I believe that the foundation for that view is not the Greek, but rather the Hebrew. Even though the scritpures were written in Greek, they were written mostly by Hebrew people and reflected a Hebrew culture. If a person hears Hebrew people calling a person a brother in their language he would likely write, even in Greek, using that same term. That is how I have understood the issue anyway.
But, we shouldn’t forget that if Joseph had children before marrying the Blessed Virgin then his children would have been considered brothers of Jesus. I believe this is the most ancient tradition regarding the Holy Family.
Look at this verse:
Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
You do realize I hope, that ‘the knew her’ comment is a ‘knowing in a Carnel sense’ right?
You are reading into the verse regarding “until.” In John 9.18 we read:
"The Jews then did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight."
This is the same word, donec, that is used in the verse you reference in Matthew. And if you read further you will see clearly that the Jews also didn’t believe after they called his parents. The word until, donec, does not refer to what happens later.
The idea that Mary was ‘ever Virgin’ is absurd. Why would God have given her in Marriage?? Joseph was a true ‘husband’, and hence he knew his wife in that way. Otherwise, she would have been single or ‘ever single’.
By your suggestion, if by some accident St. Joseph had been incapable of “knowing” his wife then he offered nothing to the relationship. But you ignore all that St. Joseph did for our Lord and his Mother in his life. Personally, I think an understanding that implies outside of carnal relations he had no reason for marriage actually sells him very short. Very, very short.
Its not a salvation issue, so I am not concerned with whether or not she was, or was not ‘Ever Virgin’, my concern is the poor exegesis this doctrine brings with it.
And all because some Pope centuries ago said thats the way it is. But then again, here is another crazy doctrine that leads to all sorts of problems for well meaning Catholic believers.
Which Pope do you mean? The Blessed Virgin Mary is held to be Ever Virgin by all of the historic Church, both East and West. It is throughout the Fathers and the historic liturgies and hymns.
And for those who think this is just more Marian stuff, please consider that these things actually bear completely on our view of Christ. It is because of our belief that Christ is truly God Almighty that we do not consider it possible that she was anything other than Ever Virgin. This really isn’t about the Blessed Virgin Mary at all, but all about our Lord. Just look at the verse I cited at the beginning of the thread. It is about the holiness of God, not the holiness of the gate.