False Teaching: Mary died a virgin. Biblical Proof Mary had children.

[Ghada]

This is essentially your argument:

"The word "until" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born:"
"And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)

It's not an argument, but a common sense reading of words and their context.

I find it fascinating that the Bible is the only book on earth, where otherwise reasonable readers apply normal grammatical skills in order to better understand the intent of the authors. But with the Bible, such simple reasoning and skills are checked at the door, for the sole purpose of changing what the Author is plainly saying.

It's because it's God's word, and some readers want to change it to fit their own doctrinal faith and lives.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

This isn't even something remotely hard to understand but quite simple. The nature of false teaching of the Bible is to make the understandable into confusion.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

A great rule of thumb for Bible teaching, is if a child can understand it from the words written. Little children have yet to learn the dark art of manipulating simple things for the purpose of introducing mysterious things.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Therefore, according to your logic, you should also argue the following:

"The word "until" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:"
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

I showed you already how God uses the word two different ways in the Bible. If you're either not going to read what I write, or just ignore my points made, then I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

You can back and apply it to this case also.

In Matt. 1:20-24, 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. Again, Matthew referring to that specific period for that reason doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior, and thus your claim this argument implies Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior is false.

Repeating yourself doesn't make anything more true. I've already responded to this sufficiently for myself.

I'd suggest you provide another verse that supports your belief that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse,

It's not a 'belief' but a simple reading of the narrative. Neither God nor I need to write the obvious in order to please the naysayers.

but I won't because I know you can't, as I also know Joseph and Mary decided to be mutually chaste in their marriage for God.

You've decided it would be sin for Mary and Joseph to be a married couple having sex, so as not to taint your Mary with 'sacred womb'.

The Mary myth is really just a Christianized rip-off of Rome's Mother Vesta with Sacred Fire.

It was done when the old Roman religion was replaced with the Christian religion by Constantine as the state religion. Some of the defunct priests of Rome successfully persuaded some Christian bishops, and other likeminded fable-lovers of mystery, to incorporate it into their newly dominant state religion.

No doubt it was partly justified under a delusional notion of charity and fairplay, in order to make former enemies into new bedmates.

 

[Sigma]

It's not an argument, but a common sense reading of words and their context.

Your argument that Matthew concluded speaking about the Messianic prophecy with the random tidbit that Joseph had sexual intercourse after the birth of the Savior shows you're ignoring the context. The word "ἕως" doesn't mean "until after" in 2 Sam. 6:23 and Matt. 1:25, because in each it's used to refer to a specific period. The period of the former is pre-death of Michal and the latter pre-birth of the Savior.

In Matt. 1:20-24, 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. Again, Matthew referring to that specific period for that reason doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior, and thus your claim this argument implies Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior is false.

I'd suggest you provide another verse that supports your belief that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse, but I won't because I know you can't, as I also know Joseph and Mary decided to be mutually chaste in their marriage for God.

 

[Ghada]

We agree its familial definition "a near kinsman, or relative" applies in those verses, which isn't a "non-familial" definition as you claim.

The only thing I agree on is your practice of changing things in the Bible for your tradition, and now doing it with my Bible teaching.

God's use of brother and sister and mother in a familial context, is always the family by birth.

As I have shown, and you disregard, whenever God does use mother and brother without birth, it is always plain to read.

You also have to provide evidence for Jesus's mother in these verses was an aunt of His.

No, you must show honesty and consistency of apply your argument to mothers, and not just to brothers and sisters.

All false arguments made in order to introduce men's doctrines and traditions, are inevitably exposed by inconsistency, when it doesn't suit the doctrine and tradition.

God has purposely written His words in such a way as to force the inconsistency and expose the manipulation:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

However, I know you can't, because in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings?, I provided evidence that confirms they were brothers, as in "a near kinsman, or relative," and shows the type of kinship was cousins. And, in Matt. 12:46, Mk. 3:31, and Lk. 8:19, Jesus's brothers who arrived with His mother to speak with Him were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus. (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II,, ch. 268, pp. 430-436)

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

No, I'm still not going to grind through it, just to see the errors behind it. And arguing from poems? Seriously? Well, I guess it makes sense to eulogize a tradition with poetic myth, since there's nothing about it in the Bible.

Remember, this is not an argument between us. Once one indisputable verse is rejected, then all that remains is an ongoing effort to change other verses by unbelief. It can be a good exercise to continue correcting them in turn, but it's not something I am willing to do endlessly.

 

[Ghada]

Your argument that Matthew concluded speaking about the Messianic prophecy with the random tidbit that Joseph had sexual intercourse after the birth of the Savior shows you're ignoring the context. The word "ἕως" doesn't mean "until after" in 2 Sam. 6:23 and Matt. 1:25, because in each it's used to refer to a specific period. The period of the former is pre-death of Michal and the latter pre-birth of the Savior.

