Who were the “brothers” of Jesus?

[Soul.og]

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

I don’t need to prove Mary never had sex or never had other children—because I never claimed She never did. You’re trying to force me to defend a position I never took so you don’t have to defend the one you took.

My claim has been the same from the beginning:

• You said Scripture teaches Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.
• You appealed to Matthew 1:25 as proof.
• I showed that Matthew 1:25 does not say that.
• And you have not produced a single verse that does.

When someone cannot support their claim, they often switch to personal remarks or try to flip the burden of proof. But none of that changes the fact that the evidence is missing.

So the question remains—and it’s the one you keep avoiding:

Which verse 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]

I don’t need to prove She didn’t — because I never claimed She didn’t.
You’re trying to force me to defend a position I never took so you don’t have to defend the one you took.

My claim has been the same from the beginning:

· You said Scripture teaches Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth
· You appealed to Matt. 1:25 as proof
· I showed Matt. 1:25 does not say that
· And you have not produced a single verse that does

When someone cannot support their claim, they often switch to personal remarks or try to flip the burden of proof.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the evidence is missing.

So the question remains — and it’s the only question you’ve been avoiding:

Which verse 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.

Grow up S.
Your pride/ego is loud & clear.
Go play with someone else

 

[rvmb]

 

[Soul.og]

Grow up S.
Your pride/ego is loud & clear.
Go play with someone else

Personal remarks don’t change the fact that you made a claim and couldn’t provide a single verse to support it.

And a YouTube link isn’t a verse. You made a specific claim about Scripture, and I asked for the Scripture that supports it. If Scripture teaches that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth, then you should be able to show it from Scripture—not from a YouTube video.

If you ever want to return to the actual topic, the question remains the same:

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

 

[Armour of God]

@Soul.og

What sense would it make for Mary to remain a virgin when scripture tells wives to submit to their husbands. She would of been a bad wife not to submit to her husband.
I would be frustrated if i married a woman and then she refused to love me and refused to let me love her. That's not a healthy marriage.

The bible clearly says the Jesus had brothers and sisters on a few occasions. Your excuses don't change that as the Greek words for brothers and sister are very specific.

You want an explicit bible verse that says Mary had sex. But
What bible versus say that Mary remained a perpetual virgin?

 

[Soul.og]

You want an explicit bible verse that says Mary had sex.

More accurately, another forum member claimed that Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations after Jesus’s birth and used Matthew 1:25 as their proof text. I simply pointed out that Matthew 1:25 doesn’t say that, and then asked them to cite a verse that actually does.

What bible versus say that Mary remained a perpetual virgin?

I haven’t made any claim about perpetual virginity in this thread.

What sense would it make for Mary to remain a virgin when scripture tells wives to submit to their husbands. She would of been a bad wife not to submit to her husband.

That question is outside the scope of this thread. I’ll be creating a separate thread specifically on the perpetual virginity topic, and we can discuss it there.

The bible clearly says the Jesus had brothers and sisters on a few occasions. Your excuses don't change that as the Greek words for brothers and sister are very specific.

The Greek words adelphoi (“brothers”) and adelphai (“sisters”) are not as narrow as you’re claiming. In both the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) and the New Testament, adelphos and adelphe are used for a wide range of family relationships—not just children of the same mother.

Here are a few clear examples:

​

1. Abraham and Lot — uncle and nephew​

• Genesis 13:8 (LXX): Abraham says, “We are adelphoi.”
• Genesis 14:14 (LXX): Lot is called Abraham’s adelphos.

2. Jacob and Laban — uncle and nephew​

• Genesis 29:15 (LXX): Laban calls Jacob adelphos.

3. Eleazar’s daughters — cousins​

• 1 Chronicles 23:22 (LXX): Their cousins are called their adelphoi.

4. Israelites in general​

• Deuteronomy 15:12, Acts 3:17, Romans 9:3 — fellow Israelites are called adelphoi.

5. Christians​

Paul constantly calls fellow believers adelphoi (Romans 1:13; 9:3; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 5:11; 6:5-6; Galatians 1:2, etc.).


The Greek terms adelphoi and adelphai do not automatically mean “children of the same mother.” They can refer to:

• cousins
• extended family
• tribal relatives
• fellow believers
• close kin within a household

The semantic range is broad.


