Were they Jesus's siblings?

[Rockerduck]

What evidence do you have that shows Mary of Joseph is the mother of Jesus's half-brothers and half-sisters?

The Amp bible

Matthew 12:46-48 - Jesus was still speaking to the people when behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak to Him.
47 Someone said to Him, Listen! Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.
48 But He replied to the man who told Him, Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?

 

[Aunty Jane]

The truth matters and it's important to confront heresy with it, regardless of what people do with it.

Unfortunately the "heresy" was in promoting the doctrine of the "ever virginal" state of Mary in the first place.

Where could such a teaching arise? Shock horror! It was already held by the Babylonians, who emerged not long after the flood of Noah's day. God caused a confusion in their language as these disobedient ones wanted to make a great name for themselves and build a tower in defiance of God's command to spread abroad in the earth. By confusing their language he forced them to segregate themselves by language....but they took their false beliefs with them to every corner of the world. (Gen 11:1-9)

It is impossible for the RCC to find one shred of evidence for the "immaculate conception" or the "bodily asumption of Mary" doctrines in Scripture. But, in the Babylonian religious system, the fable was ready made to be adopted by those who would fall to "mother goddess" worship. In Babylon it was taught that Bacchus went down to hell, rescued his mother from the infernal powers, and carried her with him in triumph to heaven. This fable spread wherever the Babylonian religious system spread....and, to this day, the Chinese celebrate, as they have done from time immemorial, a festival in honour of a mother, who by her son was rescued from the power of death and the grave. The festival of the assumption in the RCC is held on the 15th of August. The Chinese festival . . . is equally celebrated in the month of August....just a coincidence?

Is it also a coincidence that mother goddesses are found in false religious systems all over the world?



You have no idea how old this 'mother goddess worship' is.....The Egyptians were renown for their false worship even before Israel was formed as a nation dedicated to God, and released from that pagan world power by the power of God's spirit.

Your church teaches lies...very ancient ones...but still as deadly, as there will be no liars, or those who support lies, in God's Kingdom.
There is no doubt that Mary fulfilled a very important role, personally chosen by God to be the mother of his son....but God's son was the focus in scripture (not the vessel used to facilitate his human birth)....and the Father was Jesus' focus throughout his ministry.....Mary hardly rates a mention.

 

[Sigma]

@Sigma, do you think there is just some information in the bible that we do not have?

The Bible has enough information to support Jesus's kinsmen Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 weren't His siblings.

 

[Sigma]

The Amp bible

Matthew 12:46-48 - Jesus was still speaking to the people when behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak to Him.
47 Someone said to Him, Listen! Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.
48 But He replied to the man who told Him, Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?

I asked for your evidence that shows Mary of Joseph was the mother of Jesus's alleged half-brothers and half-sisters, and all you did was quote Matt. 12:46 and bold the words "mother" and "brothers." Did you forget to include the evidence in your post?

 

[MatthewG]

The Bible has enough information to support Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and the unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3 weren't His siblings.

Okay, Sigma. Thank you for responding. Hope you have a good night, see ya sir.

 

[Rockerduck]

I asked for your evidence that shows Mary of Joseph was the mother of Jesus's supposed half-brothers and half-sisters, and all you did was quote Matt. 12:46-47 and bold the words "mother" and "brothers." Did you forget to include the evidence in your post?

The bible is evidence. In fact, the oldest historical book on the planet. I don't know what you are looking for.

 

[Cassandra]

Scripture doesn't plainly state in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph and Mary didn't have intercourse until after Jesus's birth, because the phrase "knew her not" doesn't only pertain to intercourse.

what else does it pertain to?
If you mean knowing someone as a friendship type thing, well, they were friends before. they were going to get married. I'm sure they spent time together before making that decision.
It can only mean that they did not know each other intimately until Jesus was born.

 

[Sigma]

The bible is evidence. In fact, the oldest historical book on the planet. I don't know what you are looking for.

If you don't know what kind of evidence is required to support your belief, then you shouldn't continue participating in this discussion, and I can't take you seriously until you do.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Bible has enough information to support Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and the unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3 weren't His siblings.

That is only true for those intent on making the familial relationship of Jesus to his mother and siblings null and void by suggesting things that the Bible does not even infer.

