metmom wrote:
“Other children would mean she was not a virgin for sure.
no other children proves nothing either way.”
Right! Now you are getting it!
I am not - I’ll say it again - not, defending the teaching that Mary remained perpetually virgin. I am saying that you cannot prove or disprove it from the Bible. Believe what you will ... but teach nothing nor add anything to what is finally only your opinion, whether you be RC or the opposite.
The NT verses about Christ’s blood siblings
simply do not make linguistic, cultural sense as verses emphasizing what they are emphasizing
UNLESS
it really is talking about blood siblings.
Cousins were a dime a dozen. The emphasis rings hollow if cousins are meant.
And, the language and scholarship is not so weak as to be unable to distinguish when blood siblings were meant.
It all depends on how accurate you think the Bible is. It clearly talks about His mother and brothers looking for Him and it names His brothers.
It clearly states that Joseph did not know Mary until AFTER she had given birth.
It takes a lot of twisting to make those verses say something else.
Brothers = cousins? Sisters = cousins?
Balderdash....
That's denying the plain, simple, obvious reading of Scripture.
Are you saying that there are no Scriptures that show Mary had other children?
Are you, also, agreeing with the Vatican teaching she was born without original sin?