In Matt. 1:20-24, 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. Again, Matthew referring to that specific period for that reason doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior, and thus your claim this argument implies Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior is false.

I'd suggest you provide another verse that supports your belief that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse, but I won't because I know you can't, as I also know Joseph and Mary decided to be mutually chaste in their marriage for God.

Seriously? Repeating yourself? Do you copy and paste?

Since you have nothing new, then until you address the main error of word definition without context, then we're done here.

That means we're done here, till after you do so.

 

[Sigma]

No, you must show honesty and consistency of apply your argument to mothers, and not just to brothers and sisters.

Why would I apply to the Koine Greek word "μήτηρ," translated to "mother" in English, the definition "a near kinsman, or relative," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, or aunt, etc., of the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), translated to "brothers" in English?? Apparently, that's what you're doing when you argue Jesus's mother in certain verses was His aunt.

Seriously? Repeating yourself? Do you copy and paste?

In reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, 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."

Since you agree, how could and why would Matthew imply at the same time that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior?

 

[Ghada]

Why would I apply to the Koine Greek word "μήτηρ," translated to "mother" in English, the definition "a near kinsman, or relative,"

Because the word mater is also used both for near and distant relatives, as well as unrelated neighbors, just as adelphos.

The challenge once again, is to be consistent with your principle, and apply it equally to mother, sister, and brother.

If you can willy-nilly change the words brother and sister to their distant meaning, without regard to context, then so can we with mother.

If you are justified in making Jesus' brothers and sisters to be cousins waiting for Him, then so can we make Jesus' mother to be an aunt, or even a neighbor being mother to Him, or He being a son to her.

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

You refuse to allow for it, because it turns against your own tradition.

The first thing to go out the window, when changing the Bible for personal reasons, is consistency in the principle used to do it.

Once again, if you can making it cousins waiting, then by your own principle I can make an aunt waiting.

"In Matt. 1:20-24, 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."

Since you agree, how could and why would Matthew imply at the same time that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior?

And that is a perfect question, that exposes your whole purpose: Post-birth sex has nothing to do with pre-birth abstinence.

Your doting about words and dragged in Greek has nothing to do with defending the virgin birth of Jesus. It only has to do with defending your 'sacred womb' Mariology myth.

And because of your sacred myth, you try to make post-birth sex somehow defile pre-birth abstinence, which is not possible. The only thing it 'defiles' is a 'sacred womb' idol. You speak of Mary as some adulterous having sex with her husband, because you demand her womb be off limits for life. You want her womb for yourself to idolize.

Her sharing her womb with her lawful husband, after having her firstborn son Jesus, is sacrilege to you.

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Which leads to another undeniable truth in the same verse: Jesus was Mary's firstborn son.

Now you get to play with more words and make firstborn also mean onlyborn or only son born.

 

[Ghada]

Further undeniable verse of Joseph and Mary consummating their marriage.

It's really amazing, that God not only supplies one, but two definitive proofs in one single verse:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

They not only abstained until after Jesus was born, but Jesus was Mary's firstborn son.

The firstborn is never applied to an only born son in the Bible. Never. There is no place where an only son is called the firstborn son.

The only exception is Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of the Father and firstborn among many brethren. He was firstborn among many after the flesh and after the Spirit.

Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD.

When Hanna had her only son Samuel, she did not bare a firstborn son.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

I've often wondered in passing, why it is necessary to include that Jesus was Mary's firstborn son. Why not just her son like Samuel of Hanna? And now I know it is God making doubly sure no one can possibly teach she had no born babes after Jesus.

And how would God know the need? Because God has known every lie and false tradition to ever come down the pike ahead of time, so that He inspires His words to be written beforehand to expose them.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

 

[Sigma]

Because the word mother is also used both for near and distant relatives, as well as unrelated neighbors, just as adelphos.

The challenge once again, is to be consistent with your principle, and apply it equally to mother, sister, and brother.

If you can willy-nilly change the words brother and sister to their distant meaning, without regard to context, then so can we with mother.

If you are justified in making Jesus' brothers and sisters to be cousins waiting for Him, then so can we make Jesus' mother to be an aunt, or even a neighbor being mother to Him, or He being a son to her.

What makes Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) His cousins is the evidence I provided in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings? that proves they were the sons of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus. The scenes with Jesus's brothers you assume were His siblings were actually some or all of those cousins. There's no evidence Jesus's mother in any scene was His aunt.

And that is a perfect question, that exposes your whole purpose: Post-birth sex has nothing to do with pre-birth abstinence.

It's a question I asked you to answer. So, again, in reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, 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."

Since you agree, how could and why would Matthew imply at the same time that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior in verse 1:25?

