FK, I come from a culture that is close to the region and I know that people in Mediterranean cultures refer to their first cousins as "brothers." or "sisters." Thus my first cousin is my "sister" (by aunt). The reason for this is obvious: it prevented intermarriage between first or even second cousins.
The custom is actually alien in the west, especially modern west. Thus, to you Jesus' brothers are His "siblings" because that's the reality of your culture which forces you to interpret the Scripture in this way.
However, in all fairness to the Protestants, the New Testament does say that +Joseph did not "know" Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus (Mat 1:24-25). The term "to know" a woman in the Bible is consistently used as a carnal relationship between a husband and wife (i.e. Gen 4:1).
Another example of interpreting Scripture literally comes from the way the Latter Day Saints (LDS), Mormons, "understand" Mary's conception. They say the words the Bible uses is "overshadow" speaking of the Holy Spirit. This is indeed terminology used in the Bible to denote sexual intercourse, so the LDS simply conclude that Christ was conceived as a union between God and amortal!
We, and this includes your side of Christianity (I hope), sees Mary's conception as a supernatural event, the way we understand sacraments. And, in the same manner, we understand her Virgin Birth, having occurred without breaking her seal or being painful. But if you really want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk, then the Bible does suggest what the LDS seem to be believe (then, they also believe that God the Father used to be a man and that Satan is Jesus' "sibling"!).
Well, I have said that the word "brother" is truly used in the Bible just as you say. I was thinking of that one particular passage, where Mary is named as His mother, and His brothers are also named, in the same sentence, along with unnamed sisters. The flow of the passage just seems wrong to me if such a jump in meaning is made. I can't imagine how that passage would have been so differently worded, if the true intent was to convey siblings.
However, in all fairness to the Protestants, the New Testament does say that +Joseph did not "know" Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus (Mat 1:24-25).
Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Very decent of you to point out. My version says "he had no union with her until..." That seems clear to me. Does that mean that the Orthodox do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity?
They [Mormons] say the words the Bible uses is "overshadow" speaking of the Holy Spirit. This is indeed terminology used in the Bible to denote sexual intercourse, so the LDS simply conclude that Christ was conceived as a union between God and a mortal!
Zeus would be proud! :) If you know, how do the Mormons get around the fact that there is no scriptural support whatsoever to suggest that either God the Father or the Holy Spirit have ever taken corporeal form? Plus, if God had "sex" with Mary, then He would be fully guilty of adultery, since Mary was already pledged to Joseph. My understanding is that such a relationship was as good as being married, but without the benefits. :)
We, and this includes your side of Christianity (I hope), sees Mary's conception as a supernatural event, the way we understand sacraments. And, in the same manner, we understand her Virgin Birth, having occurred without breaking her seal or being painful.
Absolutely.
But if you really want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk, then the Bible does suggest what the LDS seem to believe ...
If I want to be consistent, then I have to say that I always want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk. :) I would want to hear their answers to my questions above first. If God can't contradict Himself, then something has to give. I would have to think that the full weight of just scripture would have to crush their view. That must be why they felt a need to rewrite the Bible based on the good word of a thief from the east coast! :)