You have no biblical authority to back up your assumption for perpetual virginity of Mary.
As I noted in the opening post, my proving Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were His cousins in itself doesn't prove Mary is a perpetual Virgin, though there's reasons that show She is, which is why I've never assumed that about Her.
Since Joseph did not have sexual intercourse with Mary before Christ was born, proving a virgin gave birth, how do you prove it does not also mean after Jesus's birth he did?
I never said Matt. 1:25 states Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior, because it doesn't, nor does it state that he did.
You're simply guessing about the authors intent based on bringing your preconceived opinions into the passage.
I'm not guessing, rather considering the context of Matt. 1:20-24, where Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse
the virgin who conceived
the Savior of mankind by
the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior.
How would Matthew implying Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin, when that's the point of verse 1:25?
P.S. I'm finished with this discussion with you! It's proving to be an exercise in futility!
As soon as I ask you to show how your interpretation of Matt. 1:25 fits with the context of its preceding verses Matt. 1:20-24, you bow out because this discussion is "futile". Why? because you don't like that I make you have to
actually defend your position? You lack conviction in your own position.
As for me, I don't care how "futile" discussing this topic may be with whomever, for the simple reason that my position is True, and I've shown it to be so, and I'll never turn down an opportunity to defend that Truth.
That's having conviction in a position, and although I may say you're wrong in yours, it's that
you believe you're right, so it's foreign to me to see you and others defend your position so hard, yet so lazily at the same time.
Furthermore, whether you agree or not with me about Matt. 1:25, it still doesn't prove Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's siblings. In an effort to see you try and support your claim that they were, I challenged you to answer the questions under each section of verses in the opening post, and you refused.
Also,
three times I had to ask you this simple question: do you believe the James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person? because you ignored it each time. Apparently, it's a problem for you to answer, but not for me, I can and have answered it many times.