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
EVERYTHING I have said has shown Scripture to be incompatible with Mary's perpetual virginity.
I have spent hours now trying to argue with people who refuse to see the plain meaning of Scripture. I have shown you the Greek. You put your fingers in Your ears and click your tongues and say it doesn't say what it says. I can't argue with someone who recognizes neither the ACTUAL WORDS OF SCRIPTURE and basic logic.
Go your way. You have been shown the truth but like Israel you plug up your ears that you can not hear it. I only hope one day you are in a place where Mary herself will correct you of the delusion.