Who were the “brothers” of Jesus?

[Soul.og]

Opening Thesis

The individuals called Jesus’s “brothers” in Scripture were not children of Mary, but cousins—the sons of Clopas/Alphaeus and Mary of Clopas—and two of them (James and Judas) were among the Twelve Apostles.

1. Key Linguistic and Scriptural Foundations​

A. “Brother” (ἀδελφός / adelphos) does not mean biological sibling​

• In Koine Greek, adelphos can mean:
  • biological brother
  • cousin or other close relative
  • countryman
  • fellow believer
  • associate
• In the plural (adelphoi), it often means “brothers and sisters".

Therefore: The word alone cannot prove biological brotherhood.

B. Only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary”​

• Mark 6:3 uniquely calls Jesus “the Son of Mary".
• If Mary had other biological sons, this phrasing would be unusual in Jewish culture, where siblings share maternal designation.

C. The men called Jesus’s “brothers” are never called “sons of Mary”​

• Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 list Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas as Jesus’s adelphoi, but never as Mary’s children.

This silence is powerful.

2. Identifying the “Brothers”: Scriptural Cross‑Referencing​

A. The Gospels identify another Mary—not the Mother of Jesus—as the mother of James and Joseph​

• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40
• Mark 16:1
• Luke 24:10
• John 19:25

All four Gospels identify Mary of Clopas as the mother of:

• Joseph (Joses)
• James (the Less)

This matches two of the “brothers” listed in Matthew 13:55.

B. Mary of Clopas is called the “sister” of Mary, the Mother of Jesus​

(John 19:25)

This makes her children Jesus’s cousins.

C. Clopas/Alphaeus is identified as the father of two apostles​

• James of Alphaeus
• Judas (Thaddeus) of Alphaeus

Since two of Jesus’s “brothers” are named James and Judas, and the only James and Judas in the apostolic circle with matching family ties are the sons of Alphaeus, the identification is extremely strong.

3. Paul’s Testimony​

(Galatians 1:18-19)

Paul meets:

• Peter
• James, “the brother of the Lord”

This James is:

• an apostle
• a leader in Jerusalem
• the same James known elsewhere as:
  • James the Less
  • James of Alphaeus
  • James the Just
  • Bishop of Jerusalem

Paul’s usage of “brother” is consistent with kinship, not biological sibling-hood.

4. Early Church Fathers: Universal and Consistent Witness​

Papias (1st-2nd century) ​

Identifies:

• Mary of Clopas as mother of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus)
• Clopas as Alphaeus

Exactly the names listed as Jesus’s “brothers.”

(Fragments of Papias, Frag. X)

Jerome (4th century)​

Explicitly states:

• James “the brother of the Lord” is the son of Mary of Clopas
• Mary of Clopas is the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus
• Therefore James is Jesus’s cousin, not Mary’s son

(De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae)

​

Eusebius (3rd-4th century)​

Drawing on earlier sources (Hegesippus, Clement, Josephus), he affirms:

• James the Just = “brother of the Lord”
• He is the son of Clopas
• Clopas is Joseph’s brother
• Simon son of Clopas succeeds James as bishop because he is also a cousin of Jesus

This is a coherent family tree.

(Historia Ecclesiastica)

5. Synthesis: The Only Model That Fits All Evidence​

A. Jesus’s “brothers” = sons of Clopas/Alphaeus and Mary of Clopas​

Names match across:

• Gospel lists
• Crucifixion and resurrection narratives
• Apostolic lists
• Early Church testimony

B. James and Judas = Apostles James and Judas (Thaddeus) of Alphaeus​

They:

• share the same names
• share the same parents
• are called Jesus’s “brothers”
• are identified as apostles
• are linked to the Epistles of James and Jude

C. Mary the Mother of Jesus is never said to have other children​

Not once in Scripture or early Christian testimony.

​

6. Conclusion​

The cumulative evidence—linguistic, textual, historical, and patristic—overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the “brothers” of Jesus were not Mary’s biological children but His cousins, the sons of Clopas/Alphaeus and Mary of Clopas. Two of them, James and Judas, were apostles and authors of New Testament epistles.

