Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Armour of God]

While I think the wording (Mother of God) is inappropriate, at least it acknowledges Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

It is the dogmas focused on Mary that lead people astray into Mariolatry.

I was raised by Catholics. The Marian dogmas are the main reason why I don't call myself a Catholic

 

[Taken]

Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony​

@Moonwood

It is clear you place a high emphasis on Mary.

I find her being appointed, accepting, a role given her by God, short lived, FUFILLED and
Scriptural points / The Highlights / The Emphasis, ON WHY her…And Joseph…
Rather than Mary’s entire Life, that
Which is Vague Scripturally mentioning her, as well as Joseph.

So aside of the handful of Scriptures you listed mentioning Mary, and think require addressing… Why? No one has disputed Mary and Joseph were both directly “Given a role, By God, to Accept or Reject…
Same as other Biblical Characters (Moses, Samuel, Simon Peter, Saul/Paul, etc.)
And each Fulfilled their Agreed Role…
Yet NONE, sat down before an Artist to be photographed, sketched, posed for a sculpture … to have their likeness enshrined into photographs, sketches, statues, to be bowed down to, prayed to, elevated to a heavenly intercessory.

Mary’s Life is not the Highlight in Scripture, before or after her death.

The Highlight, is WHAT and WHY was her Role… and Did she Agree and Accomplish…
The WHAT and WHY her.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Moonwood]

Matthew 1:25 destroys the "perpetual virginity" dogma.

Even so ...

• Isaiah 7:14 — Mary is prophetically identified as the Virgin.

everyone believes that

• Luke 1:34 — Mary’s own statement as a married woman that she “knows not man.”

betrothed not married (Mat 1:18)

• Matthew 1:19 — Joseph is a righteous man, not resentful or deprived.

everyone believes that

• Matthew 1:20 — God sends an angel to stop Joseph from divorcing Mary.

everyone believes that

• Matthew 1:24 — Joseph obeys immediately.

everyone believes that

• Luke 2:41–43 — Joseph remains married to Mary for at least twelve years.

everyone believes that

• John 19:25 — Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is Mary’s adelphe, and her sons are James and Joseph (those among Jesus's adelphoi).

Clopas was brother to Joseph, Mary's husband ... James & Joseph were very common names.

• Mark 6:3 / Matthew 13:55 — Jesus alone is called “the Son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s Son.”

In Mark 6:3 & Mat 13:55 they identify Jesus by referring to His brothers in the same context as His mother.

• The earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — all identify the “brothers” as relatives, not children of Mary.

Commenting on Hegesippus' use of "according to the flesh", Andrew Koperski writes: What would this all mean for Mary and the family of Jesus? To put it conservatively, it means we have a reputable, identifiable Christian source, active in the mid-100s, claiming that Jude was known at the time as the Lord’s blood sibling. This may be our earliest post-NT source to offer commentary on Jesus’ family one way or the other.

You didn’t actually address any of the points — you just waved each one away with “everyone believes that,” “common names,” or “betrothed,” without engaging the argument itself.

For example:

• Saying Mary was “betrothed” doesn’t explain why she, as a legally married Jewish woman, expresses a condition (“I know not man”) that makes conception impossible even within marriage.
• Saying “common names” doesn’t address the fact that the Gospels explicitly identify Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as the mother of James and Joseph — the same names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi.
• Saying Matthew 1:25 “destroys” perpetual virginity doesn’t address the linguistic fact that heos hou (“until”) never implies a change afterward (cf. 2 Sam 6:23; Deut 34:6; 1 Tim 4:13).
• Saying “they name Jesus’s brothers alongside His mother” doesn’t explain why only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s Son,” while the others are never called sons of Mary or Joseph. Referring to Jesus in the same scene as His relatives does not mean those relatives share His mother — the text never says that, and the evangelists never call them Mary’s children.
• Quoting Koperski on Hegesippus’ phrase “according to the flesh” doesn’t overturn the fact that Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome all treat the “brothers” as relatives, not children of Mary. Koperski’s point is simply that Jude was regarded as a “blood sibling,” which fits the ancient use of adelphos for close kin; it does not say Mary had other biological children or that Hegesippus taught that.

In fact:

• Hegesippus identifies Symeon (Simon) son of Clopas/Cleophas as Jesus’s relative and successor — not as Joseph’s son.
• Eusebius explicitly says Clopas was Joseph’s brother, which makes Symeon and the others cousins by marriage, not children of Mary.
• Jerome, Epiphanius, and the later Fathers all interpret the “brothers” in this same way.
• No early Christian writer ever claims Mary had additional biological children.

And you listed the verses from the exercise and said “everyone believes that,” but you didn’t actually do the exercise. You skipped Step 3 entirely — the part where you have to deal with the implications of those verses.

The exercise wasn’t just “read these passages.”
It was:

1. Assume Mary remained a lifelong virgin for the reasons given (Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:34).
2. Consider Joseph’s righteousness, the angel’s intervention, his obedience, and the twelve years of marriage.
3. Then answer the actual questions:

• Does Joseph look like a man who married Mary expecting a conventional marriage and then abandoned her because she “refused to submit sexually”?
• Or does he look like a man chosen precisely because he would understand that his marriage to Mary was part of God’s plan — a plan that required protecting Her unique vocation and safeguarding Her purity?

You didn’t answer those questions.
You didn’t engage the implications.
You didn’t do Step 3.

And that’s the entire point of the exercise.

But thank you for at least attempting a reply.

 

[markalan]

The exercise wasn’t just “read these passages.”
It was:

1. Assume Mary remained a lifelong virgin for the reasons given (Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:34).

neither of those verses say Mary was a "lifelong virgin"

1. Consider Joseph’s righteousness, the angel’s intervention, his obedience, and the twelve years of marriage.

we all agree on that

1. Then answer the actual questions:

• Does Joseph look like a man who married Mary expecting a conventional marriage and then abandoned her because she “refused to submit sexually”?

No one has said that Joseph abandoned Mary because she refused to submit.

According to Mat 1:25, Joseph "looks" like a man who knew his wife sexually after Jesus was born.