Why would anyone even think that Jesus did not have siblings in a nation that put so much emphasis on child bearing? A barren woman in Israel was thought to have offended God in some way, because the bearing of children was seen as a gift from God.

Psalm 127:3-4…
”Look! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah;
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a mighty man,
So are the sons of one’s youth.”

You have been deceived….

 

[Aunty Jane]

In Matt. 1:25, we read, "And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son...," which pertains to Joseph's chastity, ensuring the reader he was not involved in Mary's conception of Jesus, considering the context of Matt. 1:20-25. That doesn't mean intercourse occurred post-birth.

There is that small word you seem to have overlooked....."till".....which means that Mary and Joseph had a blessed marriage and more children as was expected in Jewish families of that time. You have a narrow Catholic mindset based on nothing more than ancient mother goddess worship that is older than Christianity itself.
With a knowledge of the Jewish mindset portrayed in the Bible, there is no valid reason to even bring this question up. There is nothing in the Bible that supports an "ever virgin Mary".....not even a hint of it.

In Lk. 2:7, we read that Jesus is called Mary of Joseph's "firstborn Son." This makes allusion to the legal prescriptions concerning the first male child of a family, even if there weren't other children.

A "firstborn" is just that. Nothing in the Bible fights with the fact that Jesus had siblings who were born in the usual manner through intercourse.
Joseph "knew her not".....meaning having an intimate knowledge of his betrothed until her firstborn son had been delivered. (Do you understand the term "carnal knowledge"?) If a man "knew" a woman in the Bible, it indicated a sexual relationship.

Nothing in the scriptures indicates that Jesus was born any other way but the natural way children come into the world.....physically speaking childbirth would have destroyed her virginity. There was no longer a reason for her to stay a virgin.....not in a Jewish household.
Jesus had four brothers who are all named, and at least two sisters.

Correct. See my evidence in the OP that shows Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's kin, specifically His cousins, the sons of Joseph's brother. Do you have evidence that shows Jesus's brothers and sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 were His siblings?

Since the scriptures are speaking in terms that Jews well understood, there is no point in arguing about the meaning of words.
Matt 4:18 is a good example...
"And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, G80 Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, G80 casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers."
You can see that Jesus saw two fleshly brothers, Peter and Andrew fishing. This translation uses the same word translated in two different ways.

Your church has taken a false religious belief and grafted this idea of Mary not being married in the full sense of the word, into the Bible, as if it somehow violates a command of God....there is no command to violate. Marriage is God's arrangement and children are a blessing from him. There is no scriptural reason for Mary to remain a virgin.....the whole idea makes no sense.

You've yet to provide evidence that shows Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 were His siblings; evidence that shows all of Jesus's alleged siblings were unbelievers; and evidence that all of Jesus's alleged siblings being unbelievers was the reason He appointed His apostle, John of Zebedee, to be the guardian of Mary of Joseph prior to His death.

If Jesus' siblings were believers at the time of his death, he would have entrusted his widowed mother's care to the next oldest brother. Jesus had her spiritual welfare foremost at heart, hence choosing the apostle John to take her in after his death.

Not only was Mary of Joseph not barren, but She conceived by and bore God Himself, the greatest gift.is without foundation in scripture.

That is also a matter of opinion.....not one that I subscribe to. To say that God incarnated himself to become a human, to die at the hands of wicked men is without foundation in scripture. The Bible tells us that the Eternal God is immortal, which means that he cannot die. Christ was not a God/man.....he had to be 100% mortal human to offer his life in exchange for ours. If Christ did not die, the redemption price was not paid and we are not saved. Do you understand what redemption is?

Perhaps a little research on the Greek word "theos" is in order....?

 

[St. SteVen]

Why is it heretical to believe that Jeesus had brothers and sisters, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin?

Exactly. This is about defending Mary's perpetual virginity.
It's considered heretical because it violates "infallible" Catholic dogma. (I suppose)
Which Catholics are required to believe.

However, the early church writings are interesting.
The question would be about the reliability of these writings and of their translation.
I need to continue reading this topic to see if this is addressed.

The Law of Moses would have permitted Joseph to divorce her on the charge of fornication.
But her parents, who are never mentioned to my knowledge, could have stepped in to prove her virginity.
Parents could "produce the cloth" as proof.

