Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[thetazlord]

Ok, we get that you’re not Catholic.

That’s not my point. My point was to address “where” this “tradition” that Mary remained a virgin her whole life & that the “brothers” of Jesus were sons of Joseph from an “alleged” previous marriage - Proto-James, not Scripture, which supports that the “brothers” of Jesus were His half-brothers, not older step-brothers:

If you haven’t done so already, please refer to my reply to SteveVH:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12683200#post12683200

 

[wmscott]

If this is true, then please show me – explicitly – in Scripture “where” it states that Mary “remained” a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus, just as God spells out – explicitly – that the mother of the Messiah was to be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT the His birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:25). Remember, since the OP is about Mary “remaining” a virgin after Jesus’ birth, I don’t have to prove a negative (that Mary obeyed God’s COMMAND to married couples to “be fruitful & multiply”). You have to prove your assertion that she “remained” a virgin, since Scripture NEVER gives a command for the mother of our Savior to “remain” a virgin after His birth. And as far as the “evidence” that you’ve been provided, I can’t do anything about the fact that you reject it. It sounds more like since the evidence – from Scripture – that you reject is because that Scriptural evidence contradicts your already personal “belief.” So, it’s really an authority issue – the Word of God vs. you.

Since this has been Church teaching since its beginning and defended by the Church from the beginning it’s on you to “show me – explicitly – in Scripture “where” it states that Mary “did not remain” a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus. The fact is you can’t, all you can do is provide you opinion from your flawed personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

You still have not answer the question, which was “You say you only believe what is in the Bible yet for the most part whenever you refer to the Mother of God you only refer to Her as “Mary” I do not see where you refer to her as “Blessed”. Why is that? The Bible says that all generations will call Her Blessed. Yet you do not, are you picking and choosing what you believe”

 

[thetazlord]

Since this has been Church teaching since its beginning and defended by the Church from the beginning it’s on you to “show me – explicitly – in Scripture “where” it states that Mary “did not remain” a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus. The fact is you can’t, all you can do is provide you opinion from your flawed personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

I understand that has been “Church teaching.” That isn’t my issue. We’re discussing SCRIPTURE. So, any “tradition” - no matter “who” it’s from - needs to be compared TO Scripture, since it’s the Word of God & CAN’T be wrong, like men’s “beliefs” can be wrong (including those of Peter’s - Galatians 2:11). And as I said, I don’t have to prove a negative (that Mary “did not” remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus). Since any command from God for Mary to “remain” one is completely absent from Scripture, then the burden of proof is on you - not me - to make that assertion. Plus, I’ve demonstrated from Scripture that the confusion comes from confusing Jesus’ family dynamics from the number of women at the cross (FOUR, not THREE), because it confuses the fact that there were TWO sets of “James & Joseph’s” that were brothers, not ONE pair. Refer to my other reply for clarity:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12683200#post12683200

You still have not answer the question, which was “You say you only believe what is in the Bible yet for the most part whenever you refer to the Mother of God you only refer to Her as “Mary” I do not see where you refer to her as “Blessed”. Why is that? The Bible says that all generations will call Her Blessed. Yet you do not, are you picking and choosing what you believe”

 

[thetazlord]

You still have not answer the question, which was “You say you only believe what is in the Bible yet for the most part whenever you refer to the Mother of God you only refer to Her as “Mary” I do not see where you refer to her as “Blessed”. Why is that? The Bible says that all generations will call Her Blessed. Yet you do not, are you picking and choosing what you believe”

This is a Red Herring that has nothing to do with the OP. Please stay on topic & not purposefully divert from it. Open a separate thread if you want to discuss this.

 

[wmscott]

I understand that has been “Church teaching.” That isn’t my issue. We’re discussing SCRIPTURE. So, any “tradition” - no matter “who” it’s from - needs to be compared TO Scripture, since it’s the Word of God & CAN’T be wrong, like men’s “beliefs” can be wrong (including those of Peter’s - Galatians 2:11). And as I said, I don’t have to prove a negative (that Mary “did not” remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus). Since any command from God for Mary to “remain” one is completely absent from Scripture, then the burden of proof is on you - not me - to make that assertion. Plus, I’ve demonstrated from Scripture that the confusion comes from confusing Jesus’ family dynamics from the number of women at the cross (FOUR, not THREE), because it confuses the fact that there were TWO sets of “James & Joseph’s” that were brothers, not ONE pair. Refer to my other reply for clarity:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12683200#post12683200

