Then do not READ the following; as I'm sure that OTHERS may be interested in what the BIBLE plainly states.
Jesus had "brothers and sisters", as reported in Mark[3] 6:3[4] and Matthew 13:55–56.[5] The canonical Gospels name four brothers, James, Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon, but only James is otherwise known. After Jesus' death, James, "the Lord's brother",[6] was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem[3] and Jesus' relatives may have held positions of authority in the surrounding area.[7]
The literal interpretation of what is written in the New Testament is that Jesus' siblings were children either of Joseph or of Mary or of both. That they were children of both was accepted by some members of the early Christian church, including Tertullian.[8] The orthodox later labelled upholders of this view as "Antidicomarianites" ("Anti-Mary"), when it was represented by Bonosus (bishop), Jovinian, and various Arian teachers such as Photinus. When Helvidius proposed it in the 4th century, Jerome, apparently representing the general opinion of the Church, maintained that Mary remained always a virgin; he held that those who were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually children of her sister, another Mary, whom he considered the wife of Clopas.[8][9] The terms "brothers" and "sisters" as used in this context are open to different interpretations,[10] and have been argued to refer to children of Joseph by a previous marriage (the view of Epiphanius of Salamis), Mary's sister's children (the view of Jerome), or children of Clopas, who according to Hegesippus was Joseph's brother,[11] and of a woman who was not a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (a modern proposal).[8] Certain critical scholars say that the doctrine of perpetual virginity has obscured recognition that Jesus had siblings.[12]
Elsie:
What you cited is “the Literal interpretation” but of course, there are types when you are not so literal, for example, any of the Euchrasistic passages!!!!, Christ giving the authority to the Apostles and the Church to forgive sins. The Bible does not say anything. It is Sacred Scripture yes, but it required interpretation by the Church that it was a part of and thus the issue is what was the Faith of the Church with respect to what was written in the Sacred Scriptures. In other words, how did the undivided Church, West and East, understand those passages. understood it.
Of course, all of the ones who claimed Mary had other children, as the article you cited notes, were Arians or were expressed by Tertullian as he entered into his Montanist phase, which is yet another heretical sect [at one time, Tertullian was 100% orthodox, per circa 200AD] or some other group not in line with the orthodox consensus.
Of course, critical scholars attack the perpetual virginity of Mary, again as the link you cite notes, think about why? If virginity, for the kingdom of God is upheld, then it says something about the nature of human sexuality. Those who give themselves totally to God, i.e. embrace celibacy for the right reason, is a pointing to the reality of what we are all to become as in heaven they neither enter marriage or be taken in marriage, to paraphrase Christ’s words to the sadduccees.
Relatedly, marriage and human sexuality then have a deeper meaning, they are bounded together and can’t be bifurcated and express the communional purposes of marriage, unites a man and woman, and the procreative aspects as well. In that sense, attacking the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a precursor for the historical critic types and by extension secular elite to attack marriage and sexual morality.
Think about it, what says something to the modern world that is the most counter cultural, 1) that someone would choose chastity in era when sex is everywhere, you see it on TV, movies, in music, in billboards, etc, etc.
For the record, the literal intepretation, as your article cited, can be understood several ways. They were Joseph’s kids by an earlier marriage, and he was a widower, they were Mary’s by another man [maybe a husband after Joseph who we have no account of, and no way to I accept that one] or both, and I don’t except that one either.
There have been two orthodox interpretations, in the East, the one that is positied is that That they were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, a possible interpretation and the one that the Greek Church Fathers posited: See 2 links below from the Eastern Orthdox perspective:
.http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/theotokos.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx
The Catholic position which is posited the most often among the Latin Fathers [the Eastern position is also sometimes argued by e.g., St. Ambrose] is that these kinsmen of Jesus were cousins. It should be noted that no orthodox Church Father, Greek-East or Latin-West ever argued against Mary’s perpetual virginity.
.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm
A literal look shows that the writers of the New Testament were as indifferent to this matter as they were to the personal appearance of Jesus. f we depend on Mark alone, there is not even a Virgin Birth. The Proto-gospel of James, proposes that they were the children of Joseph, and also that she was a member of a priestly family. Given the story in Luke about her visit to Elizabeth, this may be true, in which case, she may not have been a mere peasant girl at all but someone of higher standing who ends up in Nazareth for some reason, as the wife of an older man. That she was a widow at the time of Jesus ministry, gives credence of that possibility. In any case, many different stories can be created to fit the facts related in the New Testament, including the doctrine of perpetual virginity.