Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[NotUrAvgGuy]

That simply means that she was remaining chaste until it was time to consummate the marriage. That is different from a lifelong vow of chastity.

And Joseph [z]awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25)

If it was understood, or implied in Luke 1:34, that Mary had taken a lifetime vow of virginity (and Joseph as well), then why mention in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph "kept her a virgin until she gave birth..." I know Catholics argue that "until" could mean they never had sex, but why mention it at all if it was clear both were consecrated virgins? Why say Josephy took "Mary as his wife" when, according to Jewish thinking, they were never married if they didn't consummate the marriage? Why not say, "Joseph kept Mary as his betrothed" or "as his virgin wife?" These statements seem superfluous if we are to understand Mary and Joseph were lifelong consecrated virgins.

The text never says Mary remained a virgin. That is Catholic tradition but not found in the Word of God. Joseph would not have remained betrothed to Mary if she had been "the spouse of the Holy Spirit." He would have quietly divorced her as he contemplated doing, but not because she was unfaithful but because she was another's spouse.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in Scripture and was not even official Catholic doctrine until relatively recently.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Nonsense. Why in the world would any girl who was engaged to be married question a prophecy from an Angel of God that she would bear a son?

For the obvious reason that such a thing HAD NEVER HAPPENED! Mary's question was not one of doubt. She just didn't understand how. She did not doubt Gabriel but she did not understand how this was to come about. Such a thing was beyond imagining. Once Gabriel explained it, Mary had no further questions.

 

[Valletta]

For the obvious reason that such a thing HAD NEVER HAPPENED! Mary's question was not one of doubt. She just didn't understand how. She did not doubt Gabriel but she did not understand how this was to come about. Such a thing was beyond imagining. Once Gabriel explained it, Mary had no further questions.

Of course it never happened, it was a prophecy by an angel telling her that in the future she would bear a son. There was no reason for her at that point to think it would come about in any but a normal way, ESPECIALLY since she was to be married.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Nonsense. Why in the world would any girl who was engaged to be married question a prophecy from an Angel of God that she would bear a son?

I think Mary was smart enough to know that if she had a son by Joseph that son would not be the Son of God. Thus the question.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Of course it never happened, it was a prophecy by an angel telling her that in the future she would bear a son. There was no reason for her at that point to think it would come about in any but a normal way, ESPECIALLY since she was to be married.

30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

Gabriel didn't say she was going to have a son who would be a prophet or a holy man. He said her future son would be the "Son of the Most High." He will reign on David's throne. His kingdom will never end. How could that be a normal son by Joseph?

 

[Valletta]

30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

Gabriel didn't say she was going to have a son who would be a prophet or a holy man. He said her future son would be the "Son of the Most High." He will reign on David's throne. His kingdom will never end. How could that be a normal son by Joseph?

Mary's question was: Luke 1:34 "How can this be, since I know not man?"
Mary is told she is to have a son, and implicit in her question is that she knows of no way to have a son without the marital act. Her question is not about "who" the son is, it is about "how" to possibly have a son without knowing man. That is, she knows she could have a son if she were to have conjugal relations, but she asks "how," "how can this be?"

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Mary's question was: Luke 1:34 "How can this be, since I know not man?"
Mary is told she is to have a son, and implicit in her question is that she knows of no way to have a son without the marital act. Her question is not about "who" the son is, it is about "how" to possibly have a son without knowing man. That is, shwe knows she could have a son if she were to have conjugal relations, but she asks "how," "how can this be?"

While not stated explicitly, I believe Mary took Gabriel to mean she would soon have a son, not off in the distant future. I think Mary was astonished as any would be at these words. She was pledged to Joseph and He could scarcely be the father of "the Son of the Most High." Whatever you may suppose, you cannot prove from her response she had taken a vow of celibacy for life.

As mentioned previously, and not responded on, why would Matthew's account add that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus? Why say anything at all if she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity? There would be no need. When we later read of brothers and sisters, why was not the unique word for "cousins" used rather than a word that can mean literal brothers and sisters?

I believe the Catholic church is reading a conclusion back into the text. Protestants have no problem with Mary going on to have other children. It would in no way diminish Mary or Jesus. It would be a normal and natural thing. Why would God, who ordained the family, not want the incarnated Messiah to have siblings? Only Catholics seem to think Mary would be somewhat less or her womb unworthy of having "normal" children. Believe as you will but I don't believe you can prove from Scripture that Mary remained a virgin or took a vow of celibacy nor do I see that it matters. Any subsequent children she had would be the product of a lawful marriage.

