I did not state teaching about Mary contradicts scripture. Teaching she remained a virgin, was sinless, etc is. Yes we can spin the words 'did not know her until/til" and claiming his brethren were cousins/stepbrothers but one has to stretch and reach to do so instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves.
Your statement here is dishonest. I don't mean that you are intentionally being dishonest, but what you are doing is a dishonest tactic. You are claiming that your understanding of scripture is "just letting the text speak for itself" and anyone who thinks the text means something other than what you think is "spin" "stretch" "reach" and so on.
In order to "let the scriptures speak for themselves" you have to actually understand them as they were written, in the language they were written in, in the context of the time and culture that they were written by and to.
The fact that you can take an English translation and understand that in the context of modern spoken English and modern American culture, is not "letting the text speak for itself". You are the one who is stretching and spinning.
If we do that there are no contradictions. We know "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Mary is not the exception and is not listed as such.
My view has no contradictions. The fact that my view contradicts YOUR view, does not mean that my view contradicts scripture.
Romans is one of the most misunderstood books in Protestantism. It was also much misunderstood in the past which is why Peter specifically said that Paul's writing was hard to understand and that some people twisted his meaning to their own destruction.
You know who else is not listed as an exception in Romans 3:23... Jesus. Did Jesus sin and fall short of the glory of God? All means all right? There is no righteous, no not one... that leaves no exception for Jesus does it?
You claim that your view has no contradictions, but your view actually creates contradictions, its just that you are trained to ignore them and don't have the rigorous self-criticism to recognize them.
The truth is that Romans is not talking about individual people. If you go back and read the context carefully you will find that Paul is comparing and contrasting the Jews and the Gentiles and he is talking about how each group relates to God. In Romans 3, he is specifically making the point that neither the Jews, nor the Gentiles were righteous before God and none of them obeyed the law. Romans 3:23 does not mean that no individual person (ie all without exception) was ever sinless. That would disqualify Jesus as well. He is saying that all, as in both Jews and Gentiles, without distinction based on race or religion, were sinners.
The point he is making is not that there has never been a sinless person. The point he is making is that both Jews and Gentiles are sinful and therefore both need to be saved by grace in the New Covenant.
We are taught that Mary was blessed among women and she was -given that she gave birth to our Savior. But she was not sinless, did not remain a virgin, etc. She was not even a huge part of the gospels or the rest of the Word after Christ started his ministry. Christ states anyone that does the will of the Father is the same as his family. He's not raising his mother up over anyone else and neither should we. The disciples tried to do that among themselves and he shot that down.
You are just not paying attention to the details. We are told more about Mary than most of Jesus' 12 apostles. We are told more about Mary in the gospels than basically anyone except Jesus, and maybe Peter and John.
We are told that the Angel Gabriel appeared to her, used the title "full of grace" for her. The details of this story can be seen to imply that she was intending to be a consecrated virgin. When the Angel said that she would become pregnant, her reply was "how is this possible since I know not man."
She does not say this in the past tense, as in "I have not known man". She says it in the present "I do not know man". This at the very least implies that she is in a state where she does not expect that she will "know a man" in the future. Thus it implies that she may have taken a vow of virginity.
I will point out that some scholars say that the language used reflects a "present continuous" tense for the verb, meaning that the current state is intended to continue into the future. But I won't make that claim myself, since I haven't done the research to verify it to my own satisfaction yet. (I am working on that.)
However, we know that at this point Mary was already married to Joseph and under Jewish law they were legally allowed to have marital relations. Many will say she was "betrothed", but this is kind of a cultural misunderstanding. In our culture "betrothed" means engaged, you have agreed to marry, but you are not yet married. In Jewish culture "betrothal" meant that the marriage contract had been signed. Once the marriage contract was signed they were legally married and if they engaged in sex, it was not considered fornication. Traditionally, after signing the marriage contract, the couple did not live together for a year, while the husband prepared a dwelling for the new family. Then after a year, the actual wedding feast would be held. However, legally they were married the whole time.
Now, the reason I bring this up is this... If you were married, and were going to move in with your husband in a short time, and someone told you "you are going to have a son" would your reply by "how is that possible, I don't have sex."? Or would you think, oh, I am going to be having sex before too long, I guess I'm going to get pregnant?"
Then we are told how Mary goes to the hill country of Judea for 3 months (to visit Elizabeth). This directly parallels the Old Testament story of how David tried to bring the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem but was forced to leave it in the hill country of Judea for 3 months. Drawing a direct thematic connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.
This connection continues when Mary meets Elizabeth and John the Baptists "leaps" in his mother's womb, exactly as David is described as "leaping" before the Ark of the Covenant.
