Jesus the first born

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
For Catholic Defenders, being a first born may mean the only child. and they use a verse.

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Israel was God's first born son. does it mean that God will not have another child in the future?

In the Bible, there are another children of God after Israel and they are Christians.

2 Corinthians 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

2 Corinthians 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

According to the verses above, Those who are in the power of sin concorded with Belial. so if you turn away from it, you will concord with Christ as a Christian of course with God's help.

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

You will not be called FIRST BORN if you are the only child. in fact, God himself called Abraham's son to Sarah as THE ONLY SON and not FIRST BORN.

Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

We must remember that God's testimony is greater than men as mentioned in the verse below:

1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

So if Lord Jesus was called the first born in Matthew 1:25, it will imply that he has brothers and sisters in the flesh.

CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS say that the word BRETHEN in Greek includes relatives as well as brothers and sisters.

If that is true, these will be the right refutations for this:

FIRST: Since the Latin Vulgate's New Testament was translated from the Greek Bible, you can read there that THERE IS A word COUSIN and not BROTHER IS ALSO COUSIN.

Luke 1:36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren.

Luke 1:36 et ecce Elisabeth cognata tua et ipsa concepit filium in senecta sua et hic mensis est sextus illi quae vocatur sterilis

SECOND: The context makes that very plain. And the scriptures use the Greek word [suggenes] or [suggeneia] when referring to kinsman, relatives, or cousins, not [adelphos] Brethren. These brethren were Mary's other children.

THIRD: He 'Knew her' not (didn't have physical sexual union with her) until she had brought forth her Firstborn, Jesus. From this statement, it is clear that He knew her (in the biblical sense) AFTER the birth of Jesus. As a practical example, if someone were to say that they took a wife, but didn't consummate the marriage until after January, and in reply I stated that this means they never consummated the marriage, you would think that ridiculous. And you'd be right. But this is exactly what Roman catholics do in regards to the above verses of scripture.

And so, that anyone can read all these scriptures and still believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin is a testimony to the indoctrination of traditions. To believe this, they must ignore or wrest scriptures that say Mary was the Mother of Jesus' Brethren, ignore scriptures which say Jesus was the brethren of Mary's children, and ignore scripture which says Joseph knew (in the Biblical sense of union) her not "until" after the birth of the firstborn (Jesus). And that's just for starters!

The deeper question is not was Mary a perpetual virgin (no scripture says that), but why should/would she be? Mary was a Chosen vessel, not a deity! Is there anything wrong with Joseph and Mary having more children? It was a perfectly normal thing for a husband and a wife to do. In fact, it would be abnormal for them not to do (1st Corinthians 7:3-5).

Last thing that a Catholic Apologetics use to disprove the Lord Jesus has brethen in the flesh is it use John 19:27 that he commended Mary to the care of St. John of Apostles. if he has brethen in the flesh, he will not do it.
The right answer for this is: Who are you to know the mind of God (Jesus is God right) and his real intention for this? No one.

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Even Jesus has brethen in the flesh, so what if He wants his mother to be under the care of John rather than to his brethen?

Are you implying that Christ was wrong if he should do is to ask his flesh brethen to take care of their mother for Him?

What if Christ did not see his flesh brethen at Mt. Cavalry and rather sawJohn instead and wants him to take care of his mother for Him, Who are you to question it?

The fact that Christ was called first born, IT MEANS HE IS NOT THE ONLY SON OF MARY AND JOSEPH.

If he is the only son, He should not be called first born.

as simple as that.