Who were the “brothers” of Jesus?

[rvmb]

I never said Matthew teaches Mary never had sex.
I said Matt. 1:25 does not teach that she did. Those are not the same claim.

You’re asking me to list verses proving something I never asserted. My point is simply this: Matt. 1:25 does not provide evidence for sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.

The structure of the argument is:

· Your claim: “until” means the opposite happened afterward
· Scripture: 2 Sam. 6:23 shows that is not how “until” works in the Bible.
· Therefore Matt. 1:25 cannot be used to prove later relations.

If you want to argue that Mary and Joseph had relations later, you need a verse that actually says so. Matt. 1:25 doesn’t say it, doesn’t imply it, and cannot be used to prove it.

So the burden of proof is still on the person claiming a later change — not on me.

Opinions need verses :)
You claim that Mary never had sex or other children besides Christ.
List the verses

 

[Soul.og]

Opinions need verses :)
You claim that Mary never had sex or other children besides Christ.
List the verses

You’re still attributing to me a claim I never made.

I have not argued that Scripture explicitly says Mary never had sex or never had other children. That is your characterization, not my position. My argument has been very specific: you claimed Matthew 1:25 proves Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus’s birth—and that claim is not supported by the text.

The issue is straightforward:

• Your claim: Matthew 1:25 proves Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’s birth.
• My response: Matthew 1:25 does not say that, and the scriptural use of “until” does not imply it.
• Therefore: If you want to assert later relations, you need a verse that actually states or implies it.

You’re now demanding verses for a claim I never made. That’s a category error. The burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim—that Joseph and Mary did have relations after Jesus’s birth.

So let’s return to the actual question:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born?

If such a verse exists, present it. If it doesn’t, then Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to support that conclusion.

 

[rvmb]

You’re still attributing to me a claim I never made.
I have not argued that Scripture explicitly says Mary never had sex.
I have argued that you claimed Matthew 1:25 proves she did — and that claim is not supported by the text.

The issue is simple:

· Your claim: Matt. 1:25 proves Mary and Joseph had relations later
· My response: Matt. 1:25 does not say that, and the meaning of "until" in Scripture does not imply it
· Therefore: If you want to claim later relations, you need a verse that actually states or implies it

You’re now asking me to provide verses for a claim I never asserted. The burden of proof is still on the person making the positive claim — that Mary and Joseph had relations after Jesus’ birth.

So I’ll repeat the actual question:

Which verse actually says Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born?

If there is one, present it. If there isn’t, then Matt. 1:25 cannot be used to support that conclusion.

Then I'll rephrase.
List the verses that teach Mary never had sex or other children besides Christ.

 

[Soul.og]

Then I'll rephrase.
List the verses that teach Mary never had sex or other children besides Christ.

You’re still misrepresenting my position.

I have not claimed that Scripture explicitly says Mary never had sex or never had other children. My claim is much narrower: you argued that Matthew 1:25 proves She did, and that claim is not supported by the text.

The argument is straightforward:

• You made a positive claim: Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’s birth.
• You appealed to Matthew 1:25 as your proof.
• I showed: Matthew 1:25 does not say that, and your interpretation of “until” is contradicted by Scripture itself (2 Samuel 6:23).

Now you’re asking me to defend a claim I never made in order to avoid defending the claim you made. That’s not how burden of proof works.

Demanding verses for a position I never asserted isn’t an argument—it’s a deflection.

So let’s return to the actual issue:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born?

 

[rvmb]

I never said Matthew teaches Mary never had sex.
I said Matt. 1:25 does not teach that she did. Those are not the same claim.

You’re asking me to list verses proving something I never asserted. My point is simply this: Matt. 1:25 does not provide evidence for sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.

The structure of the argument is:

· Your claim: “until” means the opposite happened afterward
· Scripture: 2 Sam. 6:23 shows that is not how “until” works in the Bible.
· Therefore Matt. 1:25 cannot be used to prove later relations.

If you want to argue that Mary and Joseph had relations later, you need a verse that actually says so. Matt. 1:25 doesn’t say it, doesn’t imply it, and cannot be used to prove it.

So the burden of proof is still on the person claiming a later change — not on me.