• Or does he look like a man chosen precisely because he would understand that his marriage to Mary was part of God’s plan — a plan that required protecting Her unique vocation and safeguarding Her purity?

Joseph was chosen because he was a just/righteous man (Mat 1:19) ... he was also a devout man who had spiritual dreams (Mat 1:20) ... so of course he cared for Mary & Jesus ... all the rest is speculation on your part to fit the 'perpetual virginity' dogma.

As long as you continue to go by what it "looks" like to you, and do not accept what the Scriptures plainly state, you will be led astray by your preconceived bias.

 

[Moonwood]

neither of those verses say Mary was a "lifelong virgin"

we all agree on that


No one has said that Joseph abandoned Mary because she refused to submit.

According to Mat 1:25, Joseph "looks" like a man who knew his wife sexually after Jesus was born.



Joseph was chosen because he was a just/righteous man (Mat 1:19) ... he was also a devout man who had spiritual dreams (Mat 1:20) ... so of course he cared for Mary & Jesus ... all the rest is speculation on your part to fit the 'perpetual virginity' dogma.

As long as you continue to go by what it "looks" like to you, and do not accept what the Scriptures plainly state, you will be led astray by your preconceived bias.

You didn’t actually do the exercise. You responded to each step with something other than what the step required.

Step 1 was not “prove lifelong virginity from Isaiah and Luke.”
It was: “Suppose for a moment that you believed Mary remained a lifelong virgin for the reasons given.”
It’s a thought experiment, not a proof-text. You were asked to assume the premise temporarily so you could evaluate Joseph’s behavior under that premise. You didn’t do that.

Step 2 asked you to consider Joseph’s righteousness, the angel’s intervention, his obedience, and the twelve years of marriage.
You said “we all agree on that,” but you didn’t actually use those facts to evaluate Step 3.

Step 3 asked you to answer two specific questions.
You didn’t answer either one.

You wrote:

“No one has said Joseph abandoned Mary because she refused to submit.”

But that was the question you were supposed to answer. You were asked whether Joseph’s behavior looks like that scenario. You didn’t answer.

Then you wrote:

“According to Matt 1:25, Joseph looks like a man who knew his wife sexually after Jesus was born.”

But this simply repeats your assumption. It does not engage the linguistic argument I already gave:

Matthew 1:25 does not require a change after “until.”​

You never addressed any of the following:

• “Until” (heos hou) does not always imply a later reversal.
• Scripture itself gives multiple examples where “until” marks a boundary without implying a change afterward:
  • 2 Sam 6:23
  • Deut 34:6
  • Psalm 110:1 / Acts 2:34–35
• Therefore, you cannot impose a “later reversal” meaning onto Matthew 1:25.
• Matthew’s concern is the Divine and Virgin Conception, not Mary and Joseph’s later marital life.

You didn’t refute any of that.
You simply repeated your assumption.

Then you wrote:

“All the rest is speculation on your part to fit the dogma.”

But nothing I wrote was speculative. It was:

• the actual kinship terms used in the NT
• the actual family identifications in the Gospels
• the actual genealogical implications
• the actual linguistic range of adelphos
• the actual usage of anepsios and syngenis
• the actual testimony of the earliest Christian writers
• the actual behavior Scripture attributes to Joseph

None of that is “speculation.”

And you still haven’t addressed the core evidence:​

• The Gospels never call Joseph, Simon, James, or Judas sons of Mary.
• The Gospels never call them sons of Joseph.
• Only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matt 13:55).
• Only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).
• The Gospels explicitly identify Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as the mother of James and Joseph — the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi.
• John calls her Mary’s adelphē, meaning female relative, not biological sister.
• She was Joseph’s brother’s wife, making her sons Joseph’s nephews — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a kinship category fully covered by adelphos.
• Hebrew and Aramaic did not use a precise everyday word for “cousin,” and Koine Greek adopted that Semitic usage.
• The NT uses anepsios only in Col 4:10, when Paul is writing to Greek Gentiles and needs biological precision.
• When describing Jewish family relationships, the evangelists consistently use adelphos.
• And the earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — all identify Jesus’s adelphoi as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas, not sons of Mary.

None of this has been addressed.

You didn’t do Step 1.
You didn’t use Step 2.
You didn’t answer Step 3.
And you didn’t engage the linguistic argument about Matthew 1:25.

But thank you for at least attempting a reply.

 

[Moonwood]

While I think the wording (Mother of God) is inappropriate, at least it acknowledges Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

You say "the title “Mother of God” is inappropriate, but at least it acknowledges Jesus is God incarnate."

But Scripture itself already uses the equivalent expression.

Elizabeth — filled with the Holy Spirit — calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43).
And in Luke’s Gospel, “my Lord” is not a vague honorific. It is the standard title for God Himself (cf. Luke 1:17; Luke 2:11).

So the New Testament already affirms that:

• Mary is the mother
• of the One who is truly God
• in His incarnate human nature

The title “Mother of God” is simply the theological expression of the biblical phrase “mother of my Lord.”

It doesn’t elevate Mary above God.
It protects the truth about Who Jesus is.

Denying the title leads directly to denying that the child Mary bore is:

• one divine Person
• with one divine identity
• truly God in the flesh

That’s exactly why the early Christians insisted on the title:
to safeguard the Incarnation, not to exalt Mary.

Elizabeth already said it first.

 

[Moonwood]

They say the Greek word for brother and sister can also mean cousin. Then they asume that they definitely were cousins.
But there is another Greek word for cousin and it does get used in the NT.
They would of used the Greek word cousin if that's what they meant.

You've said that earlier in this thread, and you never replied to the following:

"You say, "...its much more probable that Jesus had siblings. If they meant to say cousin then they would of used the Greek term for it which does get used elsewhere in the NT." But if you’re going to argue that Matthew and Mark “should have used anepsios,” then you must apply that standard consistently. Luke had the exact same opportunity when referring to Mary’s relative Elizabeth — universally understood to be her cousin — yet he didn’t use anepsios either. He used syngenis, a broad kinship term meaning “female relative,” the same kind of broad term the NT uses with adelphos (“brother, near kinsman, or relative”).

So the linguistic argument does not support the assumption of biological siblings; the New Testament regularly uses broad kinship terms rather than precise ones."