This model:

• explains every name
• harmonizes all Gospel accounts
• matches Paul’s testimony
• aligns with the earliest Christian writers
• preserves the traditional understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity
• avoids contradictions present in alternative theories

 

[Taken]

What evidence supports or challenges the idea that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Jesus’ biological brothers?



Jesus had NO “biological” parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, or otherwise “human” relatives.

 

[Soul.og]

Jesus had NO “biological” parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, or otherwise “human” relatives.

Jesus—the eternal Word—possesses both full divinity and full humanity. Regarding His humanity, the New Testament is explicit: Jesus entered the world through a real biological birth from Mary.

• “You will conceive in Your womb and bear a Son” (Luke 1:31)
• “the Child conceived in Her” (Matthew 1:20)
• “the fruit of Her womb” (Luke 1:42)
• “She gave birth to Her firstborn Son” (Luke 2:7)
• “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4)

These statements directly refute the claim that Jesus had no biological human relatives.

Luke strengthens this point by tracing Jesus’s lineage through Mary’s family line—through Heli, through David’s son Nathan, and ultimately back to Adam (Luke 3:23-38). A genealogy of this kind only makes sense if Jesus is genuinely connected to the human race through Mary. The Evangelists clearly present Him as possessing a real human ancestry even as they affirm His divine origin.

 

[Aunty Jane]

A couple of points....

Jesus was born into a devout Jewish family who considered children as a gift from God.
Matt 1:24-25 NCB...
“When Joseph rose from sleep, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him. He took Mary into his home as his wife, but he engaged in no marital relations with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.”

Mary and Joseph were a normal married couple who naturally expected to have more children. Joseph respected Mary’s virginity as it was prophesied that a virgin would give birth to the Messiah.

What was the impediment to them having more children after the birth of Jesus?
Where does it say that their “marital relations” would not produce more children? Or why....
This normal consummation of their marriage would have ruined Mary’s virginity, if the birth of Jesus hadn’t done so already.

Where does it say in the Bible that Mary was to be elevated to a status that the Bible does not give her.
She is called “the mother of Jesus”...but never “the mother of God”.

All of the titles given to Mary were from the pagan worship of the mother goddesses.....”Our Lady”....”Queen of Heaven” etc are not biblical titles, but adoptions from paganism.

 

[Soul.og]

Matt 1:24-25 NCB...
“When Joseph rose from sleep, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him. He took Mary into his home as his wife, but he engaged in no marital relations with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.”

Mary and Joseph were a normal married couple who naturally expected to have more children. Joseph respected Mary’s virginity as it was prophesied that a virgin would give birth to the Messiah.

In Matthew 1:20-25, the Evangelist explicitly presents Jesus’s conception as the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, emphasizing that Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit. Matthew’s statement that Joseph “did not know Her until She had given birth” functions to affirm two points: the divine origin of Christ and Joseph’s abstinence prior to the Messiah’s birth.

Its purpose is singular and contextual: to safeguard the prophetic sign of the Virgin Birth. It is not intended to assert, imply, or even address what occurred in Joseph and Mary’s marital life after Jesus’s nativity.

To interpret the passage as a comment on their later relations is to impose on the text a meaning it neither states nor suggests.

Jesus was born into a devout Jewish family who considered children as a gift from God.

Joseph and Mary were indeed given a child, as any devout Jewish couple would rejoice to receive—but the Child entrusted to them was no ordinary Son. He was God the Word Incarnate, Jesus. Notably, in the Gospels, only Jesus is identified as Mary and Joseph’s Son, even though Joseph is described as His putative (legal) father (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).

This consistent usage is not accidental. It underscores the uniqueness of Jesus’s identity within the Holy Family and aligns with the Evangelists’ deliberate emphasis on His divine origin.

