Translation issue.
...and Joseph refraining from intercourse UNTIL the birth of Jesus...
Which says nothing about AFTER the birth of Jesus.
...and Jesus being the firstborn...
Which does not say there were others, only that He was the first (none before Him).
“Translation issue.”
No. The words mean the same in Greek and English.
“Which says nothing about AFTER the birth of Jesus.”
Does it PROVE it beyond any possibility of exception? No. Does the normal meaning of the word indicate a change afterward? Yes.
“Which does not say there were others, only that He was the first (none before Him).”
Again, prove beyond doubt? No. An indicator? Yes.
I’m not saying the scripture cannot be interpreted in any other way. Nor will anyone burn in hell for believing she remained a virgin. By all means - if you wish to believe it, go ahead. I can’t stop you, nor do I have great interest in doing so. Luther continued to do so, probably because of the emotions the mention of Mary generated in him, as did Calvin.
However, the first line of the posted article reads, “There is absolutely ho [sic] historical evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children.”
That is just silly. Someone may want to cast doubt on what the Gospels say, or offer a different interpretation, but it is silly to say there is NO evidence of the contrary view. Those of us who believe otherwise are not making up the passages that create our belief.