There is no place where an only son is called the firstborn son.

Do you say that none of the definitions below for the Koine Greek word "υἱός," translated to "firstborn" in English, can be applied to an only born son?

Bill Mounce's Greek Dictionary

Forms of the word
υἱός, -οῦ, ὁ
Greek transliteration: huios
Simplified transliteration: huios

Numbers
Strong's number: 5207
GK number: 5626

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 377
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: n-2a

Gloss: son, child (of either gender), descendant (in any generation); by extension: a term of endearment; one of a class or kind

Definition: son, child (of either gender), descendant (in any generation); by extension: a term of endearment; one of a class or kind, for example, a son of the resurrection is one who participates in the resurrection. The Son of Man is an OT phrase usually meaning human being, that in the NT is used almost exclusively as a messianic title (see Da 7:13), emphasizing Jesus' humanity. a son, Mt. 1:21, 25; 7:9; 13:55 freq.; a legitimate son, Heb. 12:8; a son artificially constituted, Acts 7:21; Heb. 11:24; a descendant, Mt. 1:1, 20; Mk. 12:35; in NT the young of an animal, Mt. 21:5; a spiritual son in respect of conversion or discipleship, 1 Pet. 5:13; from the Hebrew, a disciple, perhaps, Mt. 12:27; a son as implying connection in respect of membership, service, resemblance, manifestation, destiny, etc., Mt. 8:12; 9:15; 13:38; 23:15; Mk. 2:29; 3:17; Lk. 5:34; 10:6; 16:8; 20:34, 36; Jn. 17:12; Acts 2:25; 4:36; 13:10; Eph. 2:2; 5:6; Col. 3:6; 1 Thess. 5:5; 2 Thess. 2:3; υἱὸς θεοῦ, κ.τ.λ., son of God in respect of divinity, Mt. 4:3, 6; 14:33; Rom. 1:4; also, in respect of privilege and character, Mt. 5:9, 45; Lk. 6:35; Rom. 8:14, 19; 9:26; Gal. 3:26; ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, κ.τ.λ., a title of the Messiah, Mt. 26:63; Mk. 3:11; 14:61; Jn. 1:34, 50; 20:31; υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, a son of man, a man, Mk. 3:28; Eph. 3:5; Heb. 2:6; ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, a title of the Messiah, Mt. 8:20 freq.; as also, ὁ υἱὸς Δαβιδ, (Δαύιδ) Mt. 12:23​

 

[Ghada]

What makes Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) His cousins is the evidence I provided in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings? that proves they were the sons of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus. The scenes with Jesus's brothers you assume were His siblings were actually some or all of those cousins. There's no evidence Jesus's mother in any scene was His aunt.

Avoided the challenge again.

Consistency of your principle to use word definitions without context, so as to say they were cousins, can also say she was an aunt or motherly neighbor.

It's a question I asked you to answer. So, again, in reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, 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."

Since you agree, how could and why would Matthew imply at the same time that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior in verse 1:25?

Avoided the point of my answer and only repeat yourself.

Post-birth sex, and your objection to it, has nothing to do with pre-birth virginity. You're not defending the virgin birth of Jesus, but only doing away with post-birth sex in order to insert your 'sacred-womb' Holy Grail.

Do you say that none of the definitions below for the Koine Greek word "υἱός," translated to "firstborn" in English, can be applied to an only born son?

Now you've left normal grammatical sense.

Uios is never translated as firstborn. Prototokos uios is translated firstborn son. And as stated, a firstborn son is never used in the Bible for an only son. Twice God says Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, specifically to ensure no one can honestly think, believe, nor teach Jesus was her only son.

We're back to waiting to see if you fairly respond to challenges made.

 

[Sigma]

Avoided the challenge again.

Consistency of your principle to use word definitions without context, so as to say they were cousins, can also say she was an aunt or motherly neighbor.

What are you talking about? Are you ok? Again, what makes Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) His cousins is the evidence I provided in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings? that proves they were the sons of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus. You haven't even attempted to refute that evidence, and if you do decide to try I know you can't succeed because the Truth can't be refuted, only rejected. And, there's no evidence Jesus's mother in any scene was His aunt, only His mother, Mary.

Avoided the point of my answer and only repeat yourself.

Post-birth sex, and your objection to it, has nothing to do with pre-birth virginity. You're not defending the virgin birth of Jesus, but only doing away with post-birth sex in order to insert your 'sacred-womb' Holy Grail.

I repeated myself because you didn't answer the question again. I'll rephrase my question to make it clearer for you. So, again, in reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, 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."

So, you agree with the above, but at the same time you think verse 1:25 also implies Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-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?

There is no place where an only son is called the firstborn son.