 

[St. SteVen]

In Matt. 1:25, we read, "And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son...," which pertains to Joseph's chastity, ensuring the reader he was not involved in Mary's conception of Jesus, considering the context of Matt. 1:20-25. That doesn't mean intercourse occurred post-birth.

Thanks.
I wondered what the workaround was on that one.
Begs the question though.
"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son...,"
Then what?
Should have stopped at "And he knew her not (full stop)"

 

[St. SteVen]

The Bible has enough information to support Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and the unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3 weren't His siblings.

It seems that without the provided writings of the early church, you have no evidence.
Your only biblical evidence is YOUR interpretation of the biblical evidence based on YOUR
presuppositions which you claim to be "truth". Which amounts to workarounds
to supplant the plain words found in the scriptures. IMHO

To be clear, I respect your beliefs, and your right to them.
But when you try to prove them to Protestants, you are bound
to encounter some reasonable push-back.

Thanks for launching this interesting topic.
I had not seen those early church writings prior.
If those writings were proved to be credible,
it would beg a lot of interesting questions
about the reliability of the Bible.

I can't see a way around that. Can you?

A plain reading of the Bible texts on this subject
lead us to conclude that Joseph had union with his wife
after Jesus was born, that Mary had other children,
both sons and daughters, and that the author of the
NT book James was one of Jesus' brothers.

 

[Windmillcharge]

Why do you say my evidence doesn't show Jesus's brothers and sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 weren't His siblings? Do you have evidence that shows Jesus's brothers and sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 were His siblings?

As I said the meaning of the word for brother or siblings depends upon context and the context is that they were his brothers/sisters.

 

[Sigma]

the scriptures plainly state that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary (his wife) until after Jesus was born

..."till".....which means that Mary and Joseph had a blessed marriage and more children as was expected in Jewish families of that time.

until 1 of 2 preposition​

1 : to

2 → used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a
specified time stayed until morning, e.g., stayed until morning

3 : before sense 2, e.g., not available until tomorrow; we don't open until ten

until 2 of 2 conjunction​

: up to the time that : up to such time as, e.g., play continued until it got dark;
never able to relax until he took up fishing; ran until she was breathless

You claim that Scripture "plainly states" in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph and Mary didn't have intercourse and more children until after Mary gave birth to Jesus, but it doesn't; rather, it states they didn't have intercourse "until she brought forth her firstborn son." The word "until" has multiple definitions, not only the one you're inferring by your insertion of the word "after." For the sake of argument, say the word "until" was used to mean Joseph and Mary had intercourse after Jesus's birth, that in itself wouldn't mean Mary bore more children because, for example, having vaginal intercourse doesn't lead to procreation for some men and women. In other words, sometimes the woman is barren or the man is sterile, etc.

Your interpretation that the gospel writer, after writing about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, basically threw in the tidbit, "After the birth of the Savior, Joseph had intercourse with Mary and 6+ more kids," at the end is quite random. It also isn't in line with the context of Matt. 1:20-25:

"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled that which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. And Joseph, rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took to him his wife. And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus."

The context of Matt. 1:25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father. In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to show what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, so as to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by him, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Why would implying Joseph had or didn't have intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth be relevant, when it's only about Jesus's paternal origin? It's not relevant, which is another reason why the definition of "until" that you're applying doesn't fit here, but rather "up to the time that," because it informs us what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, not what occurred after that point. The importance of Matt. 1:20-25 is that it primarily pertains to the messianic prophecy, not the sexual relationship, or lack thereof, between Joseph and Mary.

...physically speaking childbirth would have destroyed her virginity.

In a social and, in this case, spiritual sense, virginity is determined by whether or not there was intercourse. If you're referring to the breaking of the hymen, that's just a crude physical indicator that someone may have lost their virginity. In the modern era, we know that vaginal intercourse isn't the only way that a hymen can break, but we don't consider the women who experience this, for example, through physical trauma, to have lost their virginity.

Jesus had four brothers who are all named, and at least two sisters.

The context of Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 does show the meaning "kinsman," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, etc., applies to Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters. However, information needed to determine the type of kinship between Jesus and His kinsmen is lacking in those same verses and others. Do you have evidence that shows the type of kinship that applies between Jesus and Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 was that of siblings?

