Listen carefully now
It has been historically believed that Mary was ever-virgin, but such a belief is based in no known Scripture, and no confirmed apostolic teaching.
Again listen carefully.
Did I say that?
I did not.
The earliest documented recording of the belief that brothers of Scripture were not brothers of the flesh comes from the PofJ, which is a false writing.
The literal meaning of the word adelphos, "of the womb" is of course brothers in the flesh. While Standing Up makes the stronger statement that brothers in the flesh is scriptural, my main contention on these threads is that if I err, I err on the side of taking the Bible at its word. The literal sense of the word is much more consistent with the related OT prophecy, and with the context of the NT texts.
In the absence of clear apostolic teaching, I believe this is more justified.
That is, it is more justified in the ABSENCE of any historical documentation linking a different understanding back to the Apostles.
Your church teaches differently, in the absence of clear apostolic teaching.
That is your faith. That is faith according to obedience to EO teaching. It is not faith according to Scriptural or apostolic teaching however, for the only documentation that even tangentially supports this claim as being apostolic is PoJ, and James did not leave us this testimony. As far as Scripture goes, the text makes not clear reference to either cousin or stepbrother, and the usual assumption in the absence of other scriptural qualifiers, would be that brothers of the womb actually means brothers of the womb.
It is not a difficult point to understand, but few have grasped this so far.
But if I am wrong, clear the air, and show us the apostolic teaching of this. Show us the Scripture-the Scripture that MUST mean something other than brothers of the same womb!
Nobody, so far, has given this kind of evidence; OrthodoxyUSA in fact quoted Basil that much of this kind of evidence remains unproclaimed by EO on purpose, and it is only evangelization that is not hidden.
You are making the same leap as others have.
I only say that stepbrothers (or cousins) is not from Scripture or known Apostolic teaching. It is the story that EO shares with PofJ.
I do not even say that James is the source, although that is the more reasonable conclusion to come to, given the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
As far as minority or majority, faith is not a democracy.
It has been handed down to you by tradition yes.
There is no evidence to say that it has been handed down to you through apostolic tradition or on the evidence of Scripture.
Where does the evidence come from then?
It is a valid question.
Maybe it was made up. Maybe it wasn't. I have no idea. The evidence for such a claim remains hidden to me and probably to everybody else.
The thing is, you don't know either. Old Joseph/ stepbrothers is unsubantiated by anything resembling scriptural or apostolic evidence.
Okay. Then it is your contention that it would have been perfectly legitimate, and would not be a problem or compromised the purity of Mary, if she had behaved like a typical married woman with her husband Joseph?
I recall some kind of objection on your behalf that had something to do with Joseph doing his business there after the Holy event.
Are you retracting your former contention then, the same contention that SU has pointed out to you was the argument of Jerome and others?