 

[David Lamb]

It certainly appears Mary had taken a vow of virginity.
Luke 1:34 "How can this be, since I know not man?"

That doesn't mean she had taken a vow of virginity, though. I understand that the custom was for betrothed couples not to see one another for a year before their marriage, and to communicate via a friend. So she knows she couldn't become pregnant by sleeping with Joseph.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Certainly Mary was the mother of Jesus, and does deserve honour. We are told that the angel said to her, in answer to her question about how she could have a Son, that the Holy Spirit would come upon her. We are not told that she became God's wife. Indeed Joseph was told to take Mary as his wife. He wasn't told, "No you can't marry her; she is already married - to the Holy Spirit!"

The proof of Mary’s spousal relationship is her child Jesus. Once He is born, no other man may touch her.

To be honest, would you want another man to have a family with your wife while you are still alive? You may be able to pretend to be content to allow it, but if you had such a relationship, it would invariably lead to intense psychological and spiritual strife, else render you insignificant as a man.

If you cannot endure this, why wish it on God?
Joseph was foster father to Jesus for the sake of the world and to avoid scandal. He did not have sexual intercourse with Mary. There is no Biblical requirement that Joseph fathered children with Mary

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You seem to be implying that she did live in the temple until she started menstruating. Where do we read that in the bible?

Not all history is contained by the Bible, nor is it required to be. We have records of Mary’s parents as well as her early life as a matter of history not scripture

The United States is not in the Bible, yet we have records of our existence

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Where are we told Mary was a consecrated virgin? Where are we told she lived in the Temple? Plenty of women were single in those days. If they weren't married they lived with family. How do you know there were no sexual relations between Mary and Joseph? While we can't prove there were, we can't prove there weren't. The Bible speaks of Jesus having brothers and sisters and unless one presupposes Mary remained a virgin and never had other children, one would not so quickly dismiss them as cousins or Joseph's from a previous marriage.

If Mary did have other Children, her care would have passed to family on Jesus’ death.
As it is, Jesus put her in the care of a stranger, one of His disciples.

This act has more significance of Mary as the mother of the Church, rather than the mother of other children. To His most beloved disciple, He says, behold thy mother, and to Mary He says behold thy son.
We assume He was speaking to John, but the disciple is not named, implying Mary is the mother of disciples that Jesus loves aka the Church

 

[David Lamb]

The proof of Mary’s spousal relationship is her child Jesus. Once He is born, no other man may touch her.

To be honest, would you want another man to have a family with your wife while you are still alive? You may be able to pretend to be content to allow it, but if you had such a relationship, it would invariably lead to intense psychological and spiritual strife, else render you insignificant as a man.

If you cannot endure this, why wish it on God?
Joseph was foster father to Jesus for the sake of the world and to avoid scandal. He did not have sexual intercourse with Mary. There is no Biblical requirement that Joseph fathered children with Mary

It's not a case of me wishing anything on God. Matthew tells us of what God's messenger, the angel Gabtriel, said to Joseph:

“But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.” (Mt 1:20-25 NKJV)

Joseph was told to take Mary as his wife. He did not know her (i.e did not have intimate relations with her) "till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

If Mary did have other Children, her care would have passed to family on Jesus’ death.
As it is, Jesus put her in the care of a stranger, one of His disciples.

This act has more significance of Mary as the mother of the Church, rather than the mother of other children. To His most beloved disciple, He says, behold thy mother, and to Mary He says behold thy son.
We assume He was speaking to John, but the disciple is not named, implying Mary is the mother of disciples that Jesus loves aka the Church

John was repeatedly called "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and thus we can be certain it was John He was entrusting Mary's care to. None of Jesus' brothers were present at the crucifixion. We later learn that none of them became believers until after his resurrection. Mary was part of the group of disciples who traveled with Jesus and with the disciples in the Book of Acts. Jesus, the oldest son and thus responsible for her care, would not leave her with an unbelieving brother and cut her off from the community of followers who loved her and would care for her not only physically but spiritually. By entrusting her to John's care Jesus was seeing to that. John was hardly a stranger! He was was of the closest Apostles to Jesus.

There is absolutely nothing in the context to suggest Jesus was entrusting her to the church and making her the mother of the church.

 

[Valletta]

While not stated explicitly, I believe Mary took Gabriel to mean she would soon have a son, not off in the distant future.

Of course we all KNOW Mary had a child nine months later. Yet there is nothing in the words of Gabriel indicating when in the future, nothing, yet you claim to know Mary's own thoughts that Mary supposedly knew this would happen "soon." Another extra-biblical notion of yours.

As mentioned previously, and not responded on, why would Matthew's account add that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus?