KJV, Vulgate, Duoay Rheims & others :-
""And knew her not till ""
No sex UNTIL AFTER Christ was born = no sex at all ?
Apparently your Biblical Greek to English translation expertise exceeds those who translated the old Bibles :)

 

[Soul.og]

KJV, Vulgate, Duoay Rheims & others :-
""And knew her not till ""
No sex UNTIL AFTER Christ was born = no sex at all ?
Apparently your Biblical Greek to English translation expertise exceeds those who translated the old Bibles :)

Appealing to English translations doesn’t solve the problem. Every translation you listed still uses the word until—and Scripture itself shows that until does not necessarily imply a change afterward.

The translators of the KJV, the Vulgate, and the Douay‑Rheims all knew 2 Samuel 6:23:

“Michal had no children until the day of her death.”

They translated that verse too—and none of them believed until meant she started having children after she died. So clearly, the translators themselves did not treat “until” as implying a later reversal.

Which means the issue isn’t whether a translation uses the word until. The issue is how Scripture uses the word until.

Your argument is:

• “until” = the opposite happened afterward

But Scripture directly disproves that rule. Therefore Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to prove later sexual relations.

So let’s return to the actual question:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

 

[rvmb]

Appealing to English translations doesn’t solve the problem.
Every translation you listed still uses the word until — and Scripture itself shows that until does not necessarily imply a change afterward.

The translators of the KJV, Vulgate, and Douay‑Rheims all knew 2 Sam. 6:23:

"Michal had no children until the day of her death."

They translated that verse too — and they didn’t think the word until meant she started having children after she died.

So the issue isn’t whether translators used the word until. The issue is what Scripture shows about how that word functions.

Your argument is:
"until" = the opposite happened afterward.
But Scripture itself disproves that rule.

Therefore Matt. 1:25 cannot be used to prove later relations.

So I’ll ask again, because this is the actual question:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it. If not, then Matt. 1:25 cannot support your conclusion.

KJV
Exo 40:37
But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up
Did they later journey, yes, no ?
Num 12:15
And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.
Did they later journey, yes, no ?
Mat 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Did Mary later have sex, yes, no ?

 

[Soul.og]

KJV
Exo 40:37
But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up
Did they later journey, yes, no ?
Num 12:15
And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.
Did they later journey, yes, no ?
Mat 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Did Mary later have sex, yes, no ?

Your examples only show that sometimes “until” implies a later change. My example (2 Samuel 6:23) shows that sometimes it does not.

Therefore the conclusion is unavoidable:

“Until” does not always imply a later change.

That’s the entire point.

Your argument requires a universal rule:

“until” = the opposite happened afterward

But Scripture itself disproves that rule. Once that rule collapses, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to prove later sexual relations.

So the real question remains:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

Your examples from Exodus and Numbers don’t answer that question. They only show that in those cases the situation changed afterward—which no one disputes.

But Matthew 1:25 does not say:

• “Joseph knew Her afterward,”
• “Joseph began to know Her,”
• or anything describing what happened later.

It simply states what did not happen before Jesus’ birth.

So again:

Do you have a verse that actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If yes, present it. If not, then Matthew 1:25 cannot support your conclusion.

 

[rvmb]

Your examples show that sometimes "until" implies a later change.
My example (2 Sam. 6:23) shows that sometimes it does not.

Therefore:

"Until" does not always imply a later change.

That’s the entire point.

Your argument requires a universal rule:

"until = the opposite happened afterward"

But Scripture itself disproves that rule.

Once that rule collapses, Matt. 1:25 cannot be used to prove later relations.

So the real question remains:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

Your examples from Exodus and Numbers don’t answer that question.
They only show that in those particular cases, the situation changed afterward — which no one disputes.

But Matt. 1:25 does not say:

· “Joseph knew Her afterward",
· “Joseph began to know Her",
· or anything about what happened later.

It simply states what did not happen before Jesus’ birth.

So again:

Do you have a verse that actually says Joseph and Mary had relations after Jesus was born?

If yes, present it.
If not, then Matt. 1:25 cannot support your conclusion.

But Matt. 1:25 does not say: · “Joseph knew (had sex) Her afterward",
KJV, Vulgate, Duoay Rheims :-
And knew her not (no sex) till << until after
Prove till means never :)

 

[rvmb]

https://www.quora.com/Did-Mary-and-Joseph-ever-have-sexual-intercourse

Joseph and Mary were betrothed, this much we know. We also know they were married and seen in all regards as husband and wife. This means that they did have intercourse, after the conception of Jesus. Some Christians insist that she remained a “perpetual virgin” but there is zero evidence of this in the Bible. It is also a completely silly thing to insist on, as if her non-virginity would make Mary less holy, less divine, less special… the whole point of the story is that Mary CONCEIVED Jesus prior to having intercourse with Joseph. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bible to suggest she remained forever untouched.

