[quote="Civitate_Dei, post:1, topic:339449"]
I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn't a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.
I can't imagine it would be too, too shocking to hear a theologian give these thoughts, since many modern historians and NT experts have been offering the same ideas for decades...and, after all, many of the early "church fathers" debated them for the first three or four centuries, too.
So what you post has been in debate for thousands of years.
Mary's perpetual virginity, for example:
Many in those first centuries accepted the teaching that Mary was a virgin via the gospels when she conceived Jesus, but did not think it was a "perpetual" virginity because of the mention of Jesus' siblings in the gospels...and also, the interpretation of Matthew 1:25 that Joseph didn't know Mary "until" she had Jesus, etc.
Early Christian apologist Tertullian, early Christian author Helvidius, and Catholic theologian Eunomius of Cyzicus believed that Mary and Joseph had a "regular" marriage after Jesus was born, and that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were Jesus' siblings and Mary and Joseph's sons together.
Wide support for the doctrine of perpetual virginity was not established until the 4th Century, I think, as per several religion texts.
And then, as you know, support fell away from that doctrine with the protesting Christian churches several centuries later.
But...issues like this one-- and the ones covered in the link you provided -- have long been debated ever since Christianity began taking shape as it's own religion and not just an offshoot of Judaism...as the followers formed the religion's own doctrines in those first few centuries.
For many...Jesus was not accepted to be related to David, as your link explains, because they were not blood related. And factual discrepancies in the Christian canon, mentioned in the link you posted, lead to other questions and doubts.
Since we really have no concrete way to confirm much, I imagine these ideas will continue to debated among the faithful vs. the historians, scientists, archeologists, etc.
For a little while longer, anyhow.