You still have not answer the question, which was “You say you only believe what is in the Bible yet for the most part whenever you refer to the Mother of God you only refer to Her as “Mary” I do not see where you refer to her as “Blessed”. Why is that? The Bible says that all generations will call Her Blessed. Yet you do not, are you picking and choosing what you believe”

You are trying to prove to every Catholic on this site that they are wrong, that the Catholic teaching on the Blessed mother is wrong, that the ECF’s teachings on the Blessed mother is wrong, and that all of Christianity that believes in the Blessed mothers perpetual virginity are wrong. So yes “YOU” have to “Explicitly” prove we all got it wrong.

 

[wmscott]

This is a Red Herring that has nothing to do with the OP. Please stay on topic & not purposefully divert from it. Open a separate thread if you want to discuss this.

It goes to your understanding motive regarding Scripture and the Blessed mother. To me it seems that you want to put forth one argument and when you are challenged on one of your statements it is your practice to divert from it and cite it’s not what the OP is about.

 

[thetazlord]

wmscott:
You are trying to prove to every Catholic on this site that they are wrong, that the Catholic teaching on the Blessed mother is wrong, that the ECF’s teachings on the Blessed mother is wrong, and that all of Christianity that believes in the Blessed mothers perpetual virginity are wrong. So yes “YOU” have to “Explicitly” prove we all got it wrong.

No, I’m trying to emphasize that since Scripture is God-breathed, then Scripture is RIGHT, & therefore SCRIPTURE can’t be wrong. This has nothing to do with anyone “teaches.” This has to do with did the “Mary” of Scripture “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus. And the answer is, based on SCRIPTURE, no she didn’t. SCRIPTURE supports that she had other children with her legally married HUSBAND after the birth of Jesus.

 

[thetazlord]

It goes to your understanding motive regarding Scripture and the Blessed mother. To me it seems that you want to put forth one argument and when you are challenged on one of your statements it is your practice to divert from it and cite it’s not what the OP is about.

No, rather I’m attempting to obey forum rules. You are purposely trying to disregard them by bringing up unrelated topics instead of starting a new thread - again, which is what forum rules instruct us to do. Now, if you want to concede that you can’t defend YOUR “interpretation” of Scripture, that’s fine. But at the very least, could you at least link to the post I wrote, in response to your specific question of mine? If you don’t that doesn’t say much about your willingness to find out whether or not SCRIPTURE supports if Mary had other children.

 

[wmscott]

I guess there is no getting through to some folks, I am not going to waste any more of my time. I am good with what the Catholic teachings are, knowing that they are based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tridition.

“Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them”

 

[clem456]

Because anything Inspired (God-breathed) CAN’T utter a false-hood.
…

Right, because human beings aren’t human evidently. :whacky:

Think about how ridiculous this assertion is:

You profess that only Scripture is inspired, but yet human beings wrote scripture, and they can’t be inspired, because human beings utter falsehoods, and “anything inspired can’t utter a falsehood”.
And notice your use of the word anything in relation to human beings, which honestly is frightening

Whatever you say.

 

[HelenRose]

You are trying to prove to every Catholic on this site that they are wrong, that the Catholic teaching on the Blessed mother is wrong, that the ECF’s teachings on the Blessed mother is wrong, and that all of Christianity that believes in the Blessed mothers perpetual virginity are wrong. So yes “YOU” have to “Explicitly” prove we all got it wrong.

“remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus. And the answer is, based on SCRIPTURE, no she didn’t. SCRIPTURE supports that she had other children with her legally married HUSBAND after the birth of Jesus.

Where were her other sons when she was at the foot of the cross? Surely they would have been there and scripture would have mentioned it if they had been there. The scripture made no reference of her other sons wanting to be with her.

Why would Jesus and his siblings not have taken care that Mary was safe in one of their homes when the mobs were screaming “Crucify Him.” Jesus knew what was going to happen. No good son would have put his mother in so much danger and turmoil if he had had brother to take care of her. A good son would have seen to it that she would have been with one of her other children.

Her children would have protected her if they had existed.

Why did Mary go and live with John after Jesus’ death and resurrection instead of one of her other children?