As to the word "until," that is an English translation. As you've been told, the original Koine Greek word says ZERO about what happens after the subject event. Why continue to pretend it is not so?

Only Catholics seem to think Mary would be somewhat less or her womb unworthy of having "normal" children. .

None of us who acknowledge the truth believe that Mary is "unworthy." The Perpetual virginity of Mary is recognized by the Eastern orthodox as well:

A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition​

The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - Orthodox Church

Last year for the Feast of the Nativity, I gave a lecture about one of the central claims of the Christian faith: the Virgin Birth of Christ. This was all well until I used in passing the phrase "ever-virgin" with reference to the Lord's Mother. Someone asked, "Do you actually mean that Mary...

www.goarch.org

Believe as you will but I don't believe you can prove from Scripture that Mary remained a virgin or took a vow of celibacy nor do I see that it matters

You say it doesn't matter yet you spend an awful lot of time trying to make your case from speculation outside of the Bible. Perhaps when you were introduced to anti-Catholicism one of the first examples provided you was the superficial interpretation of brothers and sisters and they didn't tell you relatives could be included. Such amateurish interpretations are common in anti-Catholic circles. The truth is the original Word of God text gives NO support to your conjecture. Your conclusion is simply not found in the Bible, as much as you desire it should be so.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Of course we all KNOW Mary had a child nine months later. Yet there is nothing in the words of Gabriel indicating when in the future, nothing, yet you claim to know Mary's own thoughts that Mary supposedly knew this would happen "soon." Another extra-biblical notion of yours.

You will notice I said "I believe..." I never stated it as a something plainly stated in Scripture. I was expressing my opinion.

As to the word "until," that is an English translation. As you've been told, the original Koine Greek word says ZERO about what happens after the subject event. Why continue to pretend it is not so?

The Greek word for "until" denotes something happening until a certain point in time. It denotes the end of a time period. While it does not explicitly state what comes after, why use the word at all if Joseph planned to keep Mary a virgin for life? It explicitly says he kept her a virgin through the birth of Jesus. Why bother to make that event an endpoint if the reality was he intended for her to always be a virgin? It doesn't just mean "he kept her a virgin." It means "he kept her a virgin until she gave birth." What comes after is not explicitly stated but why use a word that denotes the endpoint of a period of time if that is not an end to her virginity. If one did not presuppose Mary remained ever-virgin, the natural understanding is that Mary and Joseph refrained from sex until after Jesus was born. Taken together with references to other siblings their is a strong case they had other children. It is Catholics who keep looking for ways out of the obvious meaning. The word doesn't explicitly state what comes after, the word used for brothers could be used of cousins (even though their is an explicit Greek word for cousin that was not used). Yes, all possible but there is nothing in the Scriptures to prove that case. Catholics come to that position from outside of Scripture then seek to defend it by offering these other possibilities.

None of us who acknowledge the truth believe that Mary is "unworthy." The Perpetual virginity of Mary is recognized by the Eastern orthodox as well:

So? I believe it was a manmade tradition that was adopted by many.

A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition​

The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - Orthodox Church

Last year for the Feast of the Nativity, I gave a lecture about one of the central claims of the Christian faith: the Virgin Birth of Christ. This was all well until I used in passing the phrase "ever-virgin" with reference to the Lord's Mother. Someone asked, "Do you actually mean that Mary...

www.goarch.org

You say it doesn't matter yet you spend an awful lot of time trying to make your case from speculation outside of the Bible. Perhaps when you were introduced to anti-Catholicism one of the first examples provided you was the superficial interpretation of brothers and sisters and they didn't tell you relatives could be included. Such amateurish interpretations are common in anti-Catholic circles. The truth is the original Word of God text gives NO support to your conjecture. Your conclusion is simply not found in the Bible, as much as you desire it should be so.

Recall I was born and raised Catholic. I adopted my "anti-Catholic" views on my own from reading the Bible. I held these views long before I ever encountered any "anti-Catholic" writers or literature. I looked up the Greek words on my own to seek further understanding. I was not led down that path by anyone.

There is nothing amateurish about adopting a view that is just as possible scripturally as the Catholic view. "Until" could mean they went on to have sex. "Brothers" could refer to literal blood brothers. How is that any less Scriptural than your interpretation? I have as much support as you do and mine is the more natural understanding.

I care because I think the Catholic church goes too far in its veneration of Mary and its many unbiblical views about her. I have no trouble believing she and Joseph had other children and that Mary died a natural death and lives now in heaven unable to hear our prayers. That in no way diminishes my respect for her.