 

[Soul.og]

But Matt. 1:25 does not say: · “Joseph knew (had sex) Her afterward",
KJV, Vulgate, Duoay Rheims :-
And knew her not (no sex) till << until after
Prove till means never :)
View attachment 81455

You’re still missing the point.

I am not arguing that until means “never.” I am arguing that until does not automatically mean “the opposite happened afterward.” That is the only claim on the table.

Your examples from Exodus and Numbers show that sometimes a change happens after “until.” My example from 2 Samuel 6:23 shows that sometimes it does not:

“Michal had no children until the day of her death.”

She did not start having children after she died.

Therefore:

• “Until” does not create a universal rule.
• It can indicate a change, or it can simply mark a boundary.
• You cannot assume a change unless the text explicitly states one.

That’s why Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to prove later sexual relations. It only tells us what did not happen before Jesus’ birth.

And your AI quote about modern English doesn’t help your case—because we are not discussing modern English idioms. We are discussing scriptural usage, and Scripture itself shows that your rule is false.

So the real question remains:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it. If not, then Matthew 1:25 cannot support your conclusion.

 

[rvmb]

You’re still missing the point.
I am not arguing that until means "never".
I am arguing that until does NOT automatically mean "the opposite happened afterward".
That’s the only claim on the table.

Your examples from Exodus and Numbers show that sometimes a change happens after "until".
My example from 2 Sam. 6:23 shows that sometimes it does not:

"Michal had no children until the day of her death".

She did not start having children after she died.

Therefore:
· "Until" does not create a universal rule
· It can indicate a change, or it can simply mark a boundary
· You cannot assume a change unless the text states one

That’s why Matt. 1:25 cannot be used to prove later relations. It only tells us what did not happen before Jesus’ birth.

And your AI quote about modern English doesn’t help you — because we are not discussing modern English idioms.
We are discussing scriptural usage, and Scripture itself shows that your rule is false.

So the real question remains:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it.
If not, then Matt. 1:25 cannot support your conclusion.

Good thing for you is that proving whether or not Mary had sex is not a condition to be saved/justified/sealed by the 1 Cor 15:1-4, Eph 1:13 Gospel taught only to Paul (Gal 1:11-12) that applies to believers today

 

[Soul.og]

Good thing for you is that proving whether or not Mary had sex is not a condition to be saved/justified/sealed by the 1 Cor 15:1-4, Eph 1:13 Gospel taught only to Paul (Gal 1:11-12) that applies to believers today

Whether it’s a salvation issue is irrelevant. You made a specific claim about Matthew 1:25 and about Joseph and Mary having sexual relations after Jesus’ birth. I asked for a verse that states or implies that claim.

You still haven’t provided one.

Saying “it’s not required for salvation” doesn’t defend your argument. It doesn’t support your interpretation. It simply avoids the question.

So let’s be absolutely clear:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

 

[rvmb]

Whether it’s a salvation issue isn’t the question.
You made a specific claim about Matt. 1:25 and about Joseph and Mary having relations after Jesus’ birth.
I asked for a verse that states or implies that claim.

You haven’t provided one.

Saying "it’s not required for salvation" doesn’t answer the question or support your original claim.
It simply means you’re choosing not to defend it.

So just to be clear:

Do you have a verse that actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If yes, present it.
If not, then Matt. 1:25 cannot be used to support that conclusion.

To be clear do you have verses that state Mary DID NOT have sex after the Birth of Jesus ? NO
You simply provide PRIDE based interpretations and uses of the word till/until that suits your dogma

 

[Soul.og]

To be clear do you have verses that state Mary DID NOT have sex after the Birth of Jesus ? NO
You simply provide PRIDE based interpretations and uses of the word till/until that suits your dogma

You’re still shifting the burden of proof.

I have never claimed that Scripture explicitly says Mary never had sex. You claimed that Scripture says She did—and you have not produced a single verse that states or even implies that.

You keep demanding that I prove a negative I never asserted. But that’s not how argumentation works.