So, do you say that none of the definitions below for the Koine Greek word "πρωτότοκος," translated to "firstborn" in English, can be applied to Jesus if He was an only born son?

Bill Mounce's Greek Dictionary

Forms of the word
πρωτότοκος, ον
Greek transliteration: prōtotokos
Simplified transliteration: prototokos

Numbers
Strong's number: 4416
GK number: 4758

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 8
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: a-3a

Gloss: firstborn (human or animal). In biblical culture, the firstborn had higher status and received a greater share of the inheritance. Jesus Christ, as the firstborn of God, is of supreme status and inherits all things

Definition: first-born, Lk. 2:7; Heb. 11:28; in NT prior in generation, Col. 1:15; a firstborn head of a spiritual family, Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:6; firstborn, as possessed of the peculiar privilege of spiritual generation, Heb. 12:23

 

[Ghada]

What are you talking about? Are you ok? Again, what makes Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) His cousins is the evidence I provided in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings? that proves they were the sons of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus. You haven't even attempted to refute that evidence, and if you do decide to try I know you can't succeed because the Truth can't be refuted, only rejected. And, there's no evidence Jesus's mother in any scene was His aunt, only His mother, Mary.



I repeated myself because you didn't answer the question again. I'll rephrase my question to make it clearer for you. So, again, in reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, 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."

So, you agree with the above, but at the same time you think verse 1:25 also implies Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-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?



So, do you say that none of the definitions below for the Koine Greek word "πρωτότοκος," translated to "firstborn" in English, can be applied to Jesus if He was an only born son?

I cannot debate with someone, that does not know what a debate is.

 

[Sigma]

I cannot debate with someone, that does not know what a debate is.

You're projecting your own inability to address my arguments onto me. Your bow out is duly noted.

 

[Moonwood]

- But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lords BROTHER.

Mary had children with Joseph before she left this earth. Jesus had siblings. Paul says so in Galatians 1:19.

Paul’s remark in Galatians 1:19 is often treated as if it settled the question, but that assumes—without argument—that “brother” must mean biological sibling and that Paul is introducing new genealogical information rather than referring to a well‑known figure within the apostolic circle. Once the broader textual and historical evidence is brought back into view, that assumption collapses. The New Testament’s own usage of adelphos, the Gospel data about Jesus’s family, and the earliest Christian testimony all point in a different direction.

What follows is a structured demonstration of that point. Rather than beginning with later theological claims, I start where the argument must start: with the Gospels themselves, with the identities of the men called Jesus’s adelphoi, and with the family relationships the New Testament actually describes. From there, I trace how the earliest Christian writers—independent, geographically diverse, and spanning three centuries—preserve the same identification of James and his brothers. The cumulative picture is coherent, historically stable, and fully compatible with Paul’s language in Galatians.

1. The Gospel evidence concerning Jesus’s “brothers” (adelphoi)
The Gospels list Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas as Jesus's adelphoi (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). Yet several details immediately complicate the assumption that they were biological siblings:

• These men are never called sons of Joseph.
• These men are never called sons of Mary.
• Only Jesus is called "the carpenter’s Son" (Matthew 13:55).
• Only Jesus is called "the Son of Mary" (Mark 6:3).
• The Koine Greek word adelphos ("brother" in English) has a broad semantic range: "a brother, near kinsman, or relative, e.g., cousin, nephew, etc.," "a fellow countryman," "a fellow member of the Christian community," or "an associate."

Paul’s reference to James, the Lord’s brother—who was one of the Twelve (Galatians 1:19)—fits this broader usage and aligns with early Christian tradition identifying him not as a biological sibling, but as a close relative. Since among the Twelve only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus), the contextual evidence strongly suggests that this James—the James mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19—is the same individual.

2. The parents of Jesus's "brothers" (adelphoi)
The Gospels identify Mary—the wife of Clopas/Cleophas—as the mother of James the Less and Joseph, the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi.

• Mary Magdalene, Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less), and Salome (Mark 16:1).
• Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) (Luke 24:10).
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph (Matthew 27:56).
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James the Younger (the Less) and of Joses (Joseph) (Mark 15:40).
• His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary (the mother of James the Less and Joseph) the wife of Clopas/Cleophas (John 19:25).

