Either that, or people who do not want to accept the fact that Mary WAS a perpetual virgin READ THAT DOCTRINE BACK into the New Testament, even if the New Testament actually doesn't support it. Once you buy into the error of private interpretation, you can ascribe to any theory you want to and say "That's what the Bible says, and if you don't agree with me, you're wrong."
RE: Either that, or people who do not want to accept the fact that Mary WAS a perpetual virgin READ THAT DOCTRINE BACK into the New Testament
Personally, I want to believe in it and don’t mind believing in it. However, upon reading scripture, I find no warrant for it and have to IGNORE the plain reading of scripture to believe this doctrine.
And why is this private interpretation? As I pointed out before, the earliest church father, Tertullian did not believe in it, and even Basil of Caesarea commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).
This is GOOD FAITH, SINCERE interpretation and reading of the plain meaning of the text.
RE: “That’s what the Bible says, and if you don’t agree with me, you’re wrong.”
So, you are telling me that you are NOT saying that those who disagree with you are wrong?
Of course you are.