The person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof.

Your claim was:

“Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.”

So far, you have provided:

• no verse that says it
• no verse that implies it
• and only assumptions based on an English reading of “until”

Meanwhile, Scripture itself shows that your universal rule about “until”—“the opposite happened afterward”— is false (2 Samuel 6:23).

So the issue remains exactly the same:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it. If not, then Matthew 1:25 cannot support your conclusion.

 

[rvmb]

You’re still shifting the burden of proof.
I have never claimed Scripture explicitly says Mary never had sex.
You claimed Scripture says She DID — and you have not produced a single verse that states or implies that.

You keep asking me to prove a negative that I never asserted.
But that’s not how argumentation works.

The person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof.

Your claim was:

"Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth"

So far, you have provided:

· no verse that says it
· no verse that implies it
· and only assumptions based on English usage of "until"

Meanwhile, Scripture itself shows that your universal rule about "until" ("the opposite happened afterward") is false (2 Sam. 6:23).

So the issue remains exactly the same:

Do you have a verse that actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it.
If you don’t, then your claim is based on assumption, not Scripture.

You can't prove she didn't and that's what hisses you off the most.
Keep typing S

 

[Soul.og]

You can't prove she didn't and that's what pisses you off the most.
Keep typing S

This isn’t about proving a negative or about emotion. It’s about the fact that you made a positive claim and have not provided a single verse to support it.

My position has been consistent:

• I have never claimed Scripture says Mary never had sex.
• I have only pointed out that Matthew 1:25 does not say She did.
• You claimed it does—and you have not produced a verse that states or implies that.

When someone cannot support their claim, shifting to personal remarks doesn’t change the fact that the evidence is missing.

So the question remains exactly the same:

Do you have a verse that actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it. If not, then your claim rests on assumption, not Scripture.

 

[rvmb]

This isn’t about proving a negative or about emotion.
It’s about the fact that you made a positive claim and have not provided a single verse to support it.

My position has been consistent:

· I never claimed Scripture says Mary never had sex
· I only pointed out that Matt. 1:25 does not say She did
· You claimed it does — and you have not produced a verse that states or implies that

When someone cannot support their claim, shifting to personal remarks doesn’t change the fact that the evidence is missing.

So again, the question remains:

Do you have a verse that actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it.
If not, then your claim is based on assumption, not Scripture.

You are the one claiming Matt 1:25 does not prove sex either way.
Prove they did or didn't :)

 

[Soul.og]

You are the one claiming Matt 1:25 does not prove sex either way.
Prove they did or didn't :)

Matthew 1:25 does not prove sexual relations either way because the verse simply does not address what happened after Jesus’ birth. It only states what did not happen before the birth.

The structure of the verse is straightforward:

• Statement: Joseph did not know Mary
• Time boundary: until She gave birth to Jesus

That’s all the verse says. It contains no statement about what happened afterward.

A verse cannot prove something it does not say. That’s not interpretation—that’s just reading the sentence as written.

And Scripture itself shows that “until” does not automatically imply a later change (2 Samuel 6:23), so you cannot insert one into Matthew 1:25.

This is why Matthew 1:25 proves nothing about later sexual relations: the verse makes no claim about later sexual relations.

You are the one claiming it does—which means the burden of proof remains on you.

So once again:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it. If not, then Matthew 1:25 cannot support your conclusion.

 

[rvmb]

Matt. 1:25 does not prove sexual relations either way because the verse simply does not address what happened after Jesus’ birth.
It only states what did not happen before the birth.

Here is the structure of the verse:

· Statement: Joseph did not know Mary
· Time boundary: until She gave birth to Jesus

That’s it.
The verse contains no statement about what happened afterward.

A verse cannot prove something it does not say.

This is not interpretation — it’s just reading the sentence as written.

And Scripture itself shows that "until" does not automatically imply a later change (2 Sam. 6:23), so you cannot insert one into Matt. 1:25.

So again:

Matt. 1:25 proves nothing about later sexual relations because it does not make any claim about later sexual relations.

You are the one claiming it does — so the burden remains on you:

Which verse actually says Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth?

If you have one, present it.
If not, then Matt. 1:25 cannot support your conclusion.

Your pride/ego/reputation requires you to prove Mary did not have sex or children after Christ.
Keep trying S.
More verses please :)