 

[Aunty Jane]

And Joseph and Mary were indeed given a child, just as any pair of devout Jewish spouses would rejoice to—but the child entrusted to them was God the Word Incarnate, Jesus. Notably, in the Gospels only Jesus is called Mary’s Son (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), and only Jesus is called Joseph’s Son, even though Joseph is His putative father (Matt. 13:55). This consistent usage underscores the singularity of Jesus’s identity within the Holy Family and aligns with the Evangelists’ emphasis on His divine origin.

I know exactly why the church chose to pretend that Mary and Joseph didn’t have more children....you have no evidence from the Bible that even suggests that there was some kind of impediment to extending their family...it was Jewish tradition to have many children. Show us in Scripture where it was forbidden....or impossible.

It gives the church an excuse to practice idolatry and to elevate Mary to the status of a goddess....an idolatry freely practiced in pagan religions long before Jesus was born.



Do you think this is accidental?

It also gives her titles that the Bible does not.....one of the most abhorrent is ”mother of God”.

I believe that Jesus was the “Son of God”....which is what he called himself. (John 10:36)
He most definitely was of divine origin, not once did he call himself deity....the church did that.

Can you show me a single verse where he claimed to be equally “God” with his Father?

 

[Taken]

Jesus (the Word) is both fully divine and fully human.

LOL…

Utter man-MADE nonsense.

Jesus is FROM Above.
Humans are FROM the Earth, Below the Above!

Jesus’ Spirit is FROM Above.
Jesus’ Soul is FROM Above.
Jesus’ PREPARED BODY is FROM Above.

 

[Taken]

Jesus (the Word) is both fully divine and fully human. Concerning His humanity, the New Testament explicitly affirms that He was biologically born of Mary:

· "You will conceive in Your womb and bear a Son" (Lk. 1:31)
· "this child has been conceived in Her womb" (Matt. 1:20)
· "the fruit of Her womb” (Lk. 1:42)
· “She gave birth to Her firstborn Son” (Lk. 2:7)
· “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4)

These passages alone contradict the claim that Jesus had “no biological human relatives".

The Gospels also provide genealogies for Jesus (Matt. 1; Lk. 3), tracing His lineage through:

· Abraham
· David
· Judah
· Adam

A genealogy is meaningless unless Jesus is biologically connected to humanity through Mary. The Evangelists clearly understood Him to have a real human ancestry, even while affirming His divine origin.

God established RACE Division…
ISRAELITES and GENTILES.

Jesus OFFERED both RACES…
ISRAELITES and GENTILES a means, WAY, to BECOME MADE ADJOINED sons OF God

Jesus was / is NOT a human.
Jesus was / is NOT a Biological Son of Mary or Joseph.

A Biological offspring of a human Requires a human females egg to BE fertilized by human mans seed.

Phil 2
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form (body) of a servant, (human) and was made in the likeness (similitude) of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

AS does not mean IS.

Equality with God does Not apply to Humans!

Conceived, is simply the condition of being Pregnant…

Mary was Pregnant…. But not biologically by her egg being fertilized by ANY SEED.

You “corruptly” keep trying to REDUCE a “Spiritual Event” to a Human Biological production.

Ugh!

 

[Wrangler]

What evidence supports or challenges the idea that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Jesus’ biological brothers?
Key points to consider:

· Only Jesus is called Mary's Son (Matt. 13:55;Mk. 6:3)

· Only Jesus is called Joseph’s Son, despite being His putative father (Matt. 13:55)

You are playing word games with "biological" and "only" and "brothers."Let's look at the verses you cite more carefully.
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

• This verse does the opposite of what you claim.
• It doesn't say Jesus is the only son. You are reading "only" into the text.
• "Son" and "brothers" mean biological, by default.

If one is NOT a biological relationship in using such biological words, the burden is on the one invoking this word by qualifying it, such as stepson or brother-in-law or half-brother. I notice your inquiry does not extend to the use of "mother" in the verse. Very telling. Here, you accept "mother" to mean in the normal sense. Many claim she was not but a surrogate, where none of Jesus' DNA came from her.

If I say "my wife gave me this ball," what is the evidence that she is my legal wife and the ball is round? This is what these words mean, by definition, by default. "My wife gave me this ball" means my legal wife gave me this round ball. (If I, the speaker, meant something other than the normal meaning of the words, the onus would be on me to qualify; my common-law wife gave me this non-round, chipped ball.)

