@jaredad7 The explicit statement in Maccabees is wonderful but I wouldn't call the canon deficient without it since the contents of the explicit are pretty clearly implicit elsewhere. If Hosea were not canon I hesitate to say the canon would be deficient because there isn't anything there that isn't also elsewhere but, it is canon, so that is mute.

If I'm being honest, I think the "until" argument is just awful. The word is a limiter and once the limit prescribed is reached the paradigm changes. For instance, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you?. Of course, "until we meet again, God bless you" means "while we are apart and until we meet again may God watch over you (or some such).

Once they are met again that well-wish is concluded and, if they part again, may be once again re-stated.

And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?) Of course not, once she died it became impossible for her to have a child. "Until" the day of her death the paradigm remained the same and once that limiter was reached the paradigm changed. It is another way of saying she had no children for the entire time it was possible to do so.

Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?) It is very possible that Paul, upon arriving, would alter Timothy's responsibilities or perhaps even relocate him. Also, possible that Paul would take up those duties while he was in town and hand the baton back to Timothy when he left again. Either way it is a hard limit expecting a paradigm shift.

For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end?). The current paradigm under which Christ reigns (which is what is in view) will indeed change. After this hard limit (death destroyed) is reached the reign of Christ is significantly different. Christ must reign as he currently reigns until ...

"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son". The hard limit is the birth of Jesus and the paradigm which ends at that hard limit is "knew her not". The paradigm does not change to one in which this knowing becomes impossible, as in the death example. If she had a vow of lifelong virginity (which was not going to change) then the hard limit (Jesus' birth) makes absolutely no sense.

IMHO, this is the danger of committing oneself to viewing Scripture through a particular lens, whether dogmatic definitions or schools of theology or denominational declarations of faith, etc: Whatever that lens is takes on greater authority than Scripture. You have given yourself no choice but to make "until" mean something else.

I personally see no significant (critical failure type) problems with someone believing Mary remained a virgin throughout her whole life: It doesn't add to or take away from what the Lord Jesus accomplished. But to declare that the rejection of such a barely Scriptural belief represents a deficiency significant enough to qualify as anathema (which annihilates salvation) is off the edge of the map. It basically just means that if you don't submit to the Chair of Peter you can't be saved.

I will be kind and call that unbiblical. "Follow me as I follow Christ", is what Paul said. Funny he did not say, "Follow Peter as he follows Christ". Surely, Peter could have said the same, as could any of the Apostles or any elder in the Church or any Father or Mother or husband.