We are told little about Jesus' youth, but the little we are told involves Mary (even more than Joseph). It makes a point of telling us how she pondered all the things God told her in her heart, how her heart would be pierced, etc.
Then we have Mary at the wedding in Cana. Here she prompts Jesus to do his first Miracle and essentially begin his public ministry. In this we see both Mary revealed as the new Eve. Were the first Eve prompted Adam to sin, by giving him the fruit, Mary prompted Jesus to begin his ministry (notably by providing wine, which is also deeply symbolic). the First Eve prompted the first Adam to sin and all of mankind fell with him. The New Ever prompted the New Adam to do good, and all of mankind was redeemed through him.
Mary is also revealed here in her primary role in the Kingdom, she brings petition to Jesus on behalf of the people, and she says to the People "do whatever he tells you." This is what Mary always says to us to this day. Note that Mary does not tell Jesus what to do. Rather she brings the problem to his attention. He says "what do you want me to do" and she says to the servants "do whatever he tells you." She does not presume to tell Jesus what to do. She only tells him the problem, then she perfectly trusts in what he will decide, and tells the servants (us) to do the same.
People always misunderstand the incident where Mary shows up and Jesus says "who are my mother and my brothers" etc. They think this is a diss against Mary or a statement that she is unimportant. It isn't. It is an emphasis that earthly human relationships take second place behind the divine family of the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus is emphasizing the point that his true family are those who have faith.
This in no way displaces or denigrates Mary because her whole identity is based on her astounding faith. The entire reason WHY she became the mother of Jesus is because she had complete submission in faith to God's request. She said "be it done unto me according to your word." Complete surrender in faith to the will of God.
When the disciples were waiting on the Holy Spirit, where did they go? to Mary, because she has a unique relationship with the Holy Spirit. She was "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit the same way that the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit in the OT.
That is all right there in scripture if you just pay attention to the details and make the connections to the Old Testament.
The Greek is pretty selective in using words for brother, relative or cousin. For example in this verse we see two words -
Luke 21:16 "And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death."
Brethren is aldelphos (the womb) a brother, (lit or fig) near or remote. Yes someone could possible spin this in some way but we do not have to do so when his brethren are listed with Mary. Because we see in Luke 21:16 we have "kinsfolk" which is suggenes -a relative (by blood) , a fellow countryman-cousin, kin. So if they were cousins it stands to reason, this word would have been used in John 2:12.
And then comes the theory that they are his step brothers, children by Joseph, but then we are really reaching because we see nothing of these children mentioned about Joseph and so on.
Again, if you want to continue to believe in these theories that are not rooted in scripture by all means. I will continue to believe otherwise.
This just isn't true. Don't confuse your the interpretation held by your denominational tradition with what the text simply means.
You realize that this view has been held almost universally since the 3rd century AD (200 AD).Those people actually SPOKE GREEK as their 1st language. you are literally saying "I know what the Greek means, better than these people who actually spoke it as a living 1st language."
We have in Matthew 13:55-56 four men listed as "adelphoi" brothers of Jesus. James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude.
In John 19:25 we have a description of the women who are at the cross,
but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
In Matthew 27:56 we have another description of the women who are at the cross, except here it says
"There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."
John's account leaves out the mother of the sons of Zebedee (James and John)
Matthews account leaves out Mary the mother of Jesus.
But taking the two together tells us that Mary the wife of Cleopas (Mary's "sister") was also the mother of James and Joseph (Joseph is also often rendered as "Joses" which is a short version of the name), who are in Matthew 13:55-56 and in other gospel passages identified as Jesus' brothers.
thus the New Testament itself shows us that they were his cousins.
Further, when Jesus died on the Cross, he gave Mary to John the Apostle as his mother, to take care of and provide for. Now, I believe this has a primarily spiritual meaning because John intends us to ourselves into the place of the "disciple that Jesus loved" which is why he does not name himself in his gospel. Thus indicating that Jesus gave Mary to all of us as our mother. However, in the practical physical sense, this would make no sense if Mary had other children.
Leaving that aside, there are other examples where the Greek word Adelphoi is used not to mean a literal brother. It is used to mean kinsmen in a general sense in Acts chapter 7.
The real issue is that Hebrew and Aramaic did not have a word for cousin, or nephew, or uncle. They sometimes would use the extended phrase like "sister son" but sometimes they just used the word "brother" to describe those close relations.
Example, in Genesis 13:8 Abraham calls Lot his brother, when in reality they are uncle and nephew. When this was translated in Greek in the Septuagint, they just translated it as "adelphos". There are other examples as well.