because of his status with the church.
Anyways, the only point of Tertullian was to show that Helvidius wasn't the first, and that it had been believed for at least a century prior.

It's in the First Apology, similar to the PEoJ.

Isn't that just an argument that He was born of a virgin, and not that she was a perpetual one?

I am willing to concede error here

Don't worry, I had to google it to find out. I'm not that knowledgable to just pull that out of a hat. But I am learning more about the early church fathers!

Even more importantly, Greek and Latin both use adelphos and frater respectively for both "step-brother" and "half-brother." I don't think citing their use of "borther" when the argument is about Jesus having "step-brothers" is very strong.

Views that Mary wasn't married are "tripe." However, you don't have any evidence she was married. However, the arguments that disagree with you don't need to be critiqued, they are simply dismissed as "tripe."

So you contend that Mary didn't marry Joseph, and that James and co. were step-brothers???? I'm sure you wouldn't argue half-brothers, and neither would I. But do you see the contradiction there?


Anyways, sorry this is short. You deserve a longer more elaborate post, but I gotta get to my Econ class. I'll try and complete it tomorrow.

 

[Chris]

It comes from a concept of holiness, that that which was set apart for God's Incarnation is holy, just like the Ark of the Covenant was holy.

So you would say Mary was Holy????? Didn't Christ say that nobody was even good????

 

[No*s]

That's nearly the definition of anecdotal evidence. But to be fair, one could argue that both sides evidences are anecdotal.

Yes, you could with the definition there.

So now theology turns into a democracy? Popular vote wins?
Of all those early Christian fathers you so heavily depend upin, I wonder how many of them believed in the creation story? I'd be willing to bet that most all of them would have rigorously defended it. So does that make it true? Because 95%, or more, of the church believed it - including the church fathers?
How many more things did they believe back then that we don't believe today?

That's a valid response, but the approach I use with evolution comes from them. St. Basil, for instance, in the Hexaemeron applied allegorical interpretation to the issue. That approachis well-attested and goes way back. I would be in hot water, though, if I denied a real Adam and Eve.

It doesn't turn on democratic vote, but on consensus. There was a consensus among these men, and unless we have strong cause to, we shouldn't abandon it lightly. That consensus is the very thing that validates the Bible, several basic Christian teachings, and so on. Even more than that, the widespread nature of the teaching and the lack of a fight when it was introduced is strongly indicative of its antiquity.

Origen was anathematized by the 5th Ecumenical Council.
The point of that isn't to say he was a bad man. I appreciate Origen and some of his works (others would be considered heretical....), and I don't believe you should discount him because of that council. Neither do I believe (and I don't think you do either), that Tertullian should be ignored because of his status with the church.
Anyways, the only point of Tertullian was to show that Helvidius wasn't the first, and that it had been believed for at least a century prior.

I'll be more than willing to grant that .

Isn't that just an argument that He was born of a virgin, and not that she was a perpetual one?

Compare, though, Justin's argument with the Protevangellium. The similarities are striking. It would be difficult to say that he was working from a different story, which is where the perpetual virginity comes in.

Don't worry, I had to google it to find out. I'm not that knowledgable to just pull that out of a hat. But I am learning more about the early church fathers!

I understand that. There's still much for me to learn.

So you contend that Mary didn't marry Joseph, and that James and co. were step-brothers???? I'm sure you wouldn't argue half-brothers, and neither would I. But do you see the contradiction there?

No, I wouldn't argue that. Where, though, is the contradiction? I assume you are referring to the term "step-brother" like it must connote "marriage," but betrothal was marriage without the benefits. Mary would very really be called "wife" in that context. While I don't know of precedent, it's not too much a stretch to regard the term "brother" that way as well...especially since there is no term for such a situation.

Anyways, sorry this is short. You deserve a longer more elaborate post, but I gotta get to my Econ class. I'll try and complete it tomorrow.

I'll wait .

 

[No*s]

So you would say Mary was Holy????? Didn't Christ say that nobody was even good????