And you never addressed the opening post, where I showed why the men called Jesus’s adelphoi were not biological cousins — they were cousins by marriage, the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, who was married to Joseph’s brother. That relationship is fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

The New Testament itself shows this:

• The Gospels never call Joseph, Simon, James, or Judas sons of Mary.
• The Gospels never call them sons of Joseph.
• Only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55).
• Only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).

The Gospels explicitly identify Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as the mother of James and Joseph — those among Jesus’s adelphoi (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25). John calls her Mary’s adelphē, which — like adelphos — includes female relatives. Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother. Her sons were therefore Joseph’s nephews, which makes them Jesus’s cousins by marriage.

This is why the evangelists use adelphos: it is the correct kinship term for Jewish family speech. Hebrew and Aramaic did not use a precise everyday word for “cousin,” and Koine Greek adopted that Semitic usage. The NT uses anepsios (cousin) only in Colossians 4:10, where Paul is writing to Greek Gentiles — not Jews — and needs biological precision. When describing Jewish family relationships, the evangelists consistently use adelphos, because that is the term Jews used for extended kin.

And the earliest Christian writers all say the same thing. From the 1st through the 4th century, independent and geographically diverse witnesses consistently identify Jesus’s adelphoi as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas — not sons of Mary:

• Papias: Mary of Clopas was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas — the very men listed as Jesus’s adelphoi.
• Hegesippus: Clopas was Joseph’s brother; his sons were Jesus’s cousins by marriage. He calls James “the Lord’s brother” and says Symeon (Simon) son of Clopas succeeded him because he was Jesus’s cousin.
• Clement of Alexandria: Distinguishes James the Just from James son of Zebedee and identifies him as bishop of Jerusalem.
• Eusebius: Affirms that James the Just, “the Lord’s brother,” was the first bishop of Jerusalem and that Symeon (Simon) son of Clopas succeeded him because he was Jesus’s cousin.
• Jerome: States plainly that Mary of Clopas was Mary’s sister‑in‑law and the mother of James the Less.

These writers are independent, separated by geography and time, and yet they preserve the same identification. Their testimony aligns perfectly with the Gospel data.

This was all covered in the opening post, which you never addressed.

They say the Greek word for brother and sister can also mean cousin. Then they asume that they definitely were cousins.
But there is another Greek word for cousin and it does get used in the NT.
They would of used the Greek word cousin if that's what they meant.

You've said that earlier in this thread, and you never replied to the following:

"You say, "...its much more probable that Jesus had siblings. If they meant to say cousin then they would of used the Greek term for it which does get used elsewhere in the NT." But if you’re going to argue that Matthew and Mark “should have used anepsios,” then you must apply that standard consistently. Luke had the exact same opportunity when referring to Mary’s relative Elizabeth — universally understood to be her cousin — yet he didn’t use anepsios either. He used syngenis, a broad kinship term meaning “female relative,” the same kind of broad term the NT uses with adelphos (“brother, near kinsman, or relative”).

So the linguistic argument does not support the assumption of biological siblings; the New Testament regularly uses broad kinship terms rather than precise ones."

And you never addressed the opening post, where I showed why the men called Jesus’s adelphoi were not biological cousins — they were cousins by marriage, the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, who was married to Joseph’s brother. That relationship is fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

The New Testament itself shows this:

• The Gospels never call Joseph, Simon, James, or Judas sons of Mary.
• The Gospels never call them sons of Joseph.
• Only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55).
• Only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).

The Gospels explicitly identify Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as the mother of James and Joseph — those among Jesus’s adelphoi (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25). John calls her Mary’s adelphē, which — like adelphos — includes female relatives. Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother. Her sons were therefore Joseph’s nephews, which makes them Jesus’s cousins by marriage.

This is why the evangelists use adelphos: it is the correct kinship term for Jewish family speech. Hebrew and Aramaic did not use a precise everyday word for “cousin,” and Koine Greek adopted that Semitic usage. The NT uses anepsios (cousin) only in Colossians 4:10, where Paul is writing to Greek Gentiles — not Jews — and needs biological precision. When describing Jewish family relationships, the evangelists consistently use adelphos, because that is the term Jews used for extended kin.

And the earliest Christian writers all say the same thing. From the 1st through the 4th century, independent and geographically diverse witnesses consistently identify Jesus’s adelphoi as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas — not sons of Mary:

• Papias: Mary of Clopas was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas — the very men listed as Jesus’s adelphoi.
• Hegesippus: Clopas was Joseph’s brother; his sons were Jesus’s cousins by marriage. He calls James “the Lord’s brother” and says Symeon (Simon) son of Clopas succeeded him because he was Jesus’s cousin.
• Clement of Alexandria: Distinguishes James the Just from James son of Zebedee and identifies him as bishop of Jerusalem.
• Eusebius: Affirms that James the Just, “the Lord’s brother,” was the first bishop of Jerusalem and that Symeon (Simon) son of Clopas succeeded him because he was Jesus’s cousin.
• Jerome: States plainly that Mary of Clopas was Mary’s sister‑in‑law and the mother of James the Less.

These writers are independent, separated by geography and time, and yet they preserve the same identification. Their testimony aligns perfectly with the Gospel data.

This was all covered in the opening post, which you never addressed.

 

[Moonwood]

Then there is Matthew 1:25. Their arguments against that is very poor and speculative again. Why else would Matthew write that if they didn't have sex after Jesus was born.

You’re repeating Matthew 1:25 again, but you still haven’t addressed the argument I already gave you about heos hou (“until”).

My point was simple:

“Until” does not always imply a later reversal.
That’s a linguistic fact, not a statistical argument.

These examples: Luke 23:44; Luke 24:49; Acts 20:7, only show cases where “until” marks a boundary and the opposite condition happens afterward. That’s one legitimate usage — but not the only one.

Scripture itself gives multiple examples where “until” does not imply a change:

• 2 Samuel 6:23 — Michal did not begin having children after her death.
• Deuteronomy 34:6 — Moses’ grave was not discovered after the author’s “present day.”
• Psalm 110:1 / Acts 2:34–35 — Christ does not cease sitting at the Father’s right hand after His enemies are subdued.