Across all four Gospels, only one Mary is ever called the mother of Joseph and James—the same names associated with Jesus’s adelphoi. And John explicitly identifies her as Mary’s “sister”, which, given the improbability of two biological sisters sharing the same name, indicates a sister‑in‑law relationship. Thus, the “brothers” of Jesus are best understood as the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, His Mother’s sister‑in‑law.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously confirm this identification:

• Josephus of Jerusalem: Records the martyrdom of “James, the brother of Jesus Who is called Christ" (Antiquitates Iudaicae, via Historia Ecclesiastica II.23.20).
• Papias of Hierapolis: Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas) was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, Simon, Thaddeus (Judas), and Joseph (Fragments of Papias X).
• Hegesippus of Jerusalem: Clopas was Joseph’s brother, making his sons Jesus’s cousins; James the brother of the Lord succeeded to the government of the Jerusalem Church and was called the Just; after James’s martyrdom, Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop of Jerusalem because he was a cousin of the Lord and suffered martyrdom under Trajan at the age of 120 (Hypomnemata, via Historia Ecclesiastica II.23; III.32.3, 6)
• Clement of Alexandria: Distinguishes James the Just, brother of the Lord, from James son of Zebedee and explicitly calls James the Just the bishop of Jerusalem (Hypotyposes, via Historia Ecclesiastica II.1.3-4)
• Eusebius of Caesarea: James the Just, whom “the ancients surnamed the Just,” was the first bishop of Jerusalem and was called the Lord’s brother because he was known as a son of Joseph; he was also the author of the first of the so‑called catholic epistles, which—though disputed like the Epistle of Jude—were nevertheless “read publicly in very many churches”; Eusebius identifies this James with the one Paul mentions in Galatians 1:19 (“Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother”); and he records that Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas and cousin of the Savior, was the second bishop of Jerusalem (Historia Ecclesiastica II.1.2-4; II.23; III.11.2; III.32.1).
• Jerome of Stridon: Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary the Lord’s Mother and mother of James the Less (De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Maria).

Across Josephus, Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome, the picture is consistent: James the Less—son of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas—James the Just, James the Lord’s brother, and James the bishop of Jerusalem are one and the same person; and he and his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas were Jesus’s cousins, not Mary’s sons. The credibility of these witnesses does not depend on trusting any one father: they are independent, geographically diverse, and chronologically separated sources — Josephus in the 1st century, Papias and Hegesippus in the 2nd, Clement in the late 2nd, Eusebius in the early 4th, and Jerome in the late 4th — all preserving the same identification of James. They wrote in different genres, in different languages, for different audiences, yet they agree on the same core facts. Even if someone doubts one father, the interlocking structure of the evidence remains intact — exactly the kind of multi‑source convergence historians look for.

The writings of the early Church Fathers are crucial not because they add to Scripture, but because they preserve the apostolic memory that Scripture itself assumes — the family relationships, household structures, and succession lines that make sense of the New Testament’s references to Jesus’s “brothers,” James’s episcopacy, and the identities of the Twelve.

And Scripture itself corroborates the core elements of this tradition: James is distinguished from the sons of Mary (Matthew 13:55-56), identified as an apostle (Galatians 1:19), placed in authority over the Jerusalem Church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18), and associated with Joseph’s household rather than Mary’s (Matthew 1:18-25). The patristic witnesses are not inventing a genealogy — they are preserving the only family structure that makes sense of the biblical data.

3. The identity of Jesus's "brothers" (adelphoi)
The combined witness of the Gospels and the early Church Fathers shows that:

1. Jesus’s “brothers”—Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas—were the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas and her husband Clopas (also called Alphaeus), making them His cousins, not children of Mary.
2. James and Judas, Jesus’s cousins, were the same individuals as James of Alphaeus and Judas (Thaddeus), apostles among the Twelve.
3. James, son of Alphaeus and one of the Twelve—also called James the Less, James the Just, the Lord's brother, and the bishop of Jerusalem—is one and the same person, and the author of the Epistle of James.
4. Judas (Thaddeus), son of Alphaeus and one of the Twelve, is the author of the Epistle of Jude.

Finally, the Gospel note that “not even His brothers believed in Him” (John 7:5) cannot refer to James and Judas (Thaddeus), since both were believers, apostles, and authors of New Testament epistles. This leaves Joseph and Simon—the other two sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas—as the unbelieving relatives mentioned in John’s narrative. Thus even the belief-status of Jesus’s adelphoi aligns with the broader evidence: they were His cousins, not children of Mary.

 

[Behold]

The Demonic Cult that falsely teaches that "Mary is a perpetual Virgin".

Where did they get that? ??????

You'd be surprised to learn that this was taken from "Diana Worship".....Pagan worship that existed before Christ came down here as the Virgin born Son of God....... as Diana the Goddess was the original "perpetual virgin" and 'Queen of Heaven".

So, the MARY CULT, wants you to try some of that religion on for size, and they'll have you twisting a Rosary to practice it.
Oddly enough. and FYI.......the ROSARY was not even INVENTED YET when Mary was alive.

 

[David in NJ]

Paul’s remark in Galatians 1:19 is often treated as if it settled the question, but that assumes—without argument—that “brother” must mean biological sibling and that Paul is introducing new genealogical information rather than referring to a well‑known figure within the apostolic circle. Once the broader textual and historical evidence is brought back into view, that assumption collapses. The New Testament’s own usage of adelphos, the Gospel data about Jesus’s family, and the earliest Christian testimony all point in a different direction.