Now here’s the key point:

The Gospels never call Jesus’s “brothers”—James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas—the children of Mary. Not once.

Whenever the Gospels identify Mary’s child, they say:

• Jesus is Mary’s Son

But they never say:

• “Mary and Joseph had other children.”
• “Mary bore sons and daughters after Jesus.”
• “These are Mary’s sons.”

That silence is meaningful.

So the Greek words don’t prove biological siblings, and the text never identifies these “brothers” as Mary’s children.

If you want to argue they were Mary’s biological sons, the question is simple:

Do you have a verse—explicit or implicit—that says these men were Mary’s children?

If you have one, present it. If not, then the claim that they were Mary’s biological sons is an assumption, not something taught by the text.

 

[Armour of God]

If you want to argue they were Mary’s biological sons, do you have verse that implicitly or explicitly says so?

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT was written in Greek, brother and sister is explicit from my understanding. Besides, English translations say brother and sister so I tend to believe that.

I've already said that I don't have such verse but neither do you so you haven't proved anything.

Mary would of been a bad wife if she didn't submit to her husband as the scripture says.

 

[Soul.og]

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT was written in Greek, brother and sister is explicit from my understanding. Besides, English translations say brother and sister so I tend to believe that.

I've already said that I don't have such verse but neither do you so you haven't proved anything.

Mary would of been a bad wife if she didn't submit to her husband as the scripture says.

First, I never said the Old Testament was originally written in Greek. I referenced the Septuagint—the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures—because it shows how the word adelphos was actually used in the scriptural world.

Second, saying “English translations say brother, so I believe that” doesn’t address the linguistic point. English translators use “brother” because it’s the closest equivalent—but the Greek word adelphos has a much wider range of meaning than modern English brother.

That’s why the Septuagint uses adelphos for:

• Abraham and Lot: uncle–nephew
• Jacob and Laban: uncle–nephew
• Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins
• Israelites in general
• Christians in the New Testament

So the Greek term cannot, by itself, prove biological siblings. That’s not an “excuse”—that’s how the language actually works.

Third, you’ve acknowledged that you have no verse saying that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Mary’s sons.

Meanwhile, in the opening post I presented:

• Scriptural evidence, and
• Early Christian writings

showing they were Jesus’s relatives—specifically cousins, not Mary’s children.

So the claim that they were Mary’s biological sons has no textual support.

Lastly, the “Mary would be a bad wife” argument is not a scriptural argument—it’s a modern assumption being read into the text. Scripture never says:

• Mary was a bad wife
• Joseph demanded sex
• Mary refused him
• Submission = mandatory sexual relations
• A man or woman who abstains is sinful

In fact, Paul explicitly teaches mutual consent in marital relations (1 Corinthians 7:5).

So to summarize:

• The Greek words adelphos and adelphe don’t prove biological siblings.
• The Gospels never call Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas Mary’s sons.
• You have no verse saying Joseph and Mary had sexual relations.
• The “bad wife” argument is not based on Scripture.

If you want to argue Mary had other children, the only way forward is simple:

Produce a verse that actually says so—implicitly or explicitly.

 

[Armour of God]

First, I never said the Old Testament was originally written in Greek.
I referenced the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, because it shows how the word adelphos was actually used in the scriptural world.

Second, saying “English translations say brother, so I believe that” doesn’t address the linguistic point.
English translators use “brother” because it’s the closest equivalent — but the Greek word adelphos has a much wider range of meaning than modern English “brother".

That’s why the Septuagint uses adelphos for:

· Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew)
· Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew)
· Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins
· Israelites in general
· Christians in the New Testament

So the Greek term cannot prove biological siblings. That’s not an “excuse” — it’s simply how the language works.

Third, you’ve acknowledged that you have no verse saying that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Mary’s sons.

Meanwhile, in the opening post I presented:

· Scriptural evidence, and
· Early Christian writings

showing they were Jesus’s relatives — specifically cousins, not Mary’s children.

So the claim that they were Mary’s biological sons has no textual support.

Lastly, on the “Mary would be a bad wife” argument, this is not a scriptural argument — it's a modern assumption being read into the text:

Scripture never says:

· Mary was a bad wife
· Joseph demanded sex
· Mary refused him
· Submission = mandatory sexual relations
· A man or woman who abstains is sinful

In fact, Paul explicitly teaches mutual consent in marital relations (1 Cor. 7:5).