In these cases, “until” marks a time boundary without implying a reversal.

So when you say “Why else would Matthew write that?” you’re assuming the very thing you need to prove — that “until” must imply a change. But Matthew’s usage fits the Michal and Moses pattern: it marks the period during which Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth, without making any statement about what happened afterward.

Matthew’s concern is the Divine and Virgin Conception, not Mary and Joseph’s later marital life.

That is why Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

 

[markalan]

• Only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55).
• Only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).

You keep repeating that argument when it is patently false and has been refuted before.

Matthew 13:55-56
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?
And are not all his sisters with us?

Jesus was in Nazareth where the people knew his family very well.
They identified Jesus by his father, mother, brother & sisters ... Jesus' nuclear family.

 

[markalan]

You say "the title “Mother of God” is inappropriate, but at least it acknowledges Jesus is God incarnate."

But Scripture itself already uses the equivalent expression.

Elizabeth — filled with the Holy Spirit — calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43).
And in Luke’s Gospel, “my Lord” is not a vague honorific. It is the standard title for God Himself (cf. Luke 1:17; Luke 2:11).

So the New Testament already affirms that:

• Mary is the mother
• of the One who is truly God
• in His incarnate human nature

The title “Mother of God” is simply the theological expression of the biblical phrase “mother of my Lord.”

It doesn’t elevate Mary above God.
It protects the truth about Who Jesus is.

Denying the title leads directly to denying that the child Mary bore is:

• one divine Person
• with one divine identity
• truly God in the flesh

That’s exactly why the early Christians insisted on the title:
to safeguard the Incarnation, not to exalt Mary.

Elizabeth already said it first.

I would prefer to say what the Bible says: "the mother of my (our) Lord"

The fact is that "mother of God" does exalt Mary ... she is given "veneration" above all others.

 

[Moonwood]

You keep repeating that argument when it is patently false and has been refuted before.

Matthew 13:55-56
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?
And are not all his sisters with us?

Jesus was in Nazareth where the people knew his family very well.
They identified Jesus by his father, mother, brother & sisters ... Jesus' nuclear family.

You keep saying my argument is “patently false,” but you’re not actually responding to what I wrote. I’m not only repeating:

• Only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matt 13:55)
• Only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3)

I’m repeating all the rest of the evidence you keep ignoring — including the fact that the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are explicitly identified in the Gospels as the sons of another Mary, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

Now, regarding Matthew 13:55–56:

“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? And are not all his sisters with us?”

Nothing in that passage says those “brothers” are Mary’s children.
Nothing says they are Joseph’s children.
Nothing says they are part of Jesus’s “nuclear family.”

All it shows is that the townspeople mention Jesus and His relatives in the same breath — which is exactly what people do when identifying someone from a well‑known extended family. And we know these men had to be extended family because the Gospels themselves tell us who their mother actually is:

• Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is the mother of James and Joseph (Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25).
• John calls her Mary’s adelphe — a kinship term that includes female relatives.
• Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother.
• Her sons were therefore Joseph’s nephews, which makes them Jesus’s cousins by marriage — a kinship category fully covered by adelphos.

This is why I keep repeating the point: the men called Jesus’s adelphoi were the sons of someone else.

And you still haven’t addressed any of the following:

• The Gospels never call Joseph, Simon, James, or Judas sons of Mary.
• The Gospels never call them sons of Joseph.
• Hebrew and Aramaic did not use a precise everyday word for “cousin,” and Koine Greek adopted that Semitic usage.
• The NT uses anepsios only in Col 4:10, when Paul is writing to Greek Gentiles and needs biological precision.
• When describing Jewish family relationships, the evangelists consistently use adelphos, because that is the term Jews used for extended kin.

And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the earliest Christian writers all say the same thing:

• Papias
• Hegesippus
• Clement
• Eusebius
• Jerome

All identify Jesus’s adelphoi as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas — not sons of Mary.

So no — I’m not “repeating a refuted argument.” I’m repeating the evidence you keep skipping.

I would prefer to say what the Bible says: "the mother of my (our) Lord"

The fact is that "mother of God" does exalt Mary ... she is given "veneration" above all others.

You say you “prefer to say what the Bible says: ‘the mother of my Lord,’” and that “mother of God” exalts Mary.

But the issue isn’t about preference — it’s about what the biblical phrase actually means.

Elizabeth — filled with the Holy Spirit — calls Mary:

“the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43)

And in Luke’s Gospel, “my Lord” is the standard title for God Himself:

• Luke 1:17 — “before the Lord their God”
• Luke 2:11 — “Christ the Lord” (explicitly divine)
• Luke 1:76 — “go before the Lord” (God)

So when Elizabeth says “the mother of my Lord,” she is saying:

Mary is the mother of the One who is truly God in the flesh.

That is exactly what “Mother of God” means.

It does not mean Mary is the origin of God’s divine nature.
It does not place Mary above God.
It does not imply Mary existed before God.

It simply affirms the Incarnation:

• Jesus is one divine Person
• with one divine identity
• and Mary is the mother of that Person

If Jesus is God the Word, then the woman who gave birth to Him is the Mother of God the Word Incarnate — which is precisely what Elizabeth is saying when she calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.”

And the Holy Spirit Himself adds:

“Blessed are you among women.”

That is not “exalting Mary” in a man‑made way.
That is God exalting Her in Scripture.

The Church’s title “Mother of God” simply protects the truth Elizabeth already proclaimed:
that the child Mary bore is God in the flesh.

Denying the title leads directly to denying the full divinity of the One She bore.

Elizabeth said it first — and she said it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[markalan]

• Hegesippus: Clopas was Joseph’s brother; his sons were Jesus’s cousins by marriage. He calls James “the Lord’s brother” and says Symeon (Simon) son of Clopas succeeded him because he was Jesus’s cousin.

