No, that's not quite right.
The earliest writers of the NT affirmed Joseph and Mary did have children of their own after the birth of Jesus. Which was not a sin in any way. In fact, it was very natural for that to happen.
And please....don't try to play the brothers can mean something other than biological sibling card. It'd be repeating a failed apologetic from Catholic Answers.
Oh, and not the, "show me in the Bible where it says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations" card either. It's really a futile argument for the RC to try that as it's so easily dismissed with a couple of questions.
Your snide remarks aside, I never said that the brothers were cousins. I believe Joseph was a widower who had other children before he became betrothed to the Blessed Virgin. It’s an ancient tradition, much older than the “cousins” idea, which became popular in the 5th century. As far as your opinion on Catholic apologetics, there isn’t one ancient document, writing or statement that Mary didn’t remain a virgin after Our Lord’s birth. The tradition was held even post-reform
I never said that the brothers were cousins. I believe Joseph was a widower who had other children before he became betrothed to the Blessed Virgin. It’s an ancient tradition, much older than the “cousins” idea, which became popular in the 5th century. As far as your opinion on Catholic apologetics, there isn’t one ancient document, writing or statement that Mary didn’t remain a virgin after Our Lord’s birth. The tradition was held even post-reformation.
No one thinks that Mary and Joseph having relations would be sinful. But Our Lady held eternity in her womb. I think their marriage was a bit different from other marriages.