So to summarize:

· The Greek words adelphos and adelphe don’t prove biological siblings
· The Gospels never call Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas Mary’s sons
· You have no verse saying Joseph and Mary had sexual relations
· And the "bad wife" argument isn’t based on Scripture

If you want to argue Mary had other children, the only way forward is to produce a verse that actually says so — implicitly or explicitly.

Scripture says that a woman must submit to her husband. So if a woman refuses to do this then she is a bad wife

 

[shepherdsword]

And that seed was of Mary. Because the father of Jesus was God.

of course....the seed of the woman

 

[Armour of God]

@Soul.og

Ephesians 5:22
Wives, be submissive to your own husbands

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord

So a wife who won't submit to her husband is not following scripture and is a bad wife

 

[Soul.og]

Scripture says that a woman must submit to her husband. So if a woman refuses to do this then she is a bad wife

@Soul.og

Ephesians 5:22
Wives, be submissive to your own husbands

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord

So a wife who won't submit to her husband is not following scripture and is a bad wife

1. You’re redefining “submission” into something Paul explicitly rejects​

You quoted Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, but neither passage says anything about sexual relations. When Paul does address marital intimacy, he contradicts your interpretation directly:

1 Corinthians 7:5 — intimacy requires mutual consent.

That means:

• A husband cannot demand sex.
• A wife is not disobedient for abstaining.
• Abstinence is permitted.
• Consent is required from both spouses.

Your interpretation of “submit” is not only absent from Scripture—it is refuted by Scripture.

If your reading contradicts Paul, then your reading is wrong.

2. Your argument is built on assumptions, not on the text​

Your logic is essentially:

1. “Wives submit.”
2. “Therefore Mary had sex.”
3. “Therefore She had other children.”

That is not exegesis. That is a chain of assumptions with no textual support.

You still cannot produce a single verse that says:

• Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.
• Mary had other children.
• The “brothers” of Jesus were Mary’s sons.

You’re trying to use a doctrine of submission to fill in gaps Scripture never fills.

3. You’re avoiding the real issue: the text never calls these men Mary’s children​

The Gospels name:

• Joseph
• Simon
• James
• Judas

But never once call them “sons of Mary.”

Not once.

Meanwhile, the Greek term adelphos is used throughout Scripture for:

• cousins
• nephews
• fellow Israelites
• fellow believers

So appealing to “brothers” proves nothing about biological siblings. Your submission argument is a distraction from the fact that the text itself does not support your claim.

4. You’re making moral accusations Scripture never makes​

You said, in effect:

“A wife who won’t submit is a bad wife.”

But Scripture never says:

• Mary was a bad wife.
• Joseph demanded sex.
• Mary refused him.
• Abstinence is sinful.
• Submission = sexual obligation.

You are importing modern assumptions into the text and then using those assumptions to rewrite Mary’s life.

That’s not interpretation—that’s projection.

Conclusion​

Your argument relies on assumptions Scripture never makes. Mine relies on what Scripture actually says—and what it doesn’t say.

If you want to argue Mary had other children, you still need to present the one thing you haven’t produced:

a verse that says she did.

Until then, your position remains unsupported.

 

[Nancy]

Does not Jesus being referred to as the "First born" Luke 2:7 kind of indicate there were more to follow from Marys womb? If not then why was it not stated as "only" son or child?

 

[amigo de christo]

Does not Jesus being referred to as the "First born" Luke 2:7 kind of indicate there were more to follow from Marys womb? If not then why was it not stated as "only" son or child?

And he knew her Not TILL AFTER the birth .
Any man and any woman MARRIED in the eyes of G OD
DONT abstain their whole life from sex .
THEY MIGHT for a time during fasting and etc , BUT THEN COME together again that they be not tempted
For whatever reason the UNHOLY sea
has decided , they tried to make mary a virgin for life .
AS IF somehow sleeping with her own husband , AFTER THE BIRTH OF JESUS , would have corrupted her .
Wives and husbands DEFRAUD ye NOT one another LEST IT BE for A TIME
AS if . i would not buy in to the perpetual virgin idea .
ONLY THAT SHE WAS A VIRGIN who had conciev ed BY the HOLY GHOST
and remained a virgin TILL after the BIRTH . THAT MUCH I KNOW IS TRUE .
And seeing we are on t his subject
I would not commit the blasphemy of the dark sea and BE PRAYING TO HER or to angels and saints .
CAUSE THAT I KNOW IS BLASPHEMY .