Commenting on Hegesippus' use of "according to the flesh", Andrew Koperski writes:

"What would this all mean for Mary and the family of Jesus? To put it conservatively, it means we have a reputable, identifiable Christian source, active in the mid-100s, claiming that Jude was known at the time as the Lord’s blood sibling. This may be our earliest post-NT source to offer commentary on Jesus’ family one way or the other."​

​

.​

 

[markalan]

You keep saying my argument is “patently false,” but you’re not actually responding to what I wrote. I’m not only repeating:

• Only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matt 13:55)
• Only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3)

You are not reading the context ... you are making an assumption that only Jesus was called "son" because the others were not siblings.
That is not at all what that passage is saying - the people of Nazareth knew Jesus' brothers & sisters, as well as His mother & father ... that is why they could not accept Him as the Messiah.

We have more evidence for placing Clopas' home in Emmaus than Nazareth ... because he invited Jesus to come in for a meal (Luke 24:29).

.

 

[Armour of God]

"You say, "...its much more probable that Jesus had siblings. If they meant to say cousin then they would of used the Greek term for it which does get used elsewhere in the NT." But if you’re going to argue that Matthew and Mark “should have used anepsios,” then you must apply that standard consistently. Luke had the exact same opportunity when referring to Mary’s relative Elizabeth — universally understood to be her cousin — yet he didn’t use anepsios either. He used syngenis, a broad kinship term meaning “female relative,” the same kind of broad term the NT uses with adelphos (“brother, near kinsman, or relative”).

You've just given another Greek word that could of been used, but instead they used brother and sister.

You’re repeating Matthew 1:25 again, but you still haven’t addressed the argument I already gave you about heos hou (“until”).

My point was simple:

“Until” does not always imply a later reversal.
That’s a linguistic fact, not a statistical argument.

These examples: Luke 23:44; Luke 24:49; Acts 20:7, only show cases where “until” marks a boundary and the opposite condition happens afterward. That’s one legitimate usage — but not the only one.

Scripture itself gives multiple examples where “until” does not imply a change:

• 2 Samuel 6:23 — Michal did not begin having children after her death.
• Deuteronomy 34:6 — Moses’ grave was not discovered after the author’s “present day.”
• Psalm 110:1 / Acts 2:34–35 — Christ does not cease sitting at the Father’s right hand after His enemies are subdued.

In these cases, “until” marks a time boundary without implying a reversal.

So when you say “Why else would Matthew write that?” you’re assuming the very thing you need to prove — that “until” must imply a change. But Matthew’s usage fits the Michal and Moses pattern: it marks the period during which Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth, without making any statement about what happened afterward.

Matthew’s concern is the Divine and Virgin Conception, not Mary and Joseph’s later marital life.

That is why Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

Chance of you being correct on this is only very small in my opinion.

Your few examples are OT. There are many more examples of the term "until" being used normally and you try to dismiss it with this poor argument of cherry picked stuff from the OT.

Why would Matthew even say that in 1:25
He has no need to mention it if they didn't have sex.
The fact that he does mention it is confirmation that Joseph and sex with Mary

For me it's a very high probability that Joseph made love to Mary.

Besides how do they leave Jesus behind in Jerusalem age 12? How is that even possible if you have only one child? Sounds like really bad parenting or they actually had a bunch of kids, not just one.

 

[Moonwood]

Commenting on Hegesippus' use of "according to the flesh", Andrew Koperski writes:

"What would this all mean for Mary and the family of Jesus? To put it conservatively, it means we have a reputable, identifiable Christian source, active in the mid-100s, claiming that Jude was known at the time as the Lord’s blood sibling. This may be our earliest post-NT source to offer commentary on Jesus’ family one way or the other."​

​

.​

You are not reading the context ... you are making an assumption that only Jesus was called "son" because the others were not siblings.
That is not at all what that passage is saying - the people of Nazareth knew Jesus' brothers & sisters, as well as His mother & father ... that is why they could not accept Him as the Mesiah.

Showing you genealogically, textually, linguistically, and historically that Jesus’s adelphoi are not His biological siblings is not “making assumptions.” It is reading the sources in context — something your interpretation does not do.

You quoted Andrew Koperski saying:

“Hegesippus… claiming that Jude was known at the time as the Lord’s blood sibling.”

But that is not what Hegesippus actually says, and it ignores the context of his own statements.

Here’s the problem with that interpretation:

1. Hegesippus explicitly says Clopas was Joseph’s brother.​

"For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph." (via Hist. Eccl. II.11.2).
"Symeon (Simon), son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord..." (via Hist. Eccl. III.32.6).

If Clopas is Jesus’s uncle, then Clopas is Joseph’s brother.
And if Symeon (Simon) is Clopas’s son, then Symeon (Simon) is Jesus’s cousin, not Mary’s child.

This matches exactly what Hegesippus says elsewhere, via Hist. Eccl. III.11.12:

“Symeon, the son of Clopas… He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour.”

And Hegesippus places James and Jude in the same kinship category:

• Symeon (Simon) succeeds James as bishop of Jerusalem because he is Jesus’s cousin
• James is called “the Lord’s brother” (cf. Hist. Eccl. II.23.4)
• Jude (Judas) is one of the same “brothers” (cf. Hist. Eccl. III.20.1)

This alone makes it impossible for Symeon (Simon), James, or Jude to be Mary’s biological sons.

2. “According to the flesh” does NOT mean “same mother.”​

In early Christian usage, “according to the flesh” means biological kinship in general, not “born of the same womb.”

Paul uses the phrase the same way:

• Romans 9:3 — “my kinsmen according to the flesh”
• 1 Corinthians 10:18 — “Israel according to the flesh”
• Galatians 4:23 — “born according to the flesh”

None of these mean “same mother.”
They mean extended family, same lineage, same tribe.

So when Hegesippus calls James or Jude “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh,” he is using the same Jewish kinship language Paul uses — extended family, not nuclear siblings.

3. Hegesippus himself explains what he means by “brother.”​

He says Symeon (Simon) succeeded James as bishop because Symeon (Simon) was:

“the Lord’s cousin.”

This is crucial.

Hegesippus uses “brother” and “cousin” interchangeably, exactly like the New Testament does with adelphos.

He is not contradicting himself. He is explaining the kinship category:

• James = “brother of the Lord”
• Jude (Judas) = “brother of the Lord according to the flesh”
• Symeon (Simon) = “cousin of the Lord”
• All three = sons of Clopas
• Clopas = Joseph’s brother

Therefore all three = Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children.