Yes. God calls His people to be holy, and He sanctifies the material, not just the spiritual. Several people in Scripture are called "good," and God calls people to be Holy.

In many ways, the Ark prefigures Mary. Both housed the presence of God. Both acted as a visible representation of it. The Ark, consequently, had to be holy. Mary is the Ark not just for the presence of God, but for God Himself to assume flesh from. What the Ark of the Covenant did, Mary did to a far higher degree. God used her body to assume a body.

Given God's standards for holiness in objects and people devoted to Him, there is every reason to suspect Mary would be holy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sex is holy. Set apart only for marriage. So Mary would still be holy having sex with Joseph.

 

[Joannicius]

Ha,

No*s, you remind me of the first time Fr. Joseph in Yakima told me that Mary is the fulfilment of the types in the OT which was prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant and the Burning Bush.

I just couln't wrap my mind around it and grasp what in the world he was talking about . ​

But now the beauty of it shines like an ember in my heart and opens so
many things that was shown us figuratively in the OT that I am more
excited each time I read and see a new jewel that was place back then
to show us our present and future and the life we now live with all
those who have gone before.​

We are Church Militant!

They that have already arrived are the Church Triumphant

 

[Scott1]

No*s, you remind me of the first time Fr. Joseph in Yakima told me that Mary is the fulfilment of the types in the OT which was prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant and the Burning Bush.

Joannicius, read Ezekiel 44:2 and think of Mary.....
<< Ezekiel 44 >> http://www.religiousforums.com/bible/index.php?keyword=2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

 

[No*s]

Sex is holy. Set apart only for marriage. So Mary would still be holy having sex with Joseph.

However, she was set utterly apart to bear God. That's just the point. Since she was so set apart, she could no more be used for normative holy purposes any more than the Ark of the Covenant could be used to store miscellaneous holy objects in the Temple. Imagine storing one of the smaller brazen statues in the Ark. That would be a no-no, and there were other holy items for that purpose.

This view doesn't call sex dirty or evil; it simply says that Mary was made too holy for any man to sleep with. She was to be as holy as she could be. She carried God within her...not as an indwelling spirit, but as God being made flesh.

 

[No*s]

Joannicius, read Ezekiel 44:2 and think of Mary.....
<< Ezekiel 44 >> http://www.religiousforums.com/bible/index.php?keyword=2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

Scott, this is one of the more interesting prophecies about the Theotokos . She exemplifies so many wonderful symbols in the OT.

Thank you for posting it. I couldn't remember where it was.

 

[No*s]

Ha,

No*s, you remind me of the first time Fr. Joseph in Yakima told me that Mary is the fulfilment of the types in the OT which was prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant and the Burning Bush.

I just couln't wrap my mind around it and grasp what in the world he was talking about . ​

But now the beauty of it shines like an ember in my heart and opens so
many things that was shown us figuratively in the OT that I am more
excited each time I read and see a new jewel that was place back then
to show us our present and future and the life we now live with all
those who have gone before.​

We are Church Militant!

They that have already arrived are the Church Triumphant

I had a similar experience about types in the OT. For me, it was one about Christ that brought about the epiphany. I had learned, reading the LXX, that Jesus was the same name as Joshua. I was reading Justin Martyr...and I learned about the two Jesuses and how the first Jesus foreshadows the second.

Talk about an awakening!

 

[Scott1]

What a great thread..... sorry I missed most of it...... looking forward to chatting with you Chris, you seem like someone we'll enjoy having here at RF!

Just a couple things to drop in after reading through the thread:

• [size=-1]The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before."[/size]
  ​

[size=-1](Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset, & David Brown, eds., Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 (orig. 1864), 882; first emphasis added. Romans 8:22, 1 Timothy 4:13, 6:14, and Revelation 2:25 furnish four further examples of a similar meaning of "until")[/size]​

​

Dave Armstrong http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM​

and simply THE BEST article I have ever read about Mary from the perspective of former evagelical Christian, Mark Shea:
The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion
http://www.crisismagazine.com/december2004/feature1.htm

 

[Joannicius]

Thanks Scott,

I just love the fulfilment of prophesy and the revelation of mysteries to those who love.​

 

[precept]

What do you thinK?
And why?