If Jesus' siblings were believers at the time of his death, he would have entrusted his widowed mother's care to the next oldest brother. Jesus had her spiritual welfare foremost at heart, hence choosing the apostle John to take her in after his death.

What evidence do you have that shows all of Jesus's alleged siblings were unbelievers, and that all of Jesus's alleged siblings being unbelievers was the reason He appointed His apostle, John of Zebedee, to be the guardian of Mary of Joseph prior to His death?

A barren woman in Israel was thought to have offended God in some way, because the bearing of children was seen as a gift from God.

Not only was Mary of Joseph not barren, but She conceived by God Himself and bore God Incarnate, the greatest gift. I know you currently don't agree with that, but we should discuss this in another thread.

That is also a matter of opinion...

It's a fact that Jesus is God Incarnate. Your post is an opinion, according to you, per your own signature: "What I post is my opinion only."

 

[Aunty Jane]

You said Scripture "plainly states" that Joseph and Mary didn't have intercourse until after She gave birth, but it doesn't; rather, it states "until she brought forth her firstborn son." The word "until" has more meanings than just the one you're inferring with your insertion of the word "after." Your finding it reasonable to believe that after the gospel writer wrote about this long-anticipated messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, they basically threw out "And then Joseph had intercourse with Mary after the Savior was born" randomly at the end is ironic, considering you think I'm the one who is narrow-minded about this. For the sake of argument, even if the word "until" was used to mean Joseph and Mary had intercourse post-birth of Jesus, that in itself wouldn't mean Mary bore more children, because for some men and women, vaginal intercourse doesn't lead to procreation. It also wouldn't be in line with the context of Matt. 1:20-25:

I really do believe that your desperation to believe what the scriptures do not teach or even infer, is proof that nothing will dissuade you from your Catholic belief....so be it. But the one gigantic elephant in the room is the fact that there is no statement in scripture that prohibited Mary from bearing siblings for her "firstborn" son. Why is it so important that she remained a married woman who was denied motherhood to other children? Why would God deny Joseph his marital rights and the ability to have his own children? Where will I find that information in the Bible? Your church made it up in order to conduct mother goddess worship under the guise of "Christianity".



Do you call this "Christianity"? Who said? Where would Jesus be in these scenes?
Would he be wearing the fancy robes and the funny hats?



This is exactly what Jesus foretold when he gave the parable of the "wheat and the weeds"....the devil was going to sow seeds of counterfeit Christianity and lead people away from Christ by lying to them. The devil has been lying to people from the beginning.....he has no new tricks. The majority have fallen for his lies as Jesus said......only "few" would be found on the cramped and narrow road to life. (Matt 7:13-14)

As Will Durant once said...."Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it."

There was NO valid reason for Mary to have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus....unless there is an unscriptural reason to insist on it? Do you have one? No one adores Mary like the Catholic church. She is given more attention than the son she gave birth to....God's son. In scripture there is no "immaculate conception" and no "bodily assumption" of Mary....that is all made up by the church.

The context of this section of Matt. 1 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who was bearing the Savior of mankind, conceived by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes this passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was the father. Therefore, the meaning of the word "until" that applies in "And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son" is "up to the time that," because it only informs us what Joseph and Mary didn't do up until a certain point, not what occurred after that point. The importance of Matt. 1:20-25 is that it primarily pertains to the messianic prophecy, not the sexual relationship, or lack thereof, between Joseph and Mary.

Are you hearing yourself? What scriptural gymnastics are you performing here?
The whole purpose of Jesus being born of a virgin was accomplished.....he came into the world as a human descendant of King David as the prophesy had stated....and after the birth of this very special human, sinless in every way as an exact equivalent of Adam, he was equipped to pay the redemption price for the human race.....a sinless life was lost...a sinless life was paid to get back what Adam had lost for his children.
Jesus is called "the last Adam" because he had to undo what Adam did.
1 Cor 15:45, 4....
"So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.". . . ."The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven."

