You're still shifting the burden of proof. The claim made in the OP was not: "Matthew 1:25 proves perpetual virginity." The claim was:
"Matthew 1:25 does not, by itself, prove that Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Jesus' birth."
Originally, you argued that the word until settled the matter. Since then, you've explicitly agreed that until does not always connote a subsequent action, citing Michal as an example, and you've repeatedly argued that context determines how until functions. Therefore, we agree on the very point I set out to defend: the word until by itself does not settle the question.
You now believe the context of Matthew 1 requires the conclusion that Joseph later had sexual relations with Mary. I disagree because I believe the context of Matthew 1:18-23 is focused on establishing the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception. So the debate is no longer about the meaning of the word until. The debate is about which contextual reading better explains Matthew's purpose.
As for "97 out of 100 people," popularity is not an exegetical argument. The question is not how many people read a verse a certain way. The question is what Matthew intended to communicate. My contention remains exactly what I stated in the OP:
Matthew 1:25 tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth. It does not explicitly tell us what happened afterward.
If you want to argue that Joseph and Mary later had marital relations, you're free to make that case. But you can no longer claim that conclusion follows merely from the word until, because you've already acknowledged that the word does not always function that way.