The answer to your query is an emphatic "NO"!

You will find your answer in the words of the angel that appeared to Joseph "....in a dream". "Fear not" said the angel to Joseph, "to take unto thee Mary thy wife" Did Joseph disobey God to have Mary as his wife to have children with her despite her emaculately conceiving the Son of God? The answer is No!

God told Joseph to have Mary as his lawful wife....
And he did just that!...

The doctrine of "Mary's being in perpetual virginity" is a concoction of those who do not understand the plan of salvation.

In order to save to " the uttermost them that would be saved He like them must "suffer in all points like as we are.....Him like them must be tempted as we are tempted....Him like them must be exposed to sin and deprivation just like we are....So now because He iis like His brethren, He also is able to succor all who like Him is also tempted by the evil one. He is not ashamed to be called like His brethren even though He is Very God, the Sinless One...Nor does He need to be singled out as having a mother who never had sex with her husband, Joseph. Those are concerns of those who are out of touch with the pan of salvation. The plan of salvation's only desire; its only theme is to save the lost sinner by the sacricing of our Very God. Yes! our very God had to die for the sins of humanity; and He had to die for sins He did not commit.

"Perpetual virginity" is an urban legend concocted by those without the true understanding of scripture and fed to those who while illiterate and completely dependent on misinformed clergy for their spiritual understanding of the word of God, were fed with folklore and a gross misrepresentation of the word of God.

This folklore is still with us today in the form of "official church doctrine". and as espoused by the Roman Catholic church and or the Eastern Orthodox church? and Lutheran! Maybe?


precept

 

[Joannicius]

The answer to your query is an emphatic "NO"!

You will find your answer in the words of the angel that appeared to Joseph "....in a dream". "Fear not" said the angel to Joseph, "to take unto thee Mary thy wife" Did Joseph disobey God to have Mary as his wife to have children with her despite her emaculately conceiving the Son of God? The answer is No!

God told Joseph to have Mary as his lawful wife....
And he did just that!...

The doctrine of "Mary's being in perpetual virginity" is a concoction of those who do not understand the plan of salvation.

In order to save to " the uttermost them that would be saved He like them must "suffer in all points like as we are.....Him like them must be tempted as we are tempted....Him like them must be exposed to sin and deprivation just like we are....So now because He iis like His brethren, He also is able to succor all who like Him is also tempted by the evil one. He is not ashamed to be called like His brethren even though He is Very God, the Sinless One...Nor does He need to be singled out as having a mother who never had sex with her husband, Joseph. Those are concerns of those who are out of touch with the pan of salvation. The plan of salvation's only desire; its only theme is to save the lost sinner by the sacricing of our Very God. Yes! our very God had to die for the sins of humanity; and He had to die for sins He did not commit.

"Perpetual virginity" is an urban legend concocted by those without the true understanding of scripture and fed to those who while illiterate and completely dependent on misinformed clergy for their spiritual understanding of the word of God, were fed with folklore and a gross misrepresentation of the word of God.

This folklore is still with us today in the form of "official church doctrine". and as espoused by the Roman Catholic church and or the Eastern Orthodox church? and Lutheran! Maybe?


precept

Hello Precept

If an angel or anyone gives you permission to marry someone and you don't consummate the marriage, you haven't disobeyed, you have just plainly chosen not to.

I didn't say that the perpetual virginity of Mary had to do with our salvation......as a matter of fact neither does the Orthodox Church claim that it is a factor. When The Orthodox Church doesn't call such as this a dogma, we are saying it isn't a factor.

Christ our God, the Only Lover of Mankind, died to destroy the power of death and hell that we may have life eternal, he did not die to please the wrath of God as believed in so many circles. He died in His love for us, that He may deliver us from where we put ourselves.