 

[Valletta]

You will notice I said "I believe..." I never stated it as a something plainly stated in Scripture. I was expressing my opinion.


The Greek word for "until" denotes something happening until a certain point in time. It denotes the end of a time period. While it does not explicitly state what comes after, why use the word at all if Joseph planned to keep Mary a virgin for life?

Again you seem quite eager to prove something that you say doesn't matter. You say it doesn't "explicitly state what comes after."
As has been explained to you, it says ZERO about what happens after. Now you say why use the word at all? It's part of language structure. Note the following example, whether the translation of the word into English is "til" or "unto" or "until" by the various translators, the meaning is the same:

2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (or til or unto or to, etc.) the day of her death.

Do you believe Michal had had children after she was dead? Why use the word at all? Did you not recall such a construct when you read about Mary?

I care because I think the Catholic church goes too far in its veneration of Mary and its many unbiblical views about her.

You've put forth multiple un-Biblical conclusions and speculation about what God would do and you are Bible-only. Yet you criticize the Catholic Church which uses the entire Word of God, the deposit of the faith passed down from Jesus through the Apostles which includes, but is not limited to, all 73 books of the Bible. The narrators of the Bible base much of the Bible on implicit teachings as well, such as teachings on the Holy Trimity. We take seriously the teachings of the early Christians. We do not start with an attempt to reject Mary's role in God's plan, thus we do not readily cast aside representations in the Bible about Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant or the New Eve.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Again you seem quite eager to prove something that you say doesn't matter. You say it doesn't "explicitly state what comes after."
As has been explained to you, it says ZERO about what happens after. Now you say why use the word at all? It's part of language structure. Note the following example, whether the translation of the word into English is "til" or "unto" or "until" by the various translators, the meaning is the same:

2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (or til or unto or to, etc.) the day of her death.

Do you believe Michal had had children after she was dead? Why use the word at all? Did you not recall such a construct when you read about Mary?

No, Michal did not have children after death but the "until" with Mary was not her death. It was a point in time after which she could have had children (unlike Michal whose endpoint would not allow for that). In Michal's case, it was a way of saying she never had children. In Mary's case, it was a way of saying she never had relations prior to the birth of Christ, leaving open the possibility that she did after that point. Since she was married and Scripture makes reference to other children, it is not crazy to believe she might have. You can't prove she didn't. You can come up with possible explanations for verses that say Jesus had siblings, but none rule out the possibility that He did have siblings.

You've put forth multiple un-Biblical conclusions and speculation about what God would do and you are Bible-only. Yet you criticize the Catholic Church which uses the entire Word of God, the deposit of the faith passed down from Jesus through the Apostles which includes, but is not limited to, all 73 books of the Bible. The narrators of the Bible base much of the Bible on implicit teachings as well, such as teachings on the Holy Trimity. We take seriously the teachings of the early Christians. We do not start with an attempt to reject Mary's role in God's plan, thus we do not readily cast aside representations in the Bible about Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant or the New Eve.

The entire Word of God is the 66 books we have. The Apocrypha was added much later, and no early manuscripts of the Septuagint contain them. They were never accepted by the Jews. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from them.

There are no clear references to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. The appearance of the Ark of the Covenant in Revelation chapter 13 (right after the description of the woman in heaven who represents the church, not Mary) is no proof that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. We are told in the OT that the Ark was a copy of things in heaven. I believe what is depicted in Rev. 13 is the original. I don't state that dogmatically but I don't believe Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. The New Covenant does not have an Ark. That is Catholic conjecture that Mary is the woman in Revelation 12 and that the mention of the Ark of the (Old) Covenant in Revelation 13 ties it to Mary.

 

[Valletta]

No, Michal did not have children after death but the "until" with Mary was not her death. It was a point in time after which she could have had children (unlike Michal whose endpoint would not allow for that). In Michal's case, it was a way of saying she never had children. In Mary's case, it was a way of saying she never had relations prior to the birth of Christ, leaving open the possibility that she did after that point. Since she was married and Scripture makes reference to other children, it is not crazy to believe she might have. You can't prove she didn't. You can come up with possible explanations for verses that say Jesus had siblings, but none rule out the possibility that He did have siblings.


The entire Word of God is the 66 books we have. The Apocrypha was added much later, and no early manuscripts of the Septuagint contain them. They were never accepted by the Jews. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from them.

There are no clear references to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. The appearance of the Ark of the Covenant in Revelation chapter 13 (right after the description of the woman in heaven who represents the church, not Mary) is no proof that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. We are told in the OT that the Ark was a copy of things in heaven. I believe what is depicted in Rev. 13 is the original. I don't state that dogmatically but I don't believe Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. The New Covenant does not have an Ark. That is Catholic conjecture that Mary is the woman in Revelation 12 and that the mention of the Ark of the (Old) Covenant in Revelation 13 ties it to Mary.