So, to answer your question, the evidence is definition and normal language usage.

 

[Soul.og]

I know exactly why the church chose to pretend that Mary and Joseph didn’t have more children....you have no evidence from the Bible that even suggests that there was some kind of impediment to extending their family...it was Jewish tradition to have many children. Show us in Scripture where it was forbidden....or impossible.

Your claim that Mary had additional children is not stated anywhere in Scripture. That is a separate theological issue, and I’ll address it in its own thread since it’s off‑topic here.

This discussion concerns a much narrower question: whether the men named Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 were Jesus’ biological brothers. I’ve already presented the scriptural and historical evidence in the opening post showing they were not.

So let me put the issue plainly: Do you believe these men were Mary’s biological sons? If so, where does Scripture explicitly say that?

 

[Soul.og]

A Biological offspring of a human Requires a human females egg to BE fertilized by human mans seed.

Ordinarily, yes—human reproduction requires both a human egg and a human sperm. But in the case of Jesus, Christians hold that the Holy Spirit miraculously supplied what a human father ordinarily would, while Mary provided the human egg and the full biological contribution that makes Him truly human. He developed in Her womb just as any other child would.

God established RACE Division…
ISRAELITES and GENTILES.

Jesus OFFERED both RACES…
ISRAELITES and GENTILES a means, WAY, to BECOME MADE ADJOINED sons OF God

I’m not talking about Israelites and Gentiles—I’m talking about Jesus’s genealogy.

In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus’s lineage is traced through Mary’s family line, beginning with Heli, running back through David’s son Nathan, and ultimately to Adam (Luke 3:23-38). That genealogy is meaningless unless Jesus is biologically connected to humanity through Mary. The Evangelists clearly present Him as having a real human ancestry while simultaneously affirming His divine origin.

That is the point I’m addressing—not ethnic categories.

 

[Soul.og]

You are playing word games with "biological" and "only" and "brothers."Let's look at the verses you cite more carefully.
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

• This verse does the opposite of what you claim.
• It doesn't say Jesus is the only son. You are reading "only" into the text.
• "Son" and "brothers" mean biological, by default.

If one is NOT a biological relationship in using such biological words, the burden is on the one invoking this word by qualifying it, such as stepson or brother-in-law or half-brother. I notice your inquiry does not extend to the use of "mother" in the verse. Very telling. Here, you accept "mother" to mean in the normal sense. Many claim she was not but a surrogate, where none of Jesus' DNA came from her.

If I say "my wife gave me this ball," what is the evidence that she is my legal wife and the ball is round? This is what these words mean, by definition, by default. "My wife gave me this ball" means my legal wife gave me this round ball. (If I, the speaker, meant something other than the normal meaning of the words, the onus would be on me to qualify; my common-law wife gave me this non-round, chipped ball.)

So, to answer your question, the evidence is definition and normal language usage.

The issue isn’t “word games”; it’s how Scripture itself uses family terms. If the default meaning of brother in modern English is “biological sibling,” the default meaning of ἀδελφός (adelphos) in Koine Greek is much broader. In the Septuagint and the New Testament, adelphos is used for:

• Biological brothers: Genesis 4:2
• Other close kin (cousins, nephews, etc.): Genesis 13:8; 14:14; 29:15
• Fellow Israelites: Acts 3:17
• Fellow believers: Romans 1:13; Hebrews 2:11

So an appeal to “normal language usage” only works if you mean modern English, not the language and culture of Scripture.
Scripture never calls Joseph, Simon, James, or Judas “sons of Mary.” Instead, the New Testament reserves those titles uniquely for Jesus:

• “the Carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55)
• “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3)

And it explicitly presents Mary as Jesus’ biological mother:

• “You will conceive in Your womb and bear a Son” (Luke 1:31)
• “the Child who has been conceived in Her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20)
• “the fruit of Your womb” (Luke 1:42)
• “She gave birth to Her firstborn Son” (Luke 2:7)
• “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4)

Scripture also identifies another Mary—Mary of Clopas (Cleophas/Alphaeus), called the “sister” of Mary of Nazareth—as the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25). Since these men are explicitly given a different mother, the “brothers” of Jesus—Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3)—can reasonably be understood as close relatives or kinsmen rather than sons of Mary of Nazareth.

