Not until in it's grammatical context and not Firstborn in its literal sense. You have spoken about the rights of the firstborn - but with Israel and with Isaac, there were literally those who were the firstborn (Esau and Reuben). There were other children. Still, pointing to the Old Testament to try to wiggle out of the meaning of the Greek is a little iffy in and of itself.
Prototokon comes from the greek meaning (1st in a sequence... and brought forth from the womb). Yes, there are other meanings to Protos but they don't affect Jesus' being the eldest Son of others of Mary. For example, one meaning is preiminent. The one deserving most honor. If there is one deserving more honor - it implies others deserving less.
Luke did not use ONLY Son. He said FIRSTBORN Son. If Jesus were Mary's only Son, then the rights of the firstborn are His because He has no competitors to His estate. He is God's Only Begotten Son. No competitors. No questions. He is Mary's Firstborn Son. In terms of her estate, there would have to be a legal precedence set up. Jesus was her firstborn Son. He had brothers. He had sisters. They had names.
Paul speaks of them
1 Corinthians 9:5
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?
Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
Sorry. Scripture is not on the side of Mary's perpetual virginity.
And therefore, bringing the discussion back to the subject of the thread. If the Catholics who are upset wish us to apologize for showing Mary as the biblical Mary and not the Catholic Mary then sorry, an apology will NOT be forthcoming.
None of that refutes what I said: that these verses are fully compatible with Mary having no other children.
If there is one deserving more honor - it implies others deserving less.
No. Otherwise every only male child would not be "prwtotokon", and would not have the rights and privileges of the firstborn. But every only male child *did* have those rights. Therefore, your conclusion is a non sequitur.
Luke did not use ONLY Son. He said FIRSTBORN Son.
True, but trying to use the former claim as evidence that Jesus had 'uterine brothers' is to commit the fallacy of the argument from silence.
He had brothers. He had sisters.
Indeed He did, but nothing in Scripture shows that they were 'uterine brothers and uterine sisters'.
Paul speaks of them 1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ? Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
You are assuming, without any Scriptural evidence, that these are references to 'uterine brothers'. Assumptions don't do evidential work.
Scripture is not on the side of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Scripture is perfectly compatible with Mary's perpetual virginity. You have not a single shred of evidence that is incompatible with Mary's perpetual virginity.
-A8