The "until" with Michal was a point in time that happened to be her death. It could have been any point in time. With a similar intepretation, Michal had children after her death. Again, the sentence says ZERO about after the point time. You keep trying to create a starting point closer to your conclusion, this time you say "leaving open the possibility." According to your logic, the Michal sentence leaves open the possibility that she had children after she died. In fact it says NOTHING about what happened after the point in time.

Indeed, there is no "proof" in the Bible that God is one God, three Persons. Nothing explicit. Yet you don't require it be so because you believe it as a matter of faith just as I do. You're Bible-only-must-be-explicit for Catholic doctrine that you don't believe.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

It's not a case of me wishing anything on God. Matthew tells us of what God's messenger, the angel Gabtriel, said to Joseph:

“But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.” (Mt 1:20-25 NKJV)

Joseph was told to take Mary as his wife. He did not know her (i.e did not have intimate relations with her) "till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."

That is your interpretation. The scripture does not say, “…and then Joseph knew his wife and brought forth a son named ….”
That text is not there, so all you have is your feeling and belief that it should be there.
If you are honest, you will see this

We are subject to God. God is not subject to us.
God built His Church, we did not. We look at history and see what our forefathers believed regarding this text

The thought that Mary had other children was taught nowhere in all of Christendom until the modern era. Not even Luther and Calvin believed as much

By your reasoning, God built His Church, and it was mistaken until you were born to set it straight 1900 years later

Is that your position?

If you say that it is not, then let’s see some evidence, because at this time, your argument is not made in scripture. It is in your mind as to what you believe scripture says

Our goal should be to wholeheartedly obey Christ and His Church, not make stuff up as we go along

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The "until" with Michal was a point in time that happened to be her death. It could have been any point in time. With a similar intepretation, Michal had children after her death. Again, the sentence says ZERO about after the point time. You keep trying to create a starting point closer to your conclusion, this time you say "leaving open the possibility." According to your logic, the Michal sentence leaves open the possibility that she had children after she died. In fact it says NOTHING about what happened after the point in time.

Indeed, there is no "proof" in the Bible that God is one God, three Persons. Nothing explicit. Yet you don't require it be so because you believe it as a matter of faith just as I do. You're Bible-only-must-be-explicit for Catholic doctrine that you don't believe.

Usage: The Greek word "ἕως" (heós) is primarily used as a conjunction or preposition to denote a point in time or space. It is often translated as "until" or "till" when referring to time, and "as far as" or "up to" when referring to space. In the New Testament, it frequently marks the end of a period or the extent of an action or event.

11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. (Matthew 10:11)

Implied is that you will no longer be staying at their house after you leave.

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:29-30)

Implied and stated that he would separate the weeds from the wheat after the harvest.

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

Implied is that they will see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

These are all the same word as in Matthew 1:35. In each case, there is an implied or stated change after the "until." If Matthew wanted to teach the perpetual virginity of Mary, he could have simply said, "Joseph kept her a virgin." He added "until" because his action of keeping her a virgin was "until" she gave birth. Otherwise, there would have been no need to add "until." Grammatically, the Greek word does not require an action after, but the context is what tells us and I think (my opinion) the context of Matthew 1:35 is that they did not have relations until after Jesus was born but did later once married. If you want to argue that I can't prove that, then admit that you can't prove they didn't.

This source says the action (keeping her a virgin) terminates after the condition is met (Mary giving birth).

I agree you can't prove from that verse alone that Mary lost her virginity after the birth of Jesus, but neither can you disprove it. The Catholic insistence that she remained a virgin for life comes from an extra-biblical belief that we have no record of being taught before the 4th century. If you want to believe that and believe all the references to His brothers and siblings are cousins, then be my guest. I think the most natural and plausible reading is that she did. My salvation does not depend on whether or not Mary had other children. To Catholics, it is taken as an insult to suggest Mary had other children and was not a perpetual virgin. Some Catholics have even gone so far as to argue she felt no pain in childbirth and her hymen was never broken when birthing Jesus. Yes, God could have miraculously enabled Jesus to be born without breaking Mary's hymen, but I see no reason to believe that, and I don't see the reason some argue for it. So what if her hymen was broken? That would not prove she had sex. It can break for other reasons, like birthing a child (and they believe she got pregnant by the Holy Spirit), so why argue for an unbroken hymen? It seems like another attempt to argue Mary was a virgin in everyway possible when Scripture does not demand that.