[annalex]

I do believe annalex is incapable of reading Scripture with an open mind

Then it should not be difficult to point out where I don't attend to the scripture I read.

For the record: I understand that one CAN interpret the "brothers" passages as literal brothers. What I say is that it is not the only necessary interpretation and the Church interpretation is valid as well: they are members of Jesus's household that appear like brothers to the speaker.

The "lie" that started this brouhaha is that the scripture is uncontrovertibly stating that Jesus had brothers by the same mother. As I show by citing many examples when we can see "brothers/sisters" used expansively, that interpretation is not the only one possible.

[metmom]

For the record: I understand that one CAN interpret the "brothers" passages as literal brothers. What I say is that it is not the only necessary interpretation and the Church interpretation is valid as well: they are members of Jesus's household that appear like brothers to the speaker.

The "lie" that started this brouhaha is that the scripture is uncontrovertibly stating that Jesus had brothers by the same mother. As I show by citing many examples when we can see "brothers/sisters" used expansively, that interpretation is not the only one possible.

Then at that point, the person who recognizes that other possible interpretations can be legitimate CANNOT, because they have no basis for it, claim that theirs is the only right one and it would be foolhardy beyond comprehension to not only build a whole doctrine on it, but to also condemn others for not believing it.

Both things that the Catholic church has done.

[metmom]

For the record: I understand that one CAN interpret the "brothers" passages as literal brothers. What I say is that it is not the only necessary interpretation and the Church interpretation is valid as well: they are members of Jesus's household that appear like brothers to the speaker.

The "lie" that started this brouhaha is that the scripture is uncontrovertibly stating that Jesus had brothers by the same mother. As I show by citing many examples when we can see "brothers/sisters" used expansively, that interpretation is not the only one possible.

In addition, it is not only those Scriptures about His brothers and sisters which non-Catholics use to support their contention that Mary was not a virgin and Jesus had siblings.

There's the verses in Matthew 1 ....

Verse 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

And the well known one in verse 25....

25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Both verses clearly indicate by their plain reading and meaning, that they DID consummate their marriage after the birth of Christ.