I realize I am a bit late here, but...
Twin.spin said it well.
______________________________
Mary being perpetual virginity... based on the fact that:
- we have Jesus being conceived before "they came together"
- we have Matthew acknowledging Jesus' mother and brothers
- we have an unknown person acknowledging Jesus' mother and brothers
- we have Jesus going to his hometown and the people in the synagogue acknowledging Jesus' brothers by name and reference to sisters
- we have Paul making the distinction of Jesus appearing to James and then to all the Apostles
- we have Paul making the distinction seeing no other apostles, but James the Lord's brother (when most times believers\apostles where referred to "brothers)
- Jude making the connection with James being a brother Jesus
I would conclude that the evidence is more than circumstantial that Mary did not remained a virgin after Jesus' birth
NOTE: Scripture addresses were removed above because I have a plugin in my browser which turns them into links and the forum will not let me post links.
Having said that, the real question in my mind is where did the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity come from in the first place?
In Roman Catholicism, it is taught that Mary was chosen to be the mother of God because she was without sin. Not in the sense that all of her sins were forgiven, but in the sense that she was perfect (never having sinned). Roman Catholicism does not view the forgiven sinner as having been perfected in Christ (spiritually), therefore (they concluded), that Jesus could not be born without sin unless Mary was without sin.
In keeping with this thinking, it is apparently sinful for a married man and woman to have sexual relations within the bonds of marriage, I guess (or at least if you have previously given birth to the Son of God). I am not trying to be sarcastic, here - just making the point.
Carry the line of thinking that Mary had to be without sin (in order for Jesus to be without sin) to its logical conclusion and the logic quickly falls apart. If Mary needed to be without sin in order for Jesus to be without sin, then wouldn't Mary's parents have had to be without sin also (in order for Mary to be without sin)? Then, if her parents needed to be without sin, both sets of grandparents would have had to be as well, and so on. Eventually you end up with a vast multitude of people without sin.
Back to my original question. Where did this thinking come from in the first place? It came from false theology. There really should be no need to ask the question.
This is important because some have said, "it is adiaphra," but it is not. Bear in mind adiaphra and fundamental doctrine (those doctrines which directly affect our salvation) are two different things. If it weren't for the false teachings of the Catholic church on this issue, no one would ever go to the text of Scripture and come up with anything other than the fact that Jesus had siblings. To do so is to impose man's thinking onto the text (reading into the text - eisegesis) rather than reading from the text (exegesis). In other words, do we take God at his Word or are we willing to let man's false thinking affect how we view God's clear message and meaning?
As twin.spin said, the evidence is more than circumstantial. God's word is clear. Do we believe God or the Roman Catholic church?
In case you are wondering - yes, I am a former Catholic and most of my (and my wife's) family are either Catholic or heavily influenced by the false teachings of Catholicism. To the best of our knowledge, most (if not all) of our relatives think they will get to heaven based upon their good works. So, again, taking God at his Word (or not) is no small issue. It brings with it eternal consequences. A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough. From small errors, major heresies grow.
In Christ,
Rob G
