Sure He did.
Mary had other children.
Luke 2:4-7 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
Pretty sure a doctor can count and knows the difference between *only son* and *firstborn son*.
first-born: A legal term linked with a son’s social standing and rights of inheritance ref: Deuteronomy 21:15–17.
It does not imply that Mary had other children after Jesus, only that she had none before him
For example, as the only begotten One, Jesus is also the first-born Son of the Father. ref Jn 1:18 and again in Colossians 1:15.
Or you would be saying that the only begotten son of God had brothers and sisters when he became the Incarnate son of Mary perhaps?
Your scriptural argument is rather weak, because elsewhere in reference to Jesus the First-born son is more a mark of distinction re: Judeo inheritance rights and obligations rather than an emphasis purely on the sequence of birth.
Or might you be saying that Paul and John claimed in the above that God the Father was also the Father of more than one Son? Perhaps Jesus is only the First Son, and the Second Son is now the Holy Spirit, who should be called the Second Son of God, or maybe there exists more sons of God. Perhaps We shouldn’t say Trinity but Quadrinity or Polynimity? Absurd
Why aren’t you answering any of my questions?
FWIW: The notation in my Geneva Bible: “Christ here is called the first borne, because she had never none before, and not in respect of any she had after.”