This is the same identification preserved by:

• Papias
• Hegesippus
• Clement
• Eusebius
• Jerome

All independent, all consistent.

4. The passages I quoted actually prove the traditional genealogy.​

“Symeon (Simon), son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord…”

This means:

• Clopas = Joseph’s brother
• Clopas’s sons = Joseph’s nephews
• Joseph’s nephews = Jesus’s cousins
• These cousins = the men called Jesus’s adelphoi
• Therefore adelphos = kinsman, not “child of Mary”

You cannot take one phrase (“according to the flesh”) and ignore the genealogy Hegesippus himself provides:

• Clopas is Joseph’s brother
• Clopas’s sons are James, Jude, and Symeon
• Therefore they are not Mary’s sons
• Therefore they are not Jesus’s biological brothers
• Therefore “brother” = kinsman, exactly as in the NT

Hegesippus is not contradicting the Gospels.
He is confirming them.

5. The earliest Christian writers all agree with Hegesippus.​

Every early source identifies Jesus’s “brothers” as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas:

• Papias — Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude
• Hegesippus — Clopas/Cleophas is Joseph’s brother; his sons are Jesus’s cousins
• Clement — James (the Just) is not James son of Zebedee
• Eusebius — James the Just and Symeon (Simon) son of Clopas are Jesus’s cousins
• Jerome — Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is Mary’s sister‑in‑law and mother of James (the Less)

There is zero early Christian evidence that Mary had other children.
There is unanimous early Christian evidence that Jesus’s adelphoi were the sons of Clopas.

6. The New Testament itself confirms this kinship category.​

The term adelphos in Koine Greek has a broad semantic range: “a brother, near kinsman, or relative.”

Paul’s reference to:

“James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19)
shows that James was both:

• a relative of Jesus
• and one of the Twelve, since Paul explicitly includes him among the apostles he met

This immediately rules out the idea that he was a younger biological son of Mary, because the Gospels list no such James among the Twelve.

And among the Twelve, only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus).

Therefore the contextual evidence strongly suggests that Paul’s James — the James mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19 — is James of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve.

7. The Gospels identify the actual parents of these men.​

Across all four Gospels, only one Mary is ever called the mother of James the Less and Joseph: Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas.

She appears in:

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

John identifies her as Mary’s adelphe (“sister”), a term that — like adelphos — includes female relatives.

Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so the natural reading is that she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother.

Her sons Joseph and James — the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi — were therefore Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

8. Why “cousins by marriage” is the correct kinship category.​

Matthew 1:1-17 traces Jesus’s legal lineage through Joseph. Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus’s biological lineage through Mary (under Joseph’s name, as was customary).

Because Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father, Joseph’s nephews (the sons of Clopas/Cleophas) are not Jesus’s blood relatives.

Their relationship to Jesus is familial, but not biological — they are His cousins by marriage, a kinship category fully encompassed by the semantic range of adelphos.

This is why the Gospels can call them Jesus’s “brothers” without implying they were Mary’s sons.

So no — Hegesippus does not say Jude was Mary’s son.​

He says Jude (Judas) was:

• the son of Clopas
• Joseph’s nephew
• Jesus’s cousin
• and therefore called “brother” in Jewish kinship language

Exactly the same identification preserved in the Gospels.

We have more evidence for placing Clopas' home in Emmaus than Nazareth ... because he invited Jesus to come in for a meal (Luke 24:29).

But the Emmaus disciples are not identified as Clopas/Cleophas and his wife.

The text says:

“One of them was named Cleopas.” (Luke 24:18)

Cleopas ≠ Clopas.

They are different names in Greek:

• Κλεόπας (Cleopas) — Emmaus disciple
• Κλωπᾶς (Clopas) — Joseph’s brother, father of James, Jude, and Symeon

Even Protestant scholars acknowledge they are not the same person.

 

[Armour of God]

@Moonwood

If Mary's virginity were such a big deal then some of the NT writers would of said so.

But the fact is that none of the NT writers ever claimed that Mary remained a virgin.

It's not biblical. The bible does not claim it

 

[Moonwood]

You've just given another Greek word that could of been used, but instead they used brother and sister.

You say “they used brother and sister instead of another Greek word,” but that argument collapses once you apply it consistently across the New Testament. Adelphos in Koine Greek has a broad semantic range—“brother, near kinsman, or relative”—and the NT uses it that way constantly. If the evangelists “should have used the Greek word for cousin,” then Luke is your counterexample: when describing Mary’s relative Elizabeth—universally understood to be her cousin—he did not use anepsios; he used syngenis, a broad kinship term exactly like adelphos. Paul uses adelphos the same way when he refers to “James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19), and he explicitly includes this James among the apostles he met, which immediately rules out the idea that he was Mary’s younger biological son, since no such James appears among the Twelve. Among the Twelve, only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus), so the contextual evidence strongly identifies Paul’s James—and the James of Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3—as James of Alphaeus. The Gospels themselves identify the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus, and John calls her Mary’s adelphe, a term that—like adelphos—includes female relatives. Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother Clopas, making her sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. This fits perfectly with the genealogical structure of Matthew 1 and Luke 3: Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father, so Joseph’s nephews are not Jesus’s blood relatives; they are extended kin, fully encompassed by the semantic range of adelphos. In other words, the NT writers did not “avoid the word for cousin”—they used the same broad kinship terms they always used, reflecting Semitic family structure rather than modern nuclear categories.

Chance of you being correct on this is only very small in my opinion.

Your few examples are OT. There are many more examples of the term "until" being used normally and you try to dismiss it with this poor argument of cherry picked stuff from the OT.

Why would Matthew even say that in 1:25
He has no need to mention it if they didn't have sex.
The fact that he does mention it is confirmation that Joseph and sex with Mary

For me it's a very high probability that Joseph made love to Mary.

Besides how do they leave Jesus behind in Jerusalem age 12? How is that even possible if you have only one child? Sounds like really bad parenting or they actually had a bunch of kids, not just one.

