I see what you are saying here. But I think you have your argument wrong. It isn’t about the word brother not meaning brother. The argument is that there was no word for cousin. So the word brother could mean cousin or relative or even spiritual brother.
I just wanted to point out that this is why your arguments are so weak.
but when most of the N.T. uses this Greek word for brother, (meaning brother), while the passage about Mary’s children becomes an exception, even though it is the exact same Greek word.
You are arguing that The word adelphous means brother in other parts of scripture. Yes we agree. However, you are claiming we are laying down and stupid if we don’t believe that it also means brother in the passage about Mary.
Can you see the stupidity of your argument???
You used the word “MOST” in your argument.
The word most means many or much. It doesn’t mean all. In your argument you’ve already admitted that their are exceptions to the rule. You’ve already admitted that adelphous doesn’t mean brother every time it is used in the Bible.
Wouldn’t you actually be the one who is laying down and being stupid for blindly following what you were told, without weighing all other aspects of the Bible as well as historical and cultural facts of the day?
Feel free to look this up on your own, in the Jewish encyclopedia, if you don’t believe me.
After betrothal the parties were regarded as man and wife; and the act could be dissolved only by death or by a formal bill of divorce. If the woman proved unfaithful during the period of betrothal she was treated as an adulteress, and her punishment (that of stoning; Deut. xxii. 23, 24; Sanh. 66b) was considered to be much more severe than that (strangulation) inflicted upon the unfaithful married woman (Deut. xxii. 22; Sanh. 52b). The parties were not, however, entitled to conjugal rights, nor were they bound by the obligations of married life (see Husband and Wife).
Mary and Joseph were betrothed.
Mary was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Even though it was an act of God it was not Joseph’s child so under the law she was considered an adulteress. That’s why scripture tells us Joseph was going to divorce her quietly.
Under the law Joseph had one other option he could keep her as his wife, but had to give up his conjugal rights.
Joseph was a righteous man. He would have never broken the Mosaic laws.
Not to mention. Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Can you honestly say you would have no problem using Jesus entrance to the world to satisfy your sexual pleasure?
Dude come on think about it. If Jesus came to diner at my house I don’t think I would ever wash the wine glass he drank from, let alone use it as my own.