You seem to have no idea why your church teaches that Mary was so important....because there is no scriptural reason to give her the status that she has attained in your religion. The Reformers knew that Catholicism had gone too far in their deviation from the simple teachings of the Christ, but they stubbornly hung onto them, just as the Pharisees did when Jesus spoke the truth to them, and about them. (Matt ch 23)
Yet the reformers foolishly took many of the teachings of Catholicism with them, which is why the whole of Christendom has been led astray. Their core teachings are found in all false religion around the world....triune gods, an immortal soul...and heaven or hell as opposite destinations....but none of that was taught in the Jewish religion which began on Mt Sinai with Moses as Mediator of the original covenant that God made with his chosen nation there, nor were those teachings found in Christianity, which had Jesus as mediator.

All of your beliefs are borrowed from the pagans or from first century Judaism, which Jesus rejected. You seem to have no clue about where your beliefs originated.....they certainly did not come from the Bible.

 

[Lambano]

In my previous post, I addressed your having claimed that Scripture "plainly states" in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph and Mary didn't have intercourse and more children until after Mary gave birth to Jesus, but it doesn't; rather, it states they didn't have intercourse "until she brought forth her firstborn son." The word "until" has multiple meanings,

Then you have to ask yourself, "If the intent is to establish Mary's perpetual virginity, why is Jesus's birth the termination point of the 'until' statement, rather than some other checkpoint like the end of Mary's natural lifespan?" The natural implication of using the baby's birth as the endpoint is that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a normal marital sexual relationship thereafter. Anything else forces an unnatural reading of the text.

That's just how language works.

 

[Ghada]

Reader, do you believe Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His siblings?

If so, consider the following:

(i) It's not stated in Scripture that Jesus had siblings, but rather "brothers."

​

Maybe not in the so-called scriptures of another Christian book of traditions and myths, but it certainly is stated in the Bible.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him

And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Of course the brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary were physical brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

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

Whether believers of unbelievers, anyone reading the words of the Bible, know Jesus had sisters and brothers by Mary and Joseph, who only came together to know one another as husband and wife, after Jesus was conceived and born of Mary.

They were the ones with Mary waiting outside for Jesus to come to them, as though they had special right to His time. That is when He began preaching the NT brothers and sisters, that do the will of God.

Paul talks about foolish questions asked solely for the purpose of causing strife and division in the body of Christ. We see such a case here. A question based upon unbelief is only used as a springboard to teach a Christian mythology about Mary, that is not found in the Bible.

It's the same case with those that ask if the Word was God, in order to teach another created christ, rather than the true God Jesus Christ.

 

[Sigma]

Then you have to ask yourself, "If the intent is to establish Mary's perpetual virginity, why is Jesus's birth the termination point of the 'until' statement, rather than some other checkpoint like the end of Mary's natural lifespan?" The natural implication of using the baby's birth as the endpoint is that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a normal marital sexual relationship thereafter. Anything else forces an unnatural reading of the text.

That's just how language works.

The context of Matt. 1:25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father. In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to show what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, so as to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by him, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Why would implying Joseph had or didn't have intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth be relevant, when it's only about Jesus's paternal origin? It's not relevant, which is another reason why the definition of "until" that you're applying doesn't fit here, but rather "up to the time that," because it informs us what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, not what occurred after that point. The importance of Matt. 1:20-25 is that it primarily pertains to the messianic prophecy, not the sexual relationship, or lack thereof, between Joseph and Mary.

 

[Sigma]

...it certainly is stated in the Bible.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him

The words "brother" and "sister" have multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman," etc. The context of Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 does show the meaning "kinsman," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, etc., applies to Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters. However, information needed to determine the type of kinship between Jesus and His kinsmen and kinswomen is lacking in those same verses and others.

In the opening post, I've provided evidence that confirms Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, and shows that the type of kinship between them and Jesus was that of cousins, not siblings as you believe. This was accomplished primarily by identifying James.

Whether believers of unbelievers, anyone reading the words of the Bible, know Jesus had sisters and brothers by Mary and Joseph, who only came together to know one another as husband and wife, after Jesus was conceived and born of Mary.

The context of Matt. 1:25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father. In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to show what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, so as to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by him, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Why would implying Joseph had or didn't have intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth be relevant, when it's only about Jesus's paternal origin? It's not relevant, which is another reason why the definition of "until" that you're applying doesn't fit here, but rather "up to the time that," because it informs us what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, not what occurred after that point. The importance of Matt. 1:20-25 is that it primarily pertains to the messianic prophecy, not the sexual relationship, or lack thereof, between Joseph and Mary.