False Teaching: Mary died a virgin. Biblical Proof Mary had children.

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

What evidence do you have, if any, that shows the definition "a near kinsman, or relative" applies here; that the type of kinship that applies here is siblings; and that the brothers here were specifically some or all of Jesus's male brothers named in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and which ones?

You did not make this reply to me but I cannot find the one you did make to me that I want to reply to, so I am borrowing your reply here.

Before getting into the relationship of those 4 boys and 2 girls, for daughters were also mentioned ,stop and give serious consideration to

If they did not ever "get together" to consummate the marriage they never were legally married . It is the lack of consummation that has been a permissible reason to obtain an annulment.....

But what are the grounds for an annulment???

• Inability to consummate the marriage: One spouse is unable or unwilling to engage in intercourse and the other was unaware of this prior to the marriage

What we know...
Physical intimacy is part of God's normal plan for marriage, and a husband and wife have a responsibility to meet each other's needs in this area ( 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 ).

Along with Genesis 2:24-25 and 1 Corinthians 6:16, Jesus appears to teach that divorce — in the absolute sense — is physically and spiritually impossible: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" ( Matthew 19:6, ). In other words, He seems to say that the union created through sexual intercourse is in some is in some sense unbreakable.

Joseph was all man in the way God made men .....Joseph wanted to take Mary and make a home with her.

Here is a Catholic view on the subject.

Were Mary and Joseph really married?

Official website of the Catholic Diocese of Lincoln.

www.lincolndiocese.org

Were Mary and Joseph really married? - Catholic Diocese of LincolnParagraph 1640 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Paragraph 1640 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

This even makes consummation sound more important, because it is something more powerful than the Church, which cannot dissolve or nullify a sacramental marriage which has also been consummated.
This is why most Christians and all Catholics have always believed that the formal marriage ceremony is one thing, but without consummation, it is at best, an incomplete bond.

We know that St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary never consummated their marriage. Does this mean that Christ’s earthly parents were not actually married?

No. Mary and Joseph were actually and validly married. One key difference between their marriage and marriage today is that they were not sacramentally married. Neither baptism nor sacramental marriage existed until about 30 years after Mary and Joseph were married. Until Christ instituted the sacraments of baptism (John 3:5) and marriage (Matt 19:6), marriage was, at best, a covenant. Today marriage is still a covenant, but it is also a sacrament if both parties are baptized and they have no impediment to marriage.

Now... before going down this road with other links... it has to be acknowledged that without the consummation of a marriage the Catholic church will issue an annulment rather easily.

Is that what happened to Mary and Joseph? There was a point where Joseph just ceased to be mentioned in the New Testament.

The last time Joseph is mentioned in the Bible is when Jesus was twelve years old. Returning from a trip to Jerusalem, Jesus became separated from His parents, who eventually found Him in the temple conversing with the teachers. Could that have been the final straw with Mary fretting for her son... and likely always being a mother hen as much as she could and possibly just leaving Joseph in the background????

First, let's remember back to before Jesus was born
When the angel talked to Joseph ............... in the dream.

Conception and Birth of Jesus​

18 Now the birth of Jesus [a]Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been [b]betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned [c]to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for [d]the Child who has been [e]conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for [f]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [g]took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name [h]Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph [i]awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 [j]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

DOES ANYONE think he would have done as the angel said IF HE THOUGHT for one minute
they basically would keep seperate beds? Or perhaps hung a blanket between them?

Then we have the issue of a possible 4 brothers. Where did they come from?

Not the Jackson 5.... wrong color. Not the Osmonds... wrong faith.

So we are told they are the sons, and cousins, of other blood relations.....

Hmmmm sounds suspiciously like one big happy family. ... almost polygamous except that IS not God's wishes.

And then we also have been told they had to have been the sons... and daughters... of Joseph's first marriage.... (or maybe he had been married more then once before taking Mary to be his bride?)

And again.... if Joseph had been married before, let's have a show of hands on how long he
would stay in an unconsummated marriage.... Remember... back then the Jewish law permitted a manto put his wife away for any reason.

It just is totally unreasonable to believe that they just never did it.

And if using the excuse that men from back then up to today have gone without women in the form of Catholic priests, or women as nuns.... I should introduce you to a friend of mine who was a counselor in a South Miami diocese, and he could point to the door that the priests would take their nuns for whatever..... and this does not even touch on the priests
and their alter boys.....

God, our heavenly father, made the human body to function in specific ways if they are a normal male or female. (Not giving any lip service to the LGTBQ+whatevers that are a product of whatever Satan could dream up)

And these male and females... going back to Adam and Eve would eat, and drink, and eliminate bodily wastes. And they functioned with normal attractions to each other.... male and female.

IOW... God instilled a need. Especially in the males.

I have not a doubt in my mind that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage, for the time.

UNLESS.... Mary was kind to Joseph and like Sarah was to Abraham? NAW, that is even too weird for me.... (But could account for the other children)

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

But Jesus didn't leave a book to be personally interpreted for us to know the fullness of His truth. He founded a (one) Church to do so.

