Granted, it does not specifically say that he ever knew her after she gave birth.
Exactly. And yet you keep dragging this verse out as if it said otherwise.
Their doctrines are man-made. These are beyond interpretations. They're extra-biblical fabrications.
I agree. You do all of these. Nowhere does the Bible say that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations. Yet you insist that yours is the "Biblical" position. It's so much hogwash.
Stick to what the Bible says or remain silent. That's your philosophy, so do it.
SD
Yes but sometimes other scriptures help put it in context and you keep leaving out Matthew 1:24 which says: Matthew 1 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
So now here in Genesis we get an idea of what a wife is: (and as oftentimes happen in the spiritual world, the verse number is the same......eeeek) Genesis 1:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
What the bible says on this point is crystal clear to all but those whose understanding is blinded by their manmade traditions. Mary had other children, Jesus's brothers and sisters. Of course, in order to shore up their extra-biblical, elevated status for His mother, the RC system conveniently perverts the Word of God, claiming His brothers weren't really His "brothers." For some reason, we're supposed to believe they really meant his "cousins" when they said, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, ..."
Nah, we need the "P"erpetual "V"irginity doctrine because it fits so well with our even more unsupportable doctrines concerning her bodily assumption and her "I"mmaculate "C"onception.
It's a manmade system based entirely upon God's silence and man's perversion of the true Gospel.
Wait! It does say so? Oh, nevermind.