I'm not sure, BLuebird, I'll have to look it up again, but it does refer to one of the disciples as the brother of Jesus and in translation it doesn't maan as you are my sisters, it means flesh and blood just as Adam "knew" Eve and she concieved and bara a son.
It infers intimacy in much more than a "Philadelphia sort of way". I have studied the Greek and Hebrew translations of much of the scripture.
It wouldn't at all interfere with the holiness of Christ or make him any less the son of God. What it would do is take the diety away from Mary and place it squarely on the shoulders of God born in the flesh as a man and also give Christ the complete experience of manhood, down to the future expeience of having step brothers and sisters. After all, the brothers and sisters sired by Mary and Joseph would be the step brothers and sisters of Christ since his biological father was God.
It has never been hard for me to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin with God as his sire placed in the womb of a virgin by the Holy Spirit.
But to think that Mary had to remain a virgin while married to Joseph goes against the very teachings of Christ that a man and his wife "come together often" in the marriage bed.
Joseph was, after all, a man and a good respectable man at that who listened and obeyed the voice of God.
The diefication of Mary was incorporated into the Catholic faith during the time that the pagan religion was threatening to overtake Catholicism. The female goddesses of that time were worshipped and incorporated into faith right along with Easter eggs and the such. It was the only way the Faith could self perpetuate.