Replies

The other side points out scripture where it names the brothers of Jesus, but do not provide any scripture to prove Mary had other children, neither side proves anything.

While technically true, the Protestant position has the convenience of leaning upon the norm - IOW, without some special circumstance being otherwise mentioned in the Scriptures, one can readily assume the Hebrew conventions of normalcy apply. Since no exception is mentioned (like with the 12 sons of Abraham from two different mothers, as specified), the normal condition seems to apply.

The Roman church must fall back to unattributed, spurious works to grasp for a condition wherein Mary can remain ever virgin - Something not required in the Scriptures, and having no value whatsoever in the Gospel message... Ergo the rather strained outcome with many unnecessary convolutions. But they *need* it to be true, lest the entire ecosystem of mariology should crumble into nothing, and they can't have that.

But they *need* it to be true, lest the entire ecosystem of mariology should crumble into nothing, and they can’t have that.

I can plainly understand either side believing the way they do, but i can not understand why any one would build Church doctrine on anything other than what can plainly be proven.

I believe Mary only had one child, but perpetual virgin? i have no idea and its none of my business.

I have no problem with some one believing that the brothers of Jesus was Marys sons but don,t believe it should become Church doctrine.

I do not believe in building Church doctrine around the most popular assumptions because regardless of how sensible it may seem it could be wrong.

If it is something that is a matter of life or death then i would look at it a little different but which ever side is right on this issue would not change anything even if it could be proven beyond doubt.