The early Church Fathers consistently interpret these “brothers” as Jesus’ relatives, not children of Mary. They identify them as the sons of Clopas (Cleophas/Alphaeus) and Mary of Clopas. That shows this reading—“brothers” as cousins or close kin—is not a late theological invention but an ancient, continuous understanding within early Christian tradition.

Your argument rests on this assumption:

“If Scripture says ‘brothers,’ it must mean biological brothers.”

But Scripture itself contradicts that assumption:

• “Then He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at one time” (1 Corinthians 15:6)

Clearly, adelphos there does not mean “biological siblings.” In scriptural usage, adelphos is often broader than “biological brother.” The burden of proof is therefore on you to show that in this particular context adelphos must mean biological brothers of Jesus—something neither the text nor the language requires.

 

[Taken]

Ordinarily, yes — human reproduction requires a human egg and human sperm. In Jesus’ case, Christians believe the Holy Spirit miraculously supplied what a human father normally would, while Mary provided the human egg and the physical, genetic, and biological material that made Jesus fully human. He developed in Her womb like any other child.

Human conception does not occur in the womb!

God is Spirit.
Gods Seed did NOT fertilize a human egg.

Angels are Spirits. Did you not learn a Spirit fertilizing a human females Egg is an Abomination, worthy to be chained hell?
Ya think The Lord God DID what He found to be an Abomination?

And their offspring were Freakish HUGE.
Jesus was of rather small stature.

I’m not talking about Israelites and Gentiles—I’m talking about Jesus’s genealogy.

I am a Gentile…
Abraham was Not a Gentile, Yet he is my Earthly Father… and I am entitled to a portion of Abrahams inheritance God promised him and his offspring.
Nether Jesus nor I ARE Abraham’s STOCK (blood Offspring)… yet we both ARE his Spiritual offsprings.

You try to conclude Spiritual things with Carnal Logic and it’s a fail.

Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies for Jesus.

Lawful genealogies, of manKIND.
Jesus provided His Spiritual Genealogy!

 

[Wrangler]

The issue isn’t “word games”

It is. You are playing word games.

So an appeal to “normal language usage” only works if we’re talking about modern English, not the language and culture of Scripture.

Nope. Your analysis is Circular, relying on your own translation skills while claiming relational words have ambiguous application in different languages. No comment about how you take “mother” to mean its default idea in Scripture but not brother. Very telling.

 

[Soul.og]

Human conception does not occur in the womb!

God is Spirit.
Gods Seed did NOT fertilize a human egg.

You’re arguing against a position I never made. I did not claim that conception occurs “in the womb,” nor did I claim that “God’s seed” fertilized Mary’s egg. My argument is far simpler: Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and Mary supplied the genuine human biological material that made Him fully human.

You asserted that a human being must be conceived by a human father’s seed in order to be human. But that is not what defines humanity. A human organism is human because it possesses:

• human DNA
• human developmental processes
• human embodiment

The mechanism of origin does not determine whether the resulting being is human.

Biology itself demonstrates this:

• Cloned mammals (such as Dolly the sheep) were produced without a father’s seed and without fertilization, yet they were fully members of their species.
• Parthenogenesis in certain animals produces offspring without males, yet the offspring are still fully members of their species.

If your argument were correct, these organisms would not be what they clearly are.

Scripture provides an even stronger example:

Adam is described as fully human (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-3), the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45), and the ancestor of all humanity (Acts 17:26), even though he:

• had no human father
• had no human mother
• was not conceived by seed or egg
• came into existence solely by divine action

Yet Scripture treats Adam as:

• biologically human
• morally responsible as a human
• genealogically the head of the human race
• theologically the representative of humanity

If Adam can be fully human without a human father’s seed—or even a human mother—then Jesus, who does have a real human mother, is certainly fully human without a human father.

