And this is what the Greek Orthodox Church has to say about that:
Another objection to the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is that the Scriptures use the word “until” or “till” in Matthew 1:25: “. . . and [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.” Whereas in English the word “until” necessarily indicates change after the fact, in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. For instance, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42–46), Matthew 11:23 and 28:20, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word “until” indicate a necessary change. If it did, then apparently among other things we would be meant to understand that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unhappy date in the future He intends to abandon the Church!
Incidentally, it also refers to Jesus as Mary's firstborn (prototokon) son. The implication is that there was also a second born. Since Jesus's brother's and sisters are mentioned in Scripture as well, it is within reason to take this to mean that at least some of these were Mary's biological children
Okay, let's see what the Greek Church has to say about that:
Another objection might be based on the word “firstborn,” prototokos in Greek. The problem again is that the Greek word is not identical in semantic range to the English rendering. The English “firstborn” usually (though, it must be said, not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of prototokos in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a “second-born” Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly “first in all things.” To the contemporary ear, a better translation might indeed be “heir,” which is similarly silent on the subject of other children and carries the same legal and poetic force that is intended by “firstborn.”
You fail to notice that Christ said "Woman behold your son" at the Cross as He gave His Mother to the care of +John. He would have never done that if He had had any blood siblings. Anything else is just plain absurd.
Now you guys can go on an congratulate each other on "irrefutable evidence," a P-Marlow triumphantly observes, to your hearts' content.
Grammar books would tell you that American don't speak and write English correctly, but that's how they speak and write, Blogger. That's the living language that everyone understands, even if it makes "no sense!" People who speak the language define it; not cold grammar books no one follows.
I trust that the Greek Church knows the living liturgical New Testament Greek better than lifeless grammar books, because that's the official language of the Church used at vespers and Divine Liturgies, and has been in an unbroken fashion since Greeks became Christians, fully preserved in its entirety.
If you don't agree with it, as obviously you don't, then state so and move on. (I believe the former part has already been accomplished, so I wonder why the lingering as if that is going to change anything...you know, like eos).
Kosta-
Congratulations on having a "ready answer" for such an objection. However, the Greek Orthodox church has the same dog in the race that the Catholic church does - and therefore, is not exactly beyond question concerning this issue. If someone will actually look up the lexicon link that I provided, it acknowledges that there are several usages of eos in Scripture. It spells them out. For this particular verse in Matthew, the usage is until the time when and with the relative pronoun ou it gets the force of a conjunction. I do believe the lexicon is Thayers in this case.
Concerning firstborn, I also take issue with their interpretation. First, what they imply is that the Bible says Jesus was the firstbegotten Word of God. That isn't what the verse says. Rather, it says "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." They are pushing an agenda with that interpretation (and don't think that these writers don't in their commentaries which is essentially what you've given me as infallible Greek logic). Second, I disagree in that Scripture says that Jesus gave us power to become the sons of God. Jesus is also called the firstborn of many brethren. In either case, he isn't an only child for we have been adopted by the Father (Galatians 4:5)through the sacrifice of Jesus our Lord.
Now, you can turn that to say, well Mary adopted Joseph's children. Such is eisegesis, but you could say that if you wish. Just recognize, the text does not say that she and Joseph did NOT consumate their relationship (it strongly implies that they did) or have children together. (again, it is an understanding outside of the norm that says that they were cousins or children of Joseph's from another marriage).