What follows is a structured demonstration of that point. Rather than beginning with later theological claims, I start where the argument must start: with the Gospels themselves, with the identities of the men called Jesus’s adelphoi, and with the family relationships the New Testament actually describes. From there, I trace how the earliest Christian writers—independent, geographically diverse, and spanning three centuries—preserve the same identification of James and his brothers. The cumulative picture is coherent, historically stable, and fully compatible with Paul’s language in Galatians.

1. The Gospel evidence concerning Jesus’s “brothers” (adelphoi)
The Gospels list Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas as Jesus's adelphoi (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). Yet several details immediately complicate the assumption that they were biological siblings:

• These men are never called sons of Joseph.
• These men are never called sons of Mary.
• Only Jesus is called "the carpenter’s Son" (Matthew 13:55).
• Only Jesus is called "the Son of Mary" (Mark 6:3).
• The Koine Greek word adelphos ("brother" in English) has a broad semantic range: "a brother, near kinsman, or relative, e.g., cousin, nephew, etc.," "a fellow countryman," "a fellow member of the Christian community," or "an associate."

Paul’s reference to James, the Lord’s brother—who was one of the Twelve (Galatians 1:19)—fits this broader usage and aligns with early Christian tradition identifying him not as a biological sibling, but as a close relative. Since among the Twelve only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus), the contextual evidence strongly suggests that this James—the James mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19—is the same individual.

2. The parents of Jesus's "brothers" (adelphoi)
The Gospels identify Mary—the wife of Clopas/Cleophas—as the mother of James the Less and Joseph, the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi.

• Mary Magdalene, Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less), and Salome (Mark 16:1).
• Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) (Luke 24:10).
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph (Matthew 27:56).
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James the Younger (the Less) and of Joses (Joseph) (Mark 15:40).
• His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary (the mother of James the Less and Joseph) the wife of Clopas/Cleophas (John 19:25).

Across all four Gospels, only one Mary is ever called the mother of Joseph and James—the same names associated with Jesus’s adelphoi. And John explicitly identifies her as Mary’s “sister”, which, given the improbability of two biological sisters sharing the same name, indicates a sister‑in‑law relationship. Thus, the “brothers” of Jesus are best understood as the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, His Mother’s sister‑in‑law.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously confirm this identification:

• Josephus of Jerusalem: Records the martyrdom of “James, the brother of Jesus Who is called Christ" (Antiquitates Iudaicae, via Historia Ecclesiastica II.23.20).
• Papias of Hierapolis: Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas) was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, Simon, Thaddeus (Judas), and Joseph (Fragments of Papias X).
• Hegesippus of Jerusalem: Clopas was Joseph’s brother, making his sons Jesus’s cousins; James the brother of the Lord succeeded to the government of the Jerusalem Church and was called the Just; after James’s martyrdom, Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop of Jerusalem because he was a cousin of the Lord and suffered martyrdom under Trajan at the age of 120 (Hypomnemata, via Historia Ecclesiastica II.23; III.32.3, 6)
• Clement of Alexandria: Distinguishes James the Just, brother of the Lord, from James son of Zebedee and explicitly calls James the Just the bishop of Jerusalem (Hypotyposes, via Historia Ecclesiastica II.1.3-4)
• Eusebius of Caesarea: James the Just, whom “the ancients surnamed the Just,” was the first bishop of Jerusalem and was called the Lord’s brother because he was known as a son of Joseph; he was also the author of the first of the so‑called catholic epistles, which—though disputed like the Epistle of Jude—were nevertheless “read publicly in very many churches”; Eusebius identifies this James with the one Paul mentions in Galatians 1:19 (“Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother”); and he records that Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas and cousin of the Savior, was the second bishop of Jerusalem (Historia Ecclesiastica II.1.2-4; II.23; III.11.2; III.32.1).
• Jerome of Stridon: Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary the Lord’s Mother and mother of James the Less (De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Maria).

Across Josephus, Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome, the picture is consistent: James the Less—son of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas—James the Just, James the Lord’s brother, and James the bishop of Jerusalem are one and the same person; and he and his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas were Jesus’s cousins, not Mary’s sons. The credibility of these witnesses does not depend on trusting any one father: they are independent, geographically diverse, and chronologically separated sources — Josephus in the 1st century, Papias and Hegesippus in the 2nd, Clement in the late 2nd, Eusebius in the early 4th, and Jerome in the late 4th — all preserving the same identification of James. They wrote in different genres, in different languages, for different audiences, yet they agree on the same core facts. Even if someone doubts one father, the interlocking structure of the evidence remains intact — exactly the kind of multi‑source convergence historians look for.