You keep saying the “chance” I’m right is small, but you still haven’t answered the actual point: heos hou (“until”) does not, by itself, imply a later reversal. That’s not cherry‑picking, it’s how the term works in Scripture. The OT examples I gave aren’t random—they’re the very passages that show “until” marking a boundary without implying a change: Michal did not start having children after her death (2 Samuel 6:23), Moses’ grave was not discovered after the author’s present day (Deuteronomy 34:6), and Christ does not cease sitting at the Father’s right hand after His enemies are subdued (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:34–35). In each case, “until” describes a period without telling you anything about what happens afterward. That’s exactly how Matthew 1:25 functions: it safeguards the divine and virginal conception by stating that Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth of Jesus. It does not assert, or even hint, that relations began afterward; that’s something you’re reading into the text because you expect “until” to work like modern English, not like biblical usage.

As for “Why would Matthew even say that?”—because his concern is Christ’s divine origin, not Mary’s later marital life. He’s closing the door on any suggestion that Jesus was conceived by normal marital relations, not opening a door to speculate about what happened after. Your parenting argument (“how do they leave Jesus behind at 12 unless they had a bunch of kids?”) is just as speculative: people misplace one child in a crowded pilgrimage all the time; it doesn’t require a large family, only human fallibility. None of that overturns the actual textual and historical evidence: heos hou does not demand a change, Matthew 1:25 is about the conception, not later sex, and the earliest Christian writers unanimously identify Jesus’s “brothers” as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary.

If Mary's virginity were such a big deal then some of the NT writers would of said so.

But the fact is that none of the NT writers ever claimed that Mary remained a virgin.

It's not biblical. The bible does not claim it

You say “the NT never claims Mary remained a virgin,” but that overlooks what the Evangelists actually wrote — especially the Greek terms they chose. In the NT, Mary is described as a παρθένος (parthenos, “virgin”) who is ἐμνηστευμένη (emnēsteumenē, “betrothed”) to Joseph (Luke 1:27). In first‑century Judaism, betrothal was legally binding, but the couple did not yet live together and did not consummate the marriage until the second stage. That is why Matthew explicitly says, “Before they came together” (Matthew 1:18). And Mary Herself states her ongoing virginity in Luke 1:34: “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” The verb ginosko is present tense, expressing a continuing condition — not “I haven’t known Joseph yet,” but “I do not know man,” period. A normal betrothed Jewish woman would expect relations after the wedding, yet Mary does not frame Her question that way. Luke preserves Her words precisely because they explain why the virginal conception is miraculous: Mary was not planning to have relations at all. So the NT does say Mary remained a virgin — through the Evangelists’ description of Her betrothal, their emphasis on the unconsummated marriage, and Mary’s own declaration of ongoing virginity.

 

[markalan]

Showing you genealogically, textually, linguistically, and historically that Jesus’s adelphoi are not His biological siblings is not “making assumptions.” It is reading the sources in context — something your interpretation does not do.

You quoted Andrew Koperski saying:

“Hegesippus… claiming that Jude was known at the time as the Lord’s blood sibling.”

But that is not what Hegesippus actually says, and it ignores the context of his own statements.

Here’s the problem with that interpretation:

1. Hegesippus explicitly says Clopas was Joseph’s brother.​

"For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph." (via Hist. Eccl. II.11.2).
"Symeon (Simon), son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord..." (via Hist. Eccl. III.32.6).

If Clopas is Jesus’s uncle, then Clopas is Joseph’s brother.
And if Symeon (Simon) is Clopas’s son, then Symeon (Simon) is Jesus’s cousin, not Mary’s child.

This matches exactly what Hegesippus says elsewhere, via Hist. Eccl. III.11.12:

“Symeon, the son of Clopas… He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour.”

And Hegesippus places James and Jude in the same kinship category:

• Symeon (Simon) succeeds James as bishop of Jerusalem because he is Jesus’s cousin
• James is called “the Lord’s brother” (cf. Hist. Eccl. II.23.4)
• Jude (Judas) is one of the same “brothers” (cf. Hist. Eccl. III.20.1)

This alone makes it impossible for Symeon (Simon), James, or Jude to be Mary’s biological sons.

2. “According to the flesh” does NOT mean “same mother.”​

In early Christian usage, “according to the flesh” means biological kinship in general, not “born of the same womb.”

Paul uses the phrase the same way:

• Romans 9:3 — “my kinsmen according to the flesh”
• 1 Corinthians 10:18 — “Israel according to the flesh”
• Galatians 4:23 — “born according to the flesh”

None of these mean “same mother.”
They mean extended family, same lineage, same tribe.

So when Hegesippus calls James or Jude “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh,” he is using the same Jewish kinship language Paul uses — extended family, not nuclear siblings.

3. Hegesippus himself explains what he means by “brother.”​

He says Symeon succeeded James because Symeon was:

“the Lord’s cousin.”

This is crucial.

Hegesippus uses “brother” and “cousin” interchangeably, exactly like the New Testament does with adelphos.

He is not contradicting himself. He is explaining the kinship category:

• James = “brother of the Lord”
• Jude = “brother of the Lord according to the flesh”
• Symeon = “cousin of the Lord”
• All three = sons of Clopas
• Clopas = Joseph’s brother

Therefore all three = Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children.

This is the same identification preserved by:

• Papias
• Hegesippus
• Clement
• Eusebius
• Jerome

All independent, all consistent.

4. The passages I quoted actually prove the traditional genealogy.​

“Symeon (Simon), son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord…”

This means:

• Clopas = Joseph’s brother
• Clopas’s sons = Joseph’s nephews
• Joseph’s nephews = Jesus’s cousins
• These cousins = the men called Jesus’s adelphoi
• Therefore adelphos = kinsman, not “child of Mary”

You cannot take one phrase (“according to the flesh”) and ignore the genealogy Hegesippus himself provides:

• Clopas is Joseph’s brother
• Clopas’s sons are James, Jude, and Symeon
• Therefore they are not Mary’s sons
• Therefore they are not Jesus’s biological brothers
• Therefore “brother” = kinsman, exactly as in the NT

Hegesippus is not contradicting the Gospels.
He is confirming them.

