I am not adding because I agree that the scripture does not say that Virgin Mary remained a virgin, etc. The question is, as the Catholic Chruch teaches that Virgin Mary remained virgin, had no sin, and was assumed into heaven, is the Church contradicting scripture? Well, it is not contradicting Matthew 1?24-25, as I showed. Likewise I showed that no other passage from the Bible contradicts the Chruch. It is always helpful to understand the nature of the argument before arguing. You do nto seem to understand, judging from that post, the nature of the argument.
[Matthew 1:24-25] it clearly says that he knew her AFTER she had given birth.
No, it doesn't say that. It says that he did not know her before. It says nothing about after. Again, it is helpful to understand the argument before arguing to the contrary.
that Mary had other children [...] is found elsewhere in the Gospels,
No it is not found because "brothers" can mean any kind of relation as the Bible shows. James and Joses, for example, are said in the scripture to be of anyther mother, yet in some verses they are called "berothers" of Jesus. That is because "brother" in Koine Greek does not necessarily mean brother of the same womb.
mockery does not help you case
When I see someone lacking an understanding of the post she is responding to I find it comical and worthy of a little friendly mockery. Show some evidence of logic in your answers and you won't be mocked.
Just out of curiosity, why do you and other Catholics have enough respect for tradition to capitalize the word but do not capitalize the word *scripture*? I've notice it often with the word *bible* as well.
Because there is a meaningful difference between the Holy Tradition that was given down to the Apostles, and that is frozen since that time, and any other tradition which may descend from some later time. For example, the use of Latin in the Liturgy is tradition -- it dates from probably 3 c, -- but it is not the Holy Tradition. The Scripture does not have that distinction, whether I say "scripture" or "the Holy Scripture" it is clear that I am referring to the same thing.
The lunatic fringe clearly does not speak for Protestantism. On the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity said:
"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Even Calvin, as crazy and heretical as he was, did not go there:
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} [On Matt 1:25:]
The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }