Jesus was her firstborn Son according to Matthew and Luke. James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon were His brothers according to the Gospels. James was his brother according to Paul. Jude was James' brother according to Jude.
The "preeminent Protestant Reformers" were wrong on this one and were influenced by their former Catholicism. The Bible mentions no other wives for Joseph. The Bible doesn't mention that Joseph had children by any other wives. Jesus's brothers and sisters travelled with Mary. They were her children. She was with his brothers in the upper room. She was with his brothers and sisters when they went to look for him. She knew not Joseph until Jesus was born, but then they were a normal married couple enjoying what God has ordained as holy in the context of marriage.
Sorry. But we will not make Mary into being anything more that Scripture portrays her as and I don't care what "the Church" said. Where the Church contradicts Scripture (and you really really have to twist and turn to make this into anything other than a contradiction) rejection of the Church's saying must be in order.
Firstborn is a Jewish legal term that in no way implies any further children. The other men you speak of were probably cousins who may have been raised by the Holy Family. Still, none of them are called sons of Mary or Joseph. Nobody disputes that James and Jude were brothers. As for Joseph it is completely out of keeping with Judaic tradition to name children after their fathers, this is a distinctly Christian tradition, so this is further evidence that he was not a natural brother to our Lord.
John Wesley was one of the Reformers who extolled the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother, he was not "influenced by his former Catholicism."
When Jesus was missing in the Temple, it is quite clear that His parents went looking for him. There is no mention of siblings. There is no mention of these other people travelling with Mary. When you are charged with the care and upbringing of the Son of God, your relationship is by definition going to be decidedly ABNORMAL.
As far as your other contentions, the Church has never accepted Luther's Sixteenth Century invention of sola scriptura. I am no more bound by Luther's beliefs than I am the tenets of Muhammad.
Amen, Blogger. We are not afraid to say that the men we respect were fully fallible and subject to error. That is no shame on them, it just means they were fully human. We know when they were right based on scripture.