Do you know that the statements you made related to "the folklore" is a denial of ALL of Christendom for at least the first 800 years after Christ established the Church that lives on today in Orthodoxy? The ones who gave us the "folklore" also are the ones who canonized the Scripture for us to follow. Were they correct in one aspect of canonization and not another?

You talk of misinformed Clergy.......how many Orthodox Christian Clergy do you know personally?

 

[precept]

Hello Precept

If an angel or anyone gives you permission to marry someone and you don't consummate the marriage, you haven't disobeyed, you have just plainly chosen not to.

Dear Joannicius...the scriptures are not "open to private interpretation"
2 Peter 1:20.....Not yours!....Not mine!....Not the pope!....Not the Patriarch!....Not the priest!...Not the Cardinal!....Not the bishop!.....Not the Pastor!.....NOT ANYBODY!

There was no need for any angel to give Joseph "permission to marry". Jewish law forbade marriage to other than a virgin ie if the woman was never previously married. Mary was "bethrothed" to be married for the first time....She was assumed a virgin...Now pregant; her virginity was violated by "another man"...and so merited Joseph's "putting her away; as required by Jewish law. In fact; Mary would be stoned to death; as is also required by Jewish law for having sex with "another man" while bethrothed to another. This is considered in Jewish law as breaking the seventh commandment a sin punishable by death by stoning in Jewish law.

It was to obey Jewish law that Joseph contemplated reporting Mary's infidelity to the Jewish leaders as required by Jewish law.[See John 8:3-8]
And it was to this action that the angel discouraged Joseph; proclaiming Mary pure from the sin of adultery. Joseph's action in believing the angel of God is to be commended; for he took on himself the reproach that would be his to bear for having sex with Mary before he married her formally...[as would be inferred from a pregnant Mary].

This nonsense re "perpetual virginity" is of no substance in God's dealing with humanity and re His eternal plan formed with His Son to redeem sinful humanity.

Christ our God, the Only Lover of Mankind, died to destroy the power of death and hell that we may have life eternal, he did not die to please the wrath of God as believed in so many circles. He died in His love for us, that He may deliver us from where we put ourselves.

Again..this is the substance of folklore. The bible clearly state that God Hates sin.[read Revelation chapter 2.] The bible also states in 1 Peter 1:20 that God formed the plan to redeem man from sin well before He even created man.A God who hated sin; decided to send His own Son to die as a sacrifice "to Atone for the Sin that His Father hated". It is only in this fashion that any human can be forgiven for any sin committed, only if and when such humans accept the atoning sacrifice of God's Son. Again read[John 3:16] Also read from scripture God's revealing of His plan to redeem sinful man in " "Our Father"...'Thy kingdom come'[the kingdom Christ initiated on earth]'Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven'....read from scripture;"God was in Christ reconciling the world BACK TO HIMSELF" 2 Corinthians 5:19 Also read Daniel 9:24...Christ came to "Finish the transgression"...."To make an end of sin"...TO MAKE RECONCILATION FOR INIQUITY"...."To bring in everlasting Righteousness"["the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in all who follow Christ's true teaching on salvation Romans 8:4...The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in all who walk after the Spirit and not the flesh. The righteousness of the law is not found in man's own carnal interpretation of God's word.]

Do you know that the statements you made related to "the folklore" is a denial of ALL of Christendom for at least the first 800 years after Christ established the Church that lives on today in Orthodoxy? The ones who gave us the "folklore" also are the ones who canonized the Scripture for us to follow. Were they correct in one aspect of canonization and not another?[/B]

You have been misled into believing that a few misguided individuals with delusion of ecclesiastical grandeur; by their sitting down with absolute power after silencing true Christianity by wantonly killing directly and through the instrument of state orchestrated slayings of "heretics" - God's true Christians; silienced and forcefully acquiring the rights of true Christianity; which they then summarily corrupted with false doctrines, one of which is the current subject matter of this thread....That these "usurpers of true Christianity" would have supposed that without their intervention, the word of God, kept alive for thousands of years before their perverted appearance; That His word would have been denied to the benefit of humanity but for their intervention, is preposterous beyond belief.