This demonstrates conclusively that humanity does not depend on the mechanism of conception.

So the question becomes unavoidable:

If Adam is fully human without a human father’s seed, why would Jesus—who does have a human mother—require one to be human?

I am a Gentile…
Abraham was Not a Gentile, Yet he is my Earthly Father… and I am entitled to a portion of Abrahams inheritance God promised him and his offspring.
Nether Jesus nor I ARE Abraham’s STOCK (blood Offspring)… yet we both ARE his Spiritual offsprings.

You try to conclude Spiritual things with Carnal Logic and it’s a fail.

You keep shifting the topic. I’m not discussing spiritual descent from Abraham or the distinction between Jew and Gentile. I’m addressing Luke’s biological genealogy of Jesus.

Luke traces Jesus’s lineage through Mary’s family line—through Heli, through David, and ultimately back to Adam (Luke 3:23-38). A genealogy only has meaning if there is an actual biological connection. That is the entire function of a genealogy.

Spiritual descent from Abraham is an entirely different category. Luke is not listing “spiritual ancestors.” He is presenting a biological lineage that ties Jesus to David and to the human race as a whole.

So the central question remains, and you still have not answered it:

If Jesus had no biological connection to Mary, how does Luke’s genealogy have any meaning at all?

Until you address that point directly, your argument does not engage with the text Luke actually wrote.

 

[Soul.og]

It is. You are playing word games.

Refuted in post #12.

Your analysis is Circular, relying on your own translation skills while claiming relational words have ambiguous application in different languages. No comment about how you take “mother” to mean its default idea in Scripture but not brother. Very telling.

You’re calling my argument circular, but nothing I’ve said depends on “my own translation skills.” I pointed to how Scripture itself uses adelphos across the Septuagint and the New Testament—evidence anyone can verify. That is not circular reasoning; it is an appeal to the textual data.

Your claim that I take “mother” in its default sense but not “brother” also misses the point. Scripture explicitly identifies Mary as Jesus’ biological mother (“conceived in Her womb,” “fruit of Your womb,” “She gave birth to Her firstborn Son”). Scripture does not do this for Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas.

Meanwhile, Scripture identifies another Mary as the mother of James and Joseph. That is not my translation; it is the plain wording of Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40; 16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 19:25.

So the issue is not “ambiguity in languages.” The issue is:

• Adelphos is used broadly throughout Scripture, not narrowly.
• Scripture calls Jesus “the carpenter’s Son” and “the Son of Mary” (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
• Scripture calls Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas Jesus’ adelphoi (“brothers”), but never “sons of Mary” (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
• Scripture identifies another Mary as the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25).
• The early Church understood these “brothers” as relatives, not as sons of Mary of Nazareth.

The burden is on you to show where Scripture states that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were sons of Mary. Until you—or anyone else—can present such a verse, the claim that they were Mary’s biological sons has no textual foundation. The passages simply do not say what that argument requires them to say.

 

[Wrangler]

the burden is on you to show where Scripture says James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were sons of Mary.

LOL. You can’t even take responsibility for your embracing ‘mother’ in these verses as it is defined.

The burden is easy to meet.

1. Person X has a brother.
2. Person X mother is Mary.
3. Person X and his brother have the same mother - by definition.

 

[soberxp]

Are we all from Adam and Eve?

 

[Aunty Jane]

I’ll create a separate thread for the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I wouldn’t bother...it’s been done to death, and only Catholic people believe what their church has taught them about Mary.....the Bible does not elevate her to the status of a goddess....but the RCC certainly does, with disgusting idolatry included. (Exodus 20:4-5)

This thread is about whether there is evidence to support or challenge the idea that Joseph, James, and Judas were Jesus’s biological brothers. I’ve already presented the textual and historical evidence in the opening post showing they were not.

Your claim that Mary had additional children is not stated anywhere in Scripture. If you believe these men were Her biological sons, please show where the text explicitly says so.

Well here goes.....

