Rather, despite, or actually because of your laborious attempts support what would be clearly manifest in Scripture it were true, "a scriptural defense of the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary" is actually an attack on Scripture, for,
1. A marriage in which there is "leaving" but no covenantal sexual "cleaving" is contrary to the manifest basic description of marriage, which the Lord Himself affirmed. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6) And the intent not to procreate is actually a condition for annulment. But perhaps Joseph and Mary had permission of the pope.
The only possible known exception would be a caretaker marriage when there is no sexual "cleaving" due to physical inability. (1Ki. 1:1-4)
Thus the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary must presume an extra-ordinary exception which is nowhere stated.
2. In addition, that the word for "till" in "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS," (Matthew 1:25) did not signify a terminus which denotes a change in status is contrary to what it almost always denotes, which i can show, and contrary to most of the Cath attempts to show otherwise.
Thus the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary must presume an extra-ordinary exception which is nowhere stated, but instead the contrary is what is normally inferred.
Nor was Joseph told that Mary would be a perpetual virgin, nor was she told this (nor said this*), and thus And it is another leap of unwarranted presumption to think that Joseph married Mary knowing that she had taken a vow of virginity. And since you want to invoke the Law, then a vow of perpetual virginity by a daughter or a wife would be subject to approval by either her father (before marriage) or her husband, and which the Law speaks quite extensively:
If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her. (Numbers 30:3-8)
Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. (Numbers 30:13-14)
And thus if Marian perpetual virginity is true, then where is the honor of Joseph (or her father is the vow was prior to marriage)? For it was by his consent that she could engage in this, and surely (speaking as a man) it was at least as much a sacrifice - and more difficult - for Joe to be continent in marriage, even if he was taken home early, as seems evident.
Thus the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary must presume either the father or husband of Mary (or God) sanctioned her vow of perpetual virginity, which is nowhere manifest, but instead the contrary is what is normally inferred.
3. The Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary with the above presumptions of the extraordinary are contrary to the character and integrity of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit characteristically records extraordinary aspects of even far less persons in Scripture, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), hair (Esau) strength (Samson), prolonged celibacy (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, and Christ being sinless.
But Mary is nowhere presented as being a sinless perpetual virgin and highest created being in virtue, titled the mother of God and bodily assumed into Heaven and crowned as its Queen, with authority over angels, and hearing virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth addressed to her, etc. And both the perpetual virginity of Mary and her exaltation is entirely absent in the life of the church, being nowhere evident in Acts or any of the epistles to the church (thus Caths attempt to erroneously read Mary into Rv, 12, but which even their own church does not affirm as an indisputable interpretation).
And thus if even the perpetual virginity of Mary was true, it is hardly warranted as dogma, and as such it provides additional testimony to the damnable doctrine that the veracity of RC teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by which the NT church began, but upon the premise of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, and which is contrary to how the NT church began.
But the real reason for the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary is due to her hereditary imbalanced view of virginity vs marriage (such as Jerome and others engaged in) and the psychological attraction of a heavenly virgin and mother, and thus (what would be in Scripture) worship of a Christianized Queen of Heaven.
*Ἔσται is the future tense or “will be.”
I am not going to chase down every opinion on this, while from what i read a present indicative active simply does not mean perpetual, that it will have to go into the future. Hre it signifies an ongoing condition, . That "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34) means How shall this be, seeing I will NEVER know a man?" is contrary to every translation am aware of, including the DRB and interlinear as well as the Peshitta. It is an ongoing reality, but which does not mean it will never change.
John A. Battle, Jr engages a search "with a careful reading of the Greek Testament, underlining every occurrence of a present indicative verb form." "It is the conclusion of this author that most previous definitions of the exact nature and force of the present indicative are inadequate. The tense can describe action in any time--past, present, or future; and it can describe action of any kind--durative, punctiliar, or perfective.
New Testament examples of perfective presents are not lacking. John asks Jesus, "Do you come to me?" (Mt. 3:14); Jesus had already come and was there as a result. Jesus consoles the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven" (Mt. 9:2), for Jesus had seen his faith already shown. This last example is often listed under the category "aoristic present," but truly it better is perfective--God had already forgiven his sins, which forgiveness Jesus declared with authority (cf. v. 6). An undebatable example is found in Luke 1:34, where Mary protests to the angel, "How will this be, since I know not a man?" Her previous chastity resulted in her present virginity. Often in court scenes this usage comes forth. Pilate declares, "I find no fault in him" (Jn. 19:4), speaking of the results of the previous interrogation. (https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/battle-presenttense/battle-present tense.doc)
Thus it seems that at best you can only postulate that it can mean future as meaning perpetual, but which again in so much special pleading without the expected and needed manifest testimony.
If they were not married but only “engaged” it would not have been necessary for Joseph to divorce her.
No, that is also not what we find:
The term "betrothal" in Jewish law must not be understood in its modern sense; that is, the agreement of a man and a woman to marry, by which the parties are not, however, definitely bound, but which may be broken or dissolved without formal divorce. Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law.
In the Bible. Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.
In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce. - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal
You are wrong and your selective quoting proves my point.
I appreciate the illumination which your exposition here adds to the understanding of the roles of Mary and Joseph in completing prophesies foretelling and defining the coming of the Messiah.
My view of the "perpetual virginity" is that the hoopla is simply a marketing ploy, one of differentiating a product such that its purveyor, the RCC, can nominate itself as the only outlet for the distribution of supposed benefits to a select and profitable audience in a segmented market. This, of course, presumes that the Gospel of Christ is not freely available to all, but flows only through a channel of "grace" of which the RCC controls the "pinch points."
Any possessor of an MBA thoroughly understands both the context and the methodology of creating a market, uniquely defining the product, nominating oneself as the sole supplier, and branding its offering such that other suppliers will be seen as inferior in service and supply.
It instructive to examine one of the successful patented medicines, acetylsalicylic acid, was patented in 1900 by the German Bayer company, trademarked as "Aspirin" (now passed into the general vocabulary), and marketed as a wonder drug.
At the end of the First World War, the chemical was made generic, available for anyone to make and market. However, through a strong promotional effort, the name "Bayer Aspirin" and vaunted quality was so impressed on the public that for many years Bayer dominated that market segment.
In fact, my mother-in-law, trained as an RN in the 1920s, would accept no other brand of aspirin for her personal use, claiming that none but Bayer made a satisfactorily pure pharmaceutical product, no matter what reasoning she was offered that generic aspirin was much cheaper, and just as effective, even in the 1990s. Why? Because of the continuing persuasive SPAM, no matter how irrational, claimed superior benefits that kept her allegiance even to the grave.
You can argue all you want that from literal-historical hermeneutics a perpetually virgin Mary is nonsense, but you are going to find out that the RCC allegorical approach to the Mary paradigm has such a firm grasp on simony and so much SPAM that it is to Romanists therefore both an honorable and just ploy to cement customers to the brand such that they will never give it up and go back to true New Testament doctrine.
Besides, those Mary statuettes are so pretty that no religious home should be without them. And a Sallman's "Head of Christ." With a populated crucifix and candle beneath it. And a breviary with Rosary beads. Maybe a kneeler.