The writings of the early Church Fathers are crucial not because they add to Scripture, but because they preserve the apostolic memory that Scripture itself assumes — the family relationships, household structures, and succession lines that make sense of the New Testament’s references to Jesus’s “brothers,” James’s episcopacy, and the identities of the Twelve.

And Scripture itself corroborates the core elements of this tradition: James is distinguished from the sons of Mary (Matthew 13:55-56), identified as an apostle (Galatians 1:19), placed in authority over the Jerusalem Church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18), and associated with Joseph’s household rather than Mary’s (Matthew 1:18-25). The patristic witnesses are not inventing a genealogy — they are preserving the only family structure that makes sense of the biblical data.

3. The identity of Jesus's "brothers" (adelphoi)
The combined witness of the Gospels and the early Church Fathers shows that:

1. Jesus’s “brothers”—Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas—were the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas and her husband Clopas (also called Alphaeus), making them His cousins, not children of Mary.
2. James and Judas, Jesus’s cousins, were the same individuals as James of Alphaeus and Judas (Thaddeus), apostles among the Twelve.
3. James, son of Alphaeus and one of the Twelve—also called James the Less, James the Just, the Lord's brother, and the bishop of Jerusalem—is one and the same person, and the author of the Epistle of James.
4. Judas (Thaddeus), son of Alphaeus and one of the Twelve, is the author of the Epistle of Jude.

Finally, the Gospel note that “not even His brothers believed in Him” (John 7:5) cannot refer to James and Judas (Thaddeus), since both were believers, apostles, and authors of New Testament epistles. This leaves Joseph and Simon—the other two sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas—as the unbelieving relatives mentioned in John’s narrative. Thus even the belief-status of Jesus’s adelphoi aligns with the broader evidence: they were His cousins, not children of Mary.

Indisputable Evidence and Truth
Joseph and Mary were married before GOD according to God's Commandment = "Be fruitful and multiply"

Joseph and Mary FULFILLED their Wedding Vows before the LORD = AFTER Jesus was born

Joseph and Mary had GOD Blessed marital intercourse as every husband and wife should.

AMEN to God's Commandment for Marriage = "Be fruitful and multiply"

Worship of Mary is SIN = i know as i was raised and confirmed a Roman Catholic

 

[Behold]

New Living Translation Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, and they want to speak to you.” Berean Standard Bible Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.” Berean Literal Bible And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.” King James Bible Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. New King James Version Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” New American Standard Bible [Someone said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.”] NASB 1995 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” NASB 1977 And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” Legacy Standard Bible Now someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” Amplified Bible Someone said to Him, “Look! Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside asking to speak to You.” Berean Annotated Bible Someone told Him, “Look (Behold), Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You. Christian Standard Bible Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” Holman Christian Standard Bible Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.” American Standard Version And one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee.

 

[Moonwood]

Indisputable Evidence and Truth
Joseph and Mary were married before GOD according to God's Commandment = "Be fruitful and multiply"

Joseph and Mary FULFILLED their Wedding Vows before the LORD = AFTER Jesus was born

Joseph and Mary had GOD Blessed marital intercourse as every husband and wife should.

AMEN to God's Commandment for Marriage = "Be fruitful and multiply"

Worship of Mary is SIN = i know as i was raised and confirmed a Roman Catholic

The question in this thread is not whether Mary ever had marital relations — including the OP’s appeal to “did not know Her until.” That entire line of argument concerns Mary’s virginity, which is irrelevant here. Even if one assumed later marital intimacy, that would not establish that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Mary’s children, because a woman can have intercourse and yet bear no children.

Mary’s vocation was not a standard human marriage but a singular divine commission. She was chosen to conceive God Incarnate as a Virgin — a miracle that sets Her apart from ordinary marital expectations. The very fact that She bore the eternal Son without human intercourse places Her marriage in a category that cannot be measured by typical patterns of conjugal life. Her union with Joseph was ordered around safeguarding the mystery of the Incarnation, not around fulfilling the usual social or biological functions of marriage. This is why appeals to “normal marital relations” or Genesis 1:28 simply do not apply.

The issue under discussion is parentage, not virginity.

The Gospels consistently identify Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as the mother of James and Joseph — the same names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi. Early Christian writers across three centuries (Josephus, Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome) preserve the same identification: these men were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus) and Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, making them Jesus’s cousins, not children of Mary.

So the question is simply: Who does the New Testament say their mother is?
And the answer, repeated across all four Gospels, is Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

Appeals to “wedding vows” or Genesis 1:28 do not address this textual evidence. The debate is about adelphoi, Mary of Clopas, and the identities of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — not about whether Mary ever had marital intimacy.