The only scriptural argument for Mary having other sons is the word “brethren” which meant relatives in that language. There was not a separate word for brother and cousin. That particular “scriptural” argument can easily be explained by either: Joseph had sons from a previous marriage or that they were cousins of Jesus.

It still boils down as to whose interpretation you or I accept of God’s Holy Word. I accept the interpretation of Christ’s One Only Church - the Holy Catholic Church. The reasoning of the Catholic Church makes the most sense. All the other interpretations are scattered through more than 30,000 denominations in the U.S. alone. Each denomination making up their interpretations as they go along.

 

[YADA]

We know Jesus isn’t the “natural” son of Joseph because Scripture STATES that he’s not (“as was supposed”)(Luke 3:23). And, no, it’s not Scripturally “possible” that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s, because Scripture neither supports that, plus it creates too many Scriptural problems, such as where were these older STEP-brothers on the Mary & Joseph’s trek to Bethlehem for the census, or to Temple for Jesus to be “given up to the Lord,” or the flee to Egypt, or back to Nazareth, or in the caravan when Jesus was at the Temple when He was 12, or where were THEY when Jesus was dying & entrusted His mother to one of them, instead of His cousin & faithful disciple, John? Likewise, Scripture supports that the brothers of Jesus are His half-brothers, but it requires more than a SINGLE verse to demonstrate this. Refer to my reply to SteveVH:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12683200#post12683200

Then the two are at odds …both passages are not correct…

A d no passage states Mary gave birth to any other children.

 

[Erich]

I’m not an Arian, & neither is the subject of the OP. Besides Arians violated sola scriptura, & ignored numerous passages of Scripture, supported by the Greek, that describe the Trinity in the same way you & I do, so what’s your point?

My point is that you are twisting Scripture to your own destruction. I ask again: Did the Apostles teach different things to different people? Of course not. The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across.

In fact, Jesus and the Apostles demanded conformity to the doctrines they taught. Paul to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, wrote that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3). Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.

So… why is it that Catholics (and Orthodox, for that matter) teach that Mary is the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Queen of Heaven, the New Eve, Most Holy, Ever-Virgin, etc, and **pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations teach different doctrines one from another? Why is it okay to not have doctrinal conformity amongst the various denominations? How can anyone think that the lack of doctrinal conformity could in any way be of God? **

In 1 Tim 4:1, Paul even states that there will be those who fall away from the faith by believing false doctrines. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ. It teaches the truth and nothing but the truth, unless one believes that the true Body of Christ can teach error. Also, Scripture tells us Satan is the father of all lies. So, if there is false doctrine, that doctrine is the spawn of Satan, and believing something that is of Satan would never meet with the approval of the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church.

 

[Erich]

Christ found a visible Church, but the identification of the Church isn’t based on “succession”

Why would Jesus want to leave His Church with no one in authority – and no way to pass on that authority? How could He be that dumb?

You might want to read the essay By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors (which shows the Scriptural requirements for claiming to be a “pastor,” and asks the honest Protestant to see if he measures up).

…
Scripture shows that only the Apostles are “entrusted” with the care of the Gospel message:

• St. Paul
• “…they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”(Gal. 2:7)
• “…in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:19)
• “…in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Tim. 1:11)

• St. Timothy
• “Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)
• “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)
• “…guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:14)

You may object at this point that St. Timothy was not an apostle. I will concede that he was not an “Apostle,” with a capital “A,” but you must concede that Scripture clearly calls St. Timothy an apostle, thereby attesting to his apostolic authority:“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6) It is not only St. Timothy who is called an apostle by Sacred Scripture, but also St. Barnabus, Apollos, and St. Titus:St. Barnabus"But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude…" (Acts 14:14) Apollos"I planted, Apollos watered… He who plants and he who waters are equal." (1 Cor. 3:6, 8) “I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren… For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death.” (1 Cor. 4:6,9) The objection will be raised: Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle. I reply, it is implicit in what kind of authority is accorded to the apostles. Scripture testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are called “apostles”) with what is said of St. Titus:St. Paul"…nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ." (1 Thess. 2:6) St. Timothy"As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…" (1 Tim. 1:3) “Command and teach these things.” (1 Tim. 4:11) “Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” (2 Tim. 2:14) St. Titus"This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." (Tit.1:5) “Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Tit. 2:15) “…our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him.” (2 Cor. 7:14-15) …
There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

After you’ve read the essay, answer the following questions: By what authority do your ministers claim their office? By succession? If so, can they demonstrate that they were called by a superior authority (who himself had a legitimate claim to his office)? By extraordinary calling? If so, can they show the required signs and wonders that authenticate their ministry? Are you certain that the one who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities?

