1) There were many couples who had their sex life revealed in ways. Abraham & Solomon for quick instance (if you need more I can easily provide). Their sex life wasn't "revealed" in graphic detail, it was merely pointing out that they "knew each other". I believe this could have been pointed out to preserve the virgin birth of Christ. If she was pregnant, and they had relations, there would be no "virgin birth".
This doesn't really address the question I asked, though. Sure, Scripture talks about certain people "knowing" their wives, having children, etc., but we don't claim about those children the things we claim about Christ.
The Virgin Birth establishes that Jesus has no human father: God alone is his Father. But, if you think Matthew is implying/saying that Joseph and Mary commenced normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus, what's the point of his inclusion of that "fact"? Even if we accept for argument's sake that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus that appear in the Gospels are the children of such a union, what's the point of Matthew pointing out that they are the offspring of Joseph and Mary through normal relations? Wouldn't that just be assumed? The conception and birth of Jesus are set up to be different because he is different...but if these two parents go on to have other children "normally", why would you believe such an improbable story about one kid's birth involving angels, dreams, visions, and biological impossibilities? It's much easier to believe that Joseph and Mary got a little too impatient waiting for marriage, made a mistake, kept things under wraps, and by the time the child was born, they were already out of town, living in a foreign country for some years, etc...enough time for gossip to die down and to return to a normal life. In other words, ____ happens. Hardly a miracle.
I'm just not convinced that Matthew means to say what you think he is saying. It doesn't "add" anything positive, it just makes everything else look weaker.
2) Read again, I was talking in the context that "It would not matter if Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Christ". They were married after all, thus physical relations are completely sinless. This would not taint the virgin birth at all.
Well, I know people who've been raped by their spouses. That's an extreme case, but clearly it's not the case that marriage alone makes physical relations between spouses "completely sinless".
Would it taint the Virgin Birth? Yes. Not because sex between spouses is sinful. But because it casts doubt on the entire idea. It's easier to believe that Joseph and Mary "had Jesus the regular way" and later on God came and "adopted" their kid than it is to believe the Virgin Birth. It's not about whether or not sex is yucky, it's about whether or not this story is nonsense.
3) I didn't answer this one & the post because I thought it was sort of jabbing at me by the final question. I believe God the Father (YHWH/Jehovah) is the father of Yeshua (Jesus). I believe he was both man & God. I believe Joseph was his human parent while he was on Earth, as was Mary.
I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent to insult or offend you, I just felt like it was an important question that I asked before and either you missed it or were ignoring it.
Anyway, I don't understand your reply. If you believe that "Joseph was his human parent while he was on Earth, as was Mary", is that to say that Joseph was Jesus' biological parent? Because Mary was certainly his biological parent.
If you believe, on the other hand, that God is the father of Jesus, and Mary is his mother, and Joseph is sort of a "foster father" or "legal father" or "guardian" or whatever the proper term is, then why do you believe that? If Joseph and Mary were perfectly capable of having other children, and if that's what you think Matthew's implying, why believe that Jesus wasn't conceived normally?