In order to support the idea that Mary remained a virgin all her life, the RCC have applied different meanings to the term “brothers”, (adelphos) insisting that these were relatives but not siblings....when there was no Scriptural reason for such an idea.

Some will even imply that Jesus’ “brothers” were actually sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage. However, the Bible shows that Jesus inherited the legal right to the kingship promised to David. (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Luke 1:32) If Joseph had been father to sons older than Jesus, the eldest of these would have been Joseph’s legal heir....so we can cancel that position.

Could the word “adelphos” refer to Jesus’ disciples, or spiritual brothers? This idea conflicts with the Scriptures....
John 7:2-5 NRSVCE...
“Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” (For not even his brothers believed in him.) Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.”

Here, the Bible clearly distinguishes Jesus’ “brothers” from his “disciples” and says that at this time, “his brothers were, in fact not believing in him.” (John 7:5)
If his “brothers” were not accepting him as Messiah, his “disciples” certainly were.


The Bible again distinguishes Jesus’ “brothers” in John 2:11-12. So these were not his spiritual “brothers” but kin, as they were with Jesus and his mother at the wedding feast in Cana where he turned water into wine. Families were invited to wedding feasts in those times.

Were Jesus’ “brothers” actually his “cousins”?
The Greek Scriptures use distinct words for “brother,” “relative,” and “cousin.”....“syngenēs” is used for a relative (cousin or close blood relative) in Luke 21:16....and in Col 4:10, “anepsios” is used specifically for a cousin.”

Many Bible scholars acknowledge that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were his actual siblings. For example, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary states: “The most natural way to understand ‘brothers’ . . . is that the term refers to sons of Mary and Joseph and thus to brothers of Jesus on his mother’s side.”

But again we have to come back to the first question....why would your church insist on something the Bible does not specifically say?....where is it stated that there is a valid reason why Jesus could not have siblings? No mention is given for such a position. Mary’s virginity would have been lost firstly at Jesus birth....or secondly when the marriage of Mary and Joseph was consummated. (Matt 1:25)

You have no Scriptural grounds to stand on.....only Catholic ones.

 

[Soul.og]

LOL. You can’t even take responsibility for your embracing ‘mother’ in these verses as it is defined.

You’re accusing me of “not taking responsibility,” but let’s stay with what the text actually says. Was I wrong to say Jesus is the biological Son of Mary when Scripture explicitly states:

• “You will conceive in Your womb and bear a Son” (Luke 1:31)
• “The Child conceived in Her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20)
• “The fruit of Your womb” (Luke 1:42)
• “She gave birth to Her firstborn Son” (Luke 2:7)
• “Born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4)

If these verses don’t mean Mary is Jesus’ biological mother, then what do they mean?

The burden is easy to meet.

1. Person X has a brother.
2. Person X mother is Mary.
3. Person X and his brother have the same mother - by definition.

Your “definition” doesn’t match what the text actually says; it assumes what the passage never states.

Here is what the text does say:

• Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” and “the Son of Mary” (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
• Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas are called Jesus’ adelphoi (“brothers”), but never “sons of Mary” (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
• Another Mary is explicitly identified as the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25).

Your conclusion only works if the text explicitly says, “Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were sons of Mary.” It never does.

Your argument is circular:

• You assume “brother” must mean biological brother.
• You assume biological brothers must share the same mother.
• You then conclude they share the same mother because they are “brothers.”

That’s not exegesis; it’s importing a modern English assumption into a first‑century Semitic context.

Meanwhile, the actual textual data still stands:

• Adelphos is used broadly throughout Scripture, not narrowly.
• Scripture calls Jesus “the carpenter’s Son” and “the Son of Mary” (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
• Scripture calls Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas Jesus’ adelphoi (“brothers”), but never “sons of Mary” (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
• Scripture identifies another Mary as the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25).
• The early Church understood these “brothers” as relatives, not as sons of Mary of Nazareth.

So the question remains: where does Scripture ever call Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas “sons of Mary”? Until you can show that in the text itself, your three‑line “definition” doesn’t answer the argument—it just assumes the conclusion.