 

[thetazlord]

Right, because human beings aren’t human evidently. :whacky:

Think about how ridiculous this assertion is:

You profess that only Scripture is inspired, but yet human beings wrote scripture, and they can’t be inspired, because human beings utter falsehoods, and “anything inspired can’t utter a falsehood”.
And notice your use of the word anything in relation to human beings, which honestly is frightening

Whatever you say.

So, what are you saying - that human beings themselves are infallible? Then you just elevated human beings to the level of God, and even above Peter himself who stood “condemned” by Paul for uttering a falsehood (Galatians 2:11). The reason why Peter was able to utter a falsehood (demonstrating that people - even in the Church - are not infallible), while at the same time write infallible, God-breathed Scripture, was because God the Holy Spirit guided him (2 Peter 1:20-21). Yet, at the same time despite writing infallible Scripture, Peter remained “fallible” as noted by Paul. Therefore, in order to discern if a teaching - even in the Church - is “infallible” - it needs to be compared TO “infallible” Scripture. And the teaching that Mary DIDN’T “remain” a virgin her whole life & that she had children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus is supported BY “infallible” God-breathed Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

Where were her other sons when she was at the foot of the cross? Surely they would have been there and scripture would have mentioned it if they had been there. The scripture made no reference of her other sons wanting to be with her.

Why would Jesus and his siblings not have taken care that Mary was safe in one of their homes when the mobs were screaming “Crucify Him.” Jesus knew what was going to happen. No good son would have put his mother in so much danger and turmoil if he had had brother to take care of her. A good son would have seen to it that she would have been with one of her other children.

Her children would have protected her if they had existed.

Why did Mary go and live with John after Jesus’ death and resurrection instead of one of her other children?

The only scriptural argument for Mary having other sons is the word “brethren” which meant relatives in that language. There was not a separate word for brother and cousin. That particular “scriptural” argument can easily be explained by either: Joseph had sons from a previous marriage or that they were cousins of Jesus.

You have the same problem with these “brothers” being Jesus’ older step-brothers from an “alleged” previous marriage of Joseph, but more: where were “they” when Jesus was dying & entrusted Mary to John (his cousin)? Where were “they” when Joseph & Mary journeyed to Bethlehem for the census? Or consecrated the Baby Jesus at the Temple? Or the flight to Egypt? Or the return to Nazareth? Or not mentioned when Jesus was 12? You have MANY more Scriptural problems with them being older step-brothers than younger half-brothers.

But to answer your question, as John 7:3-5 states, His “brothers” did NOT believe in Him during His public ministry. This is why they weren’t at the cross - not because they didn’t exist. And as Jesus mentioned DURING His public ministry, He discerned between His familial brothers & His heavenly believing “brothers” (Matthew 12:46-50) - John being one of them, & the ONLY faithful heavenly “brother,” disciple, AND male family member of Jesus at the cross. “That” is why He entrusted Mary to John - Jesus LITERAL family AND spiritual “family.”

It still boils down as to whose interpretation you or I accept of God’s Holy Word. I accept the interpretation of Christ’s One Only Church - the Holy Catholic Church. The reasoning of the Catholic Church makes the most sense. All the other interpretations are scattered through more than 30,000 denominations in the U.S. alone. Each denomination making up their interpretations as they go along.

No, it “boils down” to an accurate view of Scripture that is based on NOT “imputing” a preconceived person “interpretation” which is avoided if that view is based on Scripture alone. Not basing it on this & instead “imputing” a view not found in Scripture (such as Mary remaining a virgin her whole life) is why there are varying views of “who” these “brothers” are - even within the Catholic church herself (older step-brothers, cousins, other relatives, etc). BTW, there ARE Greek words in the NT that are USED for “cousins,” “relatives,” & “kinsfolk” (“syggenes,” “syggenis,” “anepsios,” etc), that the Gospel writers could have used, but didn’t. Compare Mark 6:3 that uses “adelphos” vs. Mark 6:4 that uses “syggenes.” If Mark had meant the “brothers” were actually His “relatives,” he would have used “syggenes” in v.3 rather than “adelphos.” The number of denominations (which 30,000 is a GROSS exaggeration) is irrelevant, which only demonstrate that they too are “ADDING” their “beliefs” to Scripture that aren’t there.