 

[Armour of God]

Your argument collapses for one simple reason: you’re using verses about household order to make claims about sexual obligations that Scripture itself never makes

Let’s break this down with precision.

I. You’re redefining “submission” into something Paul explicitly rejects

You quoted Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, but neither passage says anything about sexual relations. Paul does address marital intimacy — and he contradicts your interpretation directly:

1 Corinthians 7:5 — intimacy requires mutual consent.

That means:

· A husband cannot demand sex
· A wife is not disobedient for abstaining
· Abstinence is permitted
· Consent is required from both spouses

Your interpretation of “submit” is not only absent from Scripture — it is refuted by Scripture.

If your reading contradicts Paul, then your reading is wrong.

II. Your argument is built entirely on assumptions, not on scriptural text

Your logic is:

1. “Wives submit.”
2. “Therefore Mary had sex.”
3. “Therefore She had other children.”

This is not exegesis. This is a chain of assumptions with no textual support.

You still cannot produce a single verse that says:

· Mary had sexual relations with Joseph
· Mary had other children
· The “brothers” of Jesus were Mary’s sons

You’re trying to use a doctrine of submission to fill in gaps Scripture never fills.

III. You’re avoiding the actual issue: the text never calls these men Mary’s children

The Gospels name:

· Joseph
· Simon
· James
· Judas

But never once call them “sons of Mary".

Not once.

Meanwhile, the Greek term adelphos is used throughout Scripture for:

· cousins
· nephews
· fellow Israelites
· fellow believers

So appealing to “brothers” proves nothing about biological siblings.

Your submission argument is a distraction from the fact that the biblical text does not support your claim.

IV. You’re making moral accusations Scripture never makes

You said:

“A wife who won’t submit is a bad wife.”

But Scripture never says:

· Mary was a bad wife
· Joseph demanded sex
· Mary refused him
· Abstinence is sinful
· Submission = sexual obligation

You’re inserting modern assumptions into the text and then using those assumptions to rewrite Mary’s life.

That’s not biblical interpretation — that’s projection.

In conclusion, your argument relies on assumptions Scripture never makes.
Mine relies on what Scripture actually says.

If you want to argue Mary had other children, you still need to present the one thing you haven't presented:

a verse that says She did.

Until then, your position remains unsupported.

You have a poor argument but I don't really care.
You have your opinion and I have mine

 

[Soul.og]

You have a poor argument but I don't really care.
You have your opinion and I have mine

That’s fine, but notice that I presented a textual argument and you didn’t address any of it. If you ever want to discuss the passages themselves rather than dismissing them, I’m open to it.

 

[Armour of God]

That’s fine, but notice that I presented a textual argument and you didn’t address any of it. If you ever want to discuss the passages themselves rather than dismissing them, I’m open to it.

I can't be bothered arguing against stupidity

 

[Soul.og]

I can't be bothered arguing against stupidity

Since you’ve resorted to insults, the conversation has clearly run its course. If you ever want to discuss Scripture rather than name‑calling, I’m available. I’m interested in the text, not personal attacks.

 

[Armour of God]

Since you’ve resorted to insults, the conversation has clearly run its course. If you ever want to discuss Scripture rather than name‑calling, I’m available. I’m interested in the text, not personal attacks.

I'm not calling you stupid I'm calling your arguments stupid. Big difference

 

[Soul.og]

I'm not calling you stupid I'm calling your arguments stupid. Big difference

Calling an argument "stupid" without explaining why is a distinction without a difference—it’s just an insult disguised as a critique.

Labeling an argument "stupid" isn't a rebuttal; it’s a white flag. If my historical, linguistic, and textual points about adelphos, the lack of a verse naming Mary’s other children, and marital sexual relations are so "stupid," it should be very easy for you to disprove them. Since you haven't, the evidence stands.

If you have counter-points, I’m listening. If not, the personal attacks just confirms you’re out of arguments.