count-your-change: As you say ‘MOST’ are not but neither do we elevate Josephus or Pliny to the authority of Inspired Scripture
Right. The fact that Mary remained virgin is a historical fact. It is not a fact known from scripture. It is simply a fact; how do you "elevate" it?
if there is disagreement between the secular historians and Scripture [we don't] raise these writers to a position of superiority, do we?
The scripture reflects historical facts also. If there seems to be a disagreement we have to find an explanation one way or another. In this case, there is no contradiction between the virginity of Mary and the scripture, so the issue does not arise. The contradiction is only between the way some modern readers, who often read as if the scripture were written by modern English speakers, interpret the scripture, but not with the scripture itself.
The Greek word “eos” is used as a conjunction in Matthew 1:25, it connects two phrases, Mary was a virgin and when that ended just as “eos” is used as a conjunction in verse 17.
But it’s not surprising that a reliance upon the distorted views of marital relations that some the so-called “church fathers” held would produce a narrative of an ever virginal Mary no matter what the Scriptures said otherwise.
Who needs the Scriptures when you have that work of fiction and fraud, The Infancy Gospel of James? That’s your “historical fact” source.
It's an opinion, nothing more and nothing less because there is NO legitimate, reliable, testable, repeatable, NO ANYTHING way to verify it.
It doesn't even have the support of Scripture by your own admission. There is NO basis for being able to declare it as fact. None. It's just wishful thinking.
Catholics would be better off if they'd just admit that they teach that Mary was always a virgin because they like the doctrine. It would at least be more honest of them.
But to admit that there is no substantial way to verify something and still claim that is a fact is ludicrous.