That's 'precisely' the sort of 'literal v metaphorical' argument that undermines other areas of the bible; this bit is 'literal'............this bit next to it is 'metaphorical' and certainly NOT contradictory.
Ankou, read my link regarding the use of the word virgin and mistranslation.
and yes, highly unlikely to use the same group of words literally and metaphorically in the same sentence.
The catholic church also believe IIRC that St Anne was also a virgin...hence the Immaculate Conception...born of a virgin who was born of a virgin.....the problem I have with that dogma is that then the annunciation announcement wouldn't have been a shock because it would already have happened one generation earlier.
Nope its more complicated than that. Mary had an older sister who was conceived normally so St Anne wasn't a virgin, however Mary appears to have been conceived virginally ie without nookie...that's the dogma anyway
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as I understand it (defined as a dogma in1854) states that Mary was born without the taint of original sin and not that she was born of a virgin herself. I can find no trace of any RC belief holding that St Anne was a virgin.
......the Church teaches that Mary was conceived in the normal fashion, but that she was miraculously preserved from original sin in order to make her fit to bear Christ. The conception of Mary free from original sin is termed the Immaculate Conception - which is frequently confused with the Virgin Birth or Incarnation of Christ.
So the bible is quite precise and definitive on this matter pertaining to one of the greatest miracles and the underpinning of most of the western religions. To sum up Mary was a virgin, then she probably wasn't and at some time she had one or more children one of whom was male. Feel free to correct me If I have got anything wrong.
*We* referto free-masons, monks and like minded people as brothers and sisters but this wasn't written in 21st century English.
This was written 2,000 years ago in Greek supposedly by a Jew (although that too is traditional as the earliest Gospels don't have names of authors on the top).
Before you can claim it is metaphorical you have to know whether that same metaphor was in use at that time in such communities.
"He had several brothers and sisters." Naomi, would you care to prove that? 8-)
PS, I don't disagree - it's by far the most likely interpretation of the available texts, and if it sits uncomfortably with contemporary church doctrine, then according to decent analytical criticism, that boosts it's likelihood considerably.