5. The earliest Christian writers all agree with Hegesippus.​

Every early source identifies Jesus’s “brothers” as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas:

• Papias — Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude
• Hegesippus — Clopas/Cleophas is Joseph’s brother; his sons are Jesus’s cousins
• Clement — James the Just is not James son of Zebedee
• Eusebius — James the Just and Symeon (Simon) son of Clopas are Jesus’s cousins
• Jerome — Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is Mary’s sister‑in‑law and mother of James (the Less)

There is zero early Christian evidence that Mary had other children.
There is unanimous early Christian evidence that Jesus’s adelphoi were the sons of Clopas.

6. The New Testament itself confirms this kinship category.​

The term adelphos in Koine Greek has a broad semantic range: “a brother, near kinsman, or relative.”

Paul’s reference to:

“James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19)
shows that James was both:

• a relative of Jesus
• and one of the Twelve, since Paul explicitly includes him among the apostles he met

This immediately rules out the idea that he was a younger biological son of Mary, because the Gospels list no such James among the Twelve.

And among the Twelve, only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus).

Therefore the contextual evidence strongly suggests that Paul’s James — the James mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19 — is James of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve.

7. The Gospels identify the actual parents of these men.​

Across all four Gospels, only one Mary is ever called the mother of James the Less and Joseph: Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas.

She appears in:

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

John identifies her as Mary’s adelphe (“sister”), a term that — like adelphos — includes female relatives.

Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so the natural reading is that she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother.

Her sons Joseph and James — the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi — were therefore Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

8. Why “cousins by marriage” is the correct kinship category.​

Matthew 1:1-17 traces Jesus’s legal lineage through Joseph. Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus’s biological lineage through Mary (under Joseph’s name, as was customary).

Because Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father, Joseph’s nephews (the sons of Clopas/Cleophas) are not Jesus’s blood relatives.

Their relationship to Jesus is familial, but not biological — they are His cousins by marriage, a kinship category fully encompassed by the semantic range of adelphos.

This is why the Gospels can call them Jesus’s “brothers” without implying they were Mary’s sons.

So no — Hegesippus does not say Jude was Mary’s son.​

He says Jude (Judas) was:

• the son of Clopas
• Joseph’s nephew
• Jesus’s cousin
• and therefore called “brother” in Jewish kinship language

Exactly the same identification preserved in the Gospels.



But the Emmaus disciples are not identified as Clopas/Cleophas and his wife.

The text says:

“One of them was named Cleopas.” (Luke 24:18)

Cleopas ≠ Clopas.

They are different names in Greek:

• Κλεόπας (Cleopas) — Emmaus disciple
• Κλωπᾶς (Clopas) — Joseph’s brother, father of James, Jude, and Symeon

Even Protestant scholars acknowledge they are not the same person.

I prefer the extensive scholarship of Andrew Koperski on Hegessipus's conclusion that Jude was a biological brother of Jesus.

Catholic Answers:

"As you noted, one of the disciples is Cleopas. This is likely the same person called “Clopas” in John 19:25. Early Church tradition identifies Clopas as the brother of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (Luke 3:23)".

"Christian tradition and many church historians (such as Eusebius and Hegesippus) have long identified Cleopas (Luke 24) and Clopas (John 19) as the exact same person, viewing the names as spelling variations or Greek/Aramaic variants of one name".

 

[Moonwood]

I prefer the extensive scholarship of Andrew Koperski on Hegessipus's conclusion that Jude was a biological brother of Jesus.

Catholic Answers:

"As you noted, one of the disciples is Cleopas. This is likely the same person called “Clopas” in John 19:25. Early Church tradition identifies Clopas as the brother of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (Luke 3:23)".

"Christian tradition and many church historians (such as Eusebius and Hegesippus) have long identified Cleopas (Luke 24) and Clopas (John 19) as the exact same person, viewing the names as spelling variations or Greek/Aramaic variants of one name".

You cite Andrew Koperski, but the sentence he quotes from Hegesippus actually supports my argument, not his. Hegesippus explicitly says Clopas was Joseph’s brother (Hist. Eccl. II.11.2), which means Clopas is Jesus’s uncle and Clopas’s sons — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — are Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children. Koperski quotes Hegesippus calling Jude (Judas) “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh,” but he ignores the fact that Hegesippus uses “brother” and “cousin” interchangeably and then directly identifies Symeon (Simon), Jude’s (Judas's) sibling, as “the Lord’s cousin” (Hist. Eccl. III.11.2). In other words, the very passage Koperski appeals to is the one that proves Jude (Judas) was not Mary’s biological son. Hegesippus’s genealogy is internally consistent: Clopas = Joseph’s brother; Clopas’s sons = Joseph’s nephews; Joseph’s nephews = Jesus’s cousins by marriage; these cousins by marriage are the men called Jesus’s adelphoi. Koperski is quoting the line that confirms the traditional identification — and either he doesn’t realize it, or he realizes it and simply prefers his conclusion over Hegesippus’s actual genealogy.

As for your claim that Cleopas (Luke 24) and Clopas (John 19) are “the exact same person,” that identification is not universal and not required for the genealogy Hegesippus gives. And, for the sake of argument, even if Cleopas and Clopas are the same man, it still proves my point: Clopas is Joseph’s brother, and the sons of Clopas — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — are Jesus’s cousins, not Mary’s children. That is exactly what Hegesippus says. The early Church did not identify Cleopas/Clopas as Mary’s husband; they identified him as Joseph’s brother. So even if you merge the names, the conclusion remains the same: the “brothers of the Lord” are the sons of Clopas, not sons of Mary. Your appeal to Catholic Answers and “Christian tradition” actually reinforces the traditional genealogy rather than overturning it.

 

[markalan]

You cite Andrew Koperski, but the sentence he quotes from Hegesippus actually supports my argument, not his.

Take it up with Koperski ... he can translate from ancient Greek better than I can ... and possibly you.

Hegesippus explicitly says Clopas was Joseph’s brother (Hist. Eccl. II.11.2), which means Clopas is Jesus’s uncle and Clopas’s sons — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — are Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children.

You're correct but your conclusion is wrong.
The obvious reading of Mat 13:53-58 is that it is a reference to Jesus' immediate family ... James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are the children of Joseph & Mary.
Forcing some cousins into that context makes no sense at all.