 

[David in NJ]

The question in this thread is not whether Mary ever had marital relations — including the OP’s appeal to “did not know Her until.” That entire line of argument concerns Mary’s virginity, which is irrelevant here. Even if one assumed later marital intimacy, that would not establish that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Mary’s children, because a woman can have intercourse and yet bear no children.

Mary’s vocation was not a standard human marriage but a singular divine commission. She was chosen to conceive God Incarnate as a Virgin — a miracle that sets Her apart from ordinary marital expectations. The very fact that She bore the eternal Son without human intercourse places Her marriage in a category that cannot be measured by typical patterns of conjugal life. Her union with Joseph was ordered around safeguarding the mystery of the Incarnation, not around fulfilling the usual social or biological functions of marriage. This is why appeals to “normal marital relations” or Genesis 1:28 simply do not apply.

The issue under discussion is parentage, not virginity.

The Gospels consistently identify Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as the mother of James and Joseph — the same names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi. Early Christian writers across three centuries (Josephus, Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome) preserve the same identification: these men were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus) and Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, making them Jesus’s cousins, not children of Mary.

So the question is simply: Who does the New Testament say their mother is?
And the answer, repeated across all four Gospels, is Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

Appeals to “wedding vows” or Genesis 1:28 do not address this textual evidence. The debate is about adelphoi, Mary of Clopas, and the identities of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — not about whether Mary ever had marital intimacy.

Well, since Joseph and Mary had marital intercourse, no one should doubt the veracity of JESUS having "brothers and sisters"!!!

Matthew 13:53-58
When Jesus had finished these parables, He withdrew from that place. 54Coming to His hometown, He taught the people in their synagogue, and they were astonished. “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?” they asked. 55“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56Aren’t all His sisters with us as well? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57And they took offense at Him.

But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own household is a prophet without honor.” 58And He did not do many miracles there, because of their unbelief.

 

[Moonwood]

Well, since Joseph and Mary had marital intercourse, no one should doubt the veracity of JESUS having "brothers and sisters"!!!

Matthew 13:53-58
When Jesus had finished these parables, He withdrew from that place. 54Coming to His hometown, He taught the people in their synagogue, and they were astonished. “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?” they asked. 55“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56Aren’t all His sisters with us as well? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57And they took offense at Him.

But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own household is a prophet without honor.” 58And He did not do many miracles there, because of their unbelief.

You’re still assuming that marital intercourse automatically produces children. But Scripture itself shows that this is not how the word “until” works, nor how conception works.

According to the rule you’re applying to Matthew 1:25, Michal would have begun having children after her death — because your rule treats “until” as always implying a later reversal:

"Michal had no children until the day of her death."

The translators of the KJV, the Vulgate, and the Douay‑Rheims all knew 2 Samuel 6:23 too, but none of them believed “until” meant she started having children after she died. The point is not that “until” never implies a later change, but that it does not always imply one. Because Scripture uses “until” in ways that do not signal a reversal, you cannot treat “until” as a universal rule that always means “the opposite happened afterward.” Scripture itself disproves that assumption.

And a woman can have intercourse and yet bear no children.

Therefore Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to prove later sexual relations, and it cannot be used to prove that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Mary’s children.

And that is the actual issue here — parentage.

The Gospels consistently identify Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as the mother of James and Joseph — the same names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi. Early Christian writers across three centuries preserve the same identification: these men were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus) and Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, making them Jesus’s cousins, not children of Mary.

And regarding your citation of “a prophet is without honor in his own household”: that verse does not identify biological children. Household (Koine Greek oikia) refers to one’s extended family circle, hometown kin, and familiar community — the same group who said, “Isn’t this the carpenter’s Son?” Their statements reflect their perception, not a genealogical claim about Mary’s maternity. And their perception is corrected by the Gospels themselves, which identify Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as the mother of James and Joseph, the very names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi.

So the question is:

Do you have a verse that actually says Joseph and Mary had children together and identifies them?

Because Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 lists names — and the Gospels and early Christian writers tell us whose mother those men actually had. And it wasn’t Mary the Mother of Jesus.

 

[David in NJ]

You’re still assuming that marital intercourse automatically produces children.
But Scripture itself shows that this is not how the word “until” works, nor how conception works.

Mary was obedient unto GOD = God rewards obedience unto His Word
A Jewish women's greatest Blessing is to have children in holy matrimony = God Says: Be fruitful and multiply.
God blessed Mary to have children.

According to the rule you’re applying to Matthew 1:25, Michal would have begun having children after her death — because your rule treats “until” as always implying a later reversal:

Straightforward and easy to understand: Michal had no children because of her sin = up to her death.
Once your dead your DEAD.
FYI = The Dead cannot "be fruitful and multiply"

Do you have a verse that actually says Joseph and Mary had children together and identifies them?

"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"

Once again, EASILY understood and received.

What you NEED to find out is why Joseph is not mentioned here in Mark 6:3