If the Bible could be personally interpreted without error, there wouldn't be literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing Protestant denominations. There would be one.

Or a RCC and Orthodox.

One language, one mind = Tower of Babel. Be it real or parable... it was put in the bible for a reason.

I believe God does not want total consensus because with that comes man puffing himself up too much

 

[Sigma]

If they did not ever "get together" to consummate the marriage they never were legally married . It is the lack of consummation that has been a permissible reason to obtain an annulment.....

But what are the grounds for an annulment???

• Inability to consummate the marriage: One spouse is unable or unwilling to engage in intercourse and the other was unaware of this prior to the marriage

What we know...
Physical intimacy is part of God's normal plan for marriage, and a husband and wife have a responsibility to meet each other's needs in this area ( 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 ).

In Israel, also at the time of Joseph and Mary, a marriage comprised of two phases: the engagement and the wedding. The rite of the engagement, by which the marriage was essentially established, implied that the young couple should be blessed by a priest while holding each other's right hand; a legal contract was made in regard to property and rights. During this first phase they did not live together. The wedding was the solemn accomplishment of the contract and the couple began to live together. This shows sexual intercourse wasn't what consummated a marriage.

Therefore, in Matt. 1:18 where it says, "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost" the meaning is Mary conceived Jesus "before Her and Joseph began to live together", not "before Her and Joseph began to have sexual intercourse". Therefore, Matt. 1:18 can't be used as proof they had or didn't have sexual relations during their marriage. However, other sources show they mutually decided to be chaste in their marriage.

First, let's remember back to before Jesus was born
When the angel talked to Joseph ............... in the dream.

Conception and Birth of Jesus​

18 Now the birth of Jesus [a]Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been [b]betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned [c]to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for [d]the Child who has been [e]conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for [f]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [g]took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name [h]Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph [i]awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 [j]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

DOES ANYONE think he would have done as the angel said IF HE THOUGHT for one minute
they basically would keep seperate beds? Or perhaps hung a blanket between them?

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew is speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, Matthew reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was conceived by him, and not conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not born of a virgin. The author's entire focal point is on the messianic prophecy, not whether or not Joseph finally got to have sex after the Savior was born unto the the world...

Here's the context of Matt. 1:20-25 that you're essentially arguing:
"Following Matthew speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20-24), he ends with the tidbit: 'And Joseph finally got to have sex after the birth of the Savior unto the world..." (Matt. 1:25)

That isn't in line with the context...

Then we have the issue of a possible 4 brothers. Where did they come from?

A heretical teaching dismantled with the help of Paul the Evangelist.

This thread is directed at those who claim both the following: (i) that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings (ii) that James of the four in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by...

www.christianityboard.com

The trouble is .... many disagree on what falsehoods are.

So why did God expose some to one group and some to another on and then yet again... and on and on and on

God doesn't do that, people choose what to believe and/or teach. The trouble is what prevents the Holy Spirit from enlightening us on what's Truth is our own selves at times. Take this topic of Jesus's siblings for example, I present my case, but because I'm Catholic, I automatically must be wrong, and therefore I'm not really heard. A person merely having an anti-Catholic attitude in general is already uncharitable, but to bring it into a discussion board like this one just makes discussion fruitless and frustrating.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

In Israel, also at the time of Joseph and Mary, a marriage comprised of two phases: the engagement and the wedding. The rite of the engagement, by which the marriage was essentially established, implied that the young couple should be blessed by a priest while holding each other's right hand; a legal contract was made in regard to property and rights. During this first phase they did not live together. The wedding was the solemn accomplishment of the contract and the couple began to live together. This shows sexual intercourse wasn't what consummated a marriage.

Therefore, in Matt. 1:18 where it says, "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost" the meaning is Mary conceived Jesus "before Her and Joseph began to live together", not "before Her and Joseph began to have sexual intercourse". Therefore, Matt. 1:18 can't be used as proof they had or didn't have sexual relations during their marriage. However, other sources show they mutually decided to be chaste in their marriage.



In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew is speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, Matthew reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was conceived by him, and not conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not born of a virgin. The author's entire focal point is on the messianic prophecy, not whether or not Joseph finally got to have sex after the Savior was born unto the the world...

Here's the context of Matt. 1:20-25 that you're essentially arguing:
"Following Matthew speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20-24), he ends with the tidbit: 'And Joseph finally got to have sex after the birth of the Savior unto the world..." (Matt. 1:25)

That isn't in line with the context...

A heretical teaching dismantled with the help of Paul the Evangelist.

This thread is directed at those who claim both the following: (i) that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings (ii) that James of the four in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by...

www.christianityboard.com

God doesn't do that, people choose what to believe and/or teach. The trouble is what prevents the Holy Spirit from enlightening us on what's Truth is our own selves at times. Take this topic of Jesus's siblings for example, I present my case, but because I'm Catholic, I automatically must be wrong, and therefore I'm not really heard. A person merely having an anti-Catholic attitude in general is already uncharitable, but to bring it into a discussion board like this one just makes discussion fruitless and frustrating.

