Scripture teaches Mary did NOT remain a virgin. Jesus was her firstborn. Multiple passages talk about the brothers and sisters of Jesus - and yes, Greek has words for cousin and kin, and they are used regularly by the NT writers (14 times, by my count - including Luke 1:36). Paul refers to James as “the Lord’s brother” - and expression never used of any other Christian. Not for Peter. Not for John. There is also no instance of the NT saying X the brother of Y, where they were not brothers. It also says Joseph had no relations with her until she gave birth.
That doesn’t mean anything bad about Mary. It was gentile philosophers who were appalled at the ‘Mother of God’ also giving birth to others. There is nothing dirty about laying with your husband, or giving birth.
Luke 1:24 & 27 have nothing to do with perpetual virginity. Isaiah 7:14 prophesied the Virgin Birth, not endless virginity.
“If you take up the contrary position, you are no longer espousing Christian doctrine.”
No, we’re just reading the Bible. If your doctrine conflicts, your doctrine is wrong. The words of scripture are ‘God-breathed’, and God doesn’t breath error.
You are just showing us that when you read the Sacred Scriptures, you do not understand what is being said.
1. Jesus brethren. Brother-kin-cousin are all the same word in Aramaic. None of the passages used by ignorant exegetes ever prove anything other than Jesus had male relatives. Never is any man referred to as the son of Mary, except for St. John at the foot of the cross. Jesus’ final words to all of us are to accept Mary as our mother. Which is what faithful Catholics do.
2. Luke 1:34 specifically highlights her vow of virginity, which she did not want to break. If you think a perfect intellect, not clouded by original sin, would be asking about the birds-and-the-bees the instant before rendering the FIAT that would precipitate the Incarnation, your penetration of the mysteries swirling in Luke 1 is woefully shallow.
3. Isaiah has everything to do with perpetual virginity, he was talking about The Virgin. All of the sacred music written since that Fiat back me up. Bach, Mozart, Palestrina, Thomas Aquinas, we’re all buds. :)
4. Your rule of faith is your human interpretation of a sacred text you do not understand. My rule of faith is a gift from God, given in Baptism, by which I have the sensus fidelium when exposed to inspired text. In my case, faith precedes private interpretation, in your case private interpretation precedes faith. It is what St. Francis de Sales calls using reason as a positive rule of faith, when in reality it can only be used as a negative rule of Faith. Evidence for this is the thousands of protestant sects which all claim to have the Bible as their rule of faith. If the Bible is God-breathed, where is the division coming from, if not from the inverted use of reason as a positive rule of faith?
But your interpretations are not.
But your interpretations are not.