 

[thetazlord]

Then the two are at odds …both passages are not correct…

A d no passage states Mary gave birth to any other children.

Then what are you saying, that God-breathed Scripture is wrong? That’s it’s in error? Then it can’t be God-breathed, otherwise that’s like saying GOD is wrong. Is this your position? Again, it’s when you consider the family dynamics of Scripture - ALL Scripture - that deals with Christ’s family that you realize there are TWO “James & Joseph’s” - not ONE, & then you are able to piece together that the “James & Joseph” who are also listed with the other two “brothers” of Jesus (Simon & Judas), along with at least 2 sisters, are Jesus’ half-siblings.

 

[zz912]

You might be interested in my posts to zz912 where I address her “heos” arguments that she didn’t quite investigate on herself:

Her?

I’m a man.

 

[thetazlord]

My point is that you are twisting Scripture to your own destruction. I ask again: Did the Apostles teach different things to different people? Of course not. The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across.

In fact, Jesus and the Apostles demanded conformity to the doctrines they taught. Paul to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, wrote that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3). Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.

So… why is it that Catholics (and Orthodox, for that matter) teach that Mary is the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Queen of Heaven, the New Eve, Most Holy, Ever-Virgin, etc, and **pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations teach different doctrines one from another? Why is it okay to not have doctrinal conformity amongst the various denominations? How can anyone think that the lack of doctrinal conformity could in any way be of God? **

In 1 Tim 4:1, Paul even states that there will be those who fall away from the faith by believing false doctrines. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ. It teaches the truth and nothing but the truth, unless one believes that the true Body of Christ can teach error. Also, Scripture tells us Satan is the father of all lies. So, if there is false doctrine, that doctrine is the spawn of Satan, and believing something that is of Satan would never meet with the approval of the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church.

In order to obey forum rules, I can’t address “why” they teach all this. All I can do is address the OP & point out what Scripture states & supports without “adding” my opinion to it. Unlike the Trinity that only requires a couple of verses to prove (Matthew 28:19, cf. Matthew 3:16; 2 Timothy 13:14; etc), in order to realize that the “brothers” of Jesus are His half-brothers, it requires a little more work with more than just a couple of passages of Scripture. When you examine ALL of these passages (not just a “select” few) you realize from Scripture ALONE, that they are Jesus’ half-brothers. Therefore, any interpretation that “ADDS” to Scripture “who” they are (such as the interpretation of the false ‘gospel’ of Proto-James) is incorrect, because this “ADDED” view conflicts with what Scripture actually supports.

 

[zz912]

First, when Jesus “breathed” on His disciples this was still WEEKS before the Church was established at Pentecost. And if you read the surrounding passages, Jesus “breathed” on them for a specific purpose.

What was this purpose, and please only answer from Scripture.

Also, keep in mind that if “breathing” on the **pre-**Church makes them “Inspired,” then anything they would say or do after that would have to be true. If this is the case, they “why” did Paul have to “condemn Peter to his face” (Galatians 2:11) for siding with the Judaizers? This only proves that even the Church - including Jesus’ disciples, including Peter - isn’t “God-breathed” in the context that Paul uses it in 2 Timothy 3:16. Because anything Inspired (God-breathed) CAN’T utter a false-hood. Peter did, which Paul points out.

What was this falsehood that Peter uttered? Chapter and verse please.

Therefore, since Scripture ONLY calls Scripture Inspired (God-breathed) in the context Paul uses it, then Scripture can’t utter falsehood about whether or not Mary had children after Jesus’ birth. And Inspired (God-breathed) Scripture supports that Mary not only lost her virginity to her HUSBAND, but the further evidence this is true, is because Scripturally, the “brothers” of Jesus are His half-brothers. Ergo, Jesus can’t have half-brothers, if His earthly mother is still a virgin, since Joseph wasn’t His natural father.

You really don’t understand the idea of covenant, or how God means it. When you enter a covenant, you BECOME a member of that family, period, end of story. So any children of Joseph ARE would be half-siblings of Jesus. End of story.