 

[David in NJ]

According to your interpretation of Matt. 1:25, regarding 2 Sam. 6:23, you should say that Michal started to have children after she died.

Now you are talking silly.

 

[David in NJ]

But Jesus didn't leave a book to be personally interpreted for us to know the fullness of His truth. He founded a (one) Church to do so.

If the Bible could be personally interpreted without error, there wouldn't be literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing Protestant denominations. There would be one.

You are misguided by religion.

In FACT, Jesus did leave His words to be personally interpreted = by HIM.

The errors of man-made doctrine created the RCC along with all the other religions.

Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

 

[Sigma]

Now you are talking silly.

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

According to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

 

[David in NJ]

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)
According to your logic, that same little word "till" here certainly implies Michal did have children after she died.

It's silly logic and yet you cling to it. You'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics.

Again, you are being silly instead of following sound doctrine/knowledge/instruction.

If we consider the passage you quoted: 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”
We SEE that the word "till" carries with it the SAME connotation = something occurred from point A to point B
Point (A) - "Michal had no children"
"till"
Point (B) - "the day of her death"
What ocurred from Point A to Point B?

 

[Sigma]

Again, you are being silly instead of following sound doctrine/knowledge/instruction.

If we consider the passage you quoted: 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”
We SEE that the word "till" carries with it the SAME connotation = something occurred from point A to point B
Point (A) - "Michal had no children"
"till"
Point (B) - "the day of her death"
What ocurred from Point A to Point B?

I've answered it many times, and you always disagreed, and told me what is actually meant by the word "til." And you repeated your interpretation to someone else as well saying,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

According to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

 

[David in NJ]

I made a mistake by not putting the context in that post. The context is to correct the misinterpretation of Matt. 1:25, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." This passage does not imply that she had relations with Joseph after she bore Jesus. It only means she had no relations with him before.

Are you able to answer the simple question posed to you?

f we consider the passage you quoted: 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”
We SEE that the word "till" carries with it the SAME connotation = something occurred from point A to point B
Point (A) - "Michal had no children"
"till"
Point (B) - "the day of her death"
What ocurred from Point A to Point B?

 

[David in NJ]

I've answered it many times, and you always disagreed, and told me what is actually meant by the word "til." And you repeated your interpretation to someone else as well saying,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)
According to your logic, that same little word "till" here certainly implies Michal did have children after she died.

It is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

@Augustin56 has the 'birthrite' to answer first = as i am waiting for his answer to the simple question.

 

[Sigma]

What occurred from Point A to Point B?

I've explained it many times, which is that in Matt. 1:25 we only know that the word "till" indicates Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse prior to Jesus's birth, not whether they did or didn't have sexual intercourse after His birth. You always disagreed with the latter, and told me what you just told someone else in post #329, where you said:

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

According to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

 

[David in NJ]

I've explained it many times, which is that in Matt. 1:25 we only know that the word "till" indicates Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse prior to Jesus's birth, not whether they did or didn't have sexual intercourse after His birth. You always disagreed with the latter, and told me what you just told someone else in post #329, where you said:

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

According to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

It is religious pride to avoid the simple question = Post #334 = What occurred from Point A to Point B?

 

[Sigma]

What occurred from Point A to Point B?

Again, I've answered many times in various threads, including this one (post #352), and you disagree with my answer. You don't agree that Matt. 1:25 doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus's birth, but rather you argue the following:

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

According to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

 

[David in NJ]

Again, I've answered many times in various threads, including this one (post #352), and you disagree with my answer. You don't agree that Matt. 1:25 doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus's birth, but rather you argue the following:

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

According to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

Still eluding the 5th Grade grammar question i see.

 

[Sigma]

Still eluding the 5th Grade grammar question i see.

Again, I've answered you many times in various threads, including this one (post #352).

You're acting like a 5th grader by pretending I didn't answer it, because you don't want to face that your interpretation on Matt. 1:25 makes you look asinine for the following reason:

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

 

[David in NJ]

Again, I've answered you many times in various threads, including this one (post #352).

You're acting like a 5th grader by pretending I didn't answer it, because you don't want to face that your interpretation on Matt. 1:5 makes you look asinine for the following reason:

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong on something, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

i know these 5th Grade grammar questions are hard but..........
Good news is that this is an 'open book' question with the answers already given.

 

[Sigma]

i know these 5th Grade grammar questions are hard but..........
Good news is that this is an 'open book' question with the answers already given.

Again, I've answered you many times in various threads, including post #352.

You're acting like a 5th grader by pretending I didn't answer it, because you don't want to face that your interpretation of Matt. 1:25 is asinine for the following reason:

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong about this, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

 

[David in NJ]

Again, I've answered you many times in various threads, including post #352.

You're acting like a 5th grader by pretending I didn't answer it, because you don't want to face that your interpretation of Matt. 1:25 is asinine for the following reason:

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You told me that's silly, and it is silly logic, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong about this, especially to Catholics. It's prideful to say the least.

silly

 

[Sigma]

silly

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to your logic, that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

I agree that your logic on this is silly, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong about this, especially to Catholics. And, that's silly too, because we're not going to make you feel bad for it.