The old testament written over a period of fifteen hindred of years by prophets, who in the main had to use scribes due to their being illiterate...and who did not know of the existence of each other...nor did they read each other's writings; but "spoke and wrote under the influence of the Holy Ghost", would need frail impure and unfortunate humans to preserve His scriptures, scriptures that he preserved before their puny appearance is laughable.

In case you doubt my research..the next time you pass by a Jewish synagogue...enter its chambers!....request a copy of Torah!...But pray! do mind you don't request a copy of Torah as "canonized" by your church. You may also compare their Jewish original with the "canonized" version. If they are one and the same; you would have made a scholarly discovery of the identity of the "Usurpers" of true Christianity.

The New testament was a series of letters and eyewitness accounts of the THEME OF THE OLD TESTAMENT- JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS. Their eyewitness accounts of the life and times of Jesus was preserved by the fledgling true Christian community that existed soon after Christ returned to heaven. Their only written scripture at that time was the old testament Torah. This community thrived under Paul and Jesus' disciples till during the mid first century when the first signs of corruption of true Christianity began emerging from the ranks of true Christianity. The disciple John refer to this false form of Chrisitanity in 1 John 2:18-19. Paul also referred to this false form of Christianity as it began corrupting the true..2 Thessalonians 2:7 and 2 Thessalonian 2:3-4.

The early Roman empire, in or around 63-70AD suppressed severely the Jewish community who was in constant rebellion against Roman authority. The Christians were, but for a handful of Gentile Christians, all of Jewish origin.
Thus they were as suppressed as the Jews of Judaism. It was to distance themselves from Judaism's Jews that some of the early Christians began accomodating the pagan practice of "emperor worship", by feigning to worship the "emperor's image" ....the pagan priest being paid to forge a certificate stating that that christian had indeed worshipped the emperor in the pagan temple.
Thus as false Christianity warmed up to appease the pagan emperors; false Christianity turned its ugly hand against the true practioners of Christ Christianity and in turn persecuted the true ambassadors of Christ in consort with pagan Rome.

False Christianity aided by pagan Rome then deceitfully acquired all the writings of true Christianity; falsely claiming to be its true owners, putting their stamp of approval with that of their profligate emperor Constantine; as together the corrupted and contaminated God's Holy Writ.
A stamp of approval, "the canon of scripture" I might add, that they held "in chains till the fifteenth century, when one of their own , their monk and priest, Martin Luther accused them of teaching falsely whle holding the truth of God prisoner, and in chains. iGod's Holy writ, His scriptures was kept from the public, while they desiminated "folklore such as common bread and wine became flesh complete with blood; and common fermented wine became real blood.---a blood, a might add different from all known blood seeing that this kind as "held up before unsuspecting devotees' was of the intoxicating kind. Other such false doctrines include the doctrine that Mary did not comsummate her marriage with Joseph and that even before Mary was conceived she was never contaminated with sin as was Adam and Eve.[the scritpures teach that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"...'All says the Roman Catholic church except for Mary'. The scriptures teach that there is none that doeth good...NO NOT ONE" No! so says the Roman Catholic church Our Mary has Never sinned'. Martin Luther refused to go along with this unholy deception and while he still embraced some of them still on his own wrote and transcribed the bible for the German people, thus following in the footsteps of others whose efforts served to undermine the catatonic clasp in which the word of God was held.

Who "canonized the scriptures? You asked! The scriptures transcend all human efforts to keep it in perpetuity or consign it to oblivion. The word of God "stand fast for ever--His Word emanate from HIM and has no need for human protection. His Word is Forever as He is Forever. Through eternity His Word will be our only Spiritual food as he lovingly feeds us his true Christians-from His own mouth with HIS WORD.

You talk of misinformed Clergy.......how many Orthodox Christian Clergy do you know personally?

They are many! They are legion!

precept