Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Moonwood]

I apologize for over-estimating your intellectual agility ... I see there is a need to express things more simply -

Matthew NEVER uses the word adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.

You’re not simplifying anything — you’re rewriting your claim again because the previous versions were refuted.

Your new statement, “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship,” is simply false. Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships repeatedly — just not in the narrow, modern‑English way you’re insisting on.

And Scripture itself contradicts your claim that adelphos must mean biological brother. The LXX — the Bible Matthew himself quotes — routinely uses adelphos to translate the broad Hebrew term ’ach, which covers many kinds of kinship. As a result, adelphos often refers to relatives who are not biological siblings:

• Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew) Genesis 13:8 (LXX): “We are adelphoi.” Genesis 14:14 (LXX): Lot is called Abraham’s adelphos.
• Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew) Genesis 29:15 (LXX): Laban calls Jacob adelphos.
• Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins 1 Chronicles 23:22 (LXX): their cousins are called their adelphoi.

This is not an anomaly — it is the standard biblical pattern. In scriptural Greek, adelphos has a much wider semantic range than modern English “brother.”

And Matthew follows that same pattern. He uses adelphos for personally identified individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples standing right in front of Him and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly and says: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell “My brothers” — the apostles personally identified in the narrative.

These are not vague crowds. They are specific individuals in the immediate context of the word adelphos, and none of them are biological siblings.

And Matthew also uses adelphoi in Matthew 13:55, and we both agree it’s a familial term there — but its familial definition is not “biological siblings.” In scriptural Greek, adelphos means brother, kinsman, or relative. The word alone is not enough to distinguish which kind of relatives they were.

That distinction comes from other scriptural passages, which identify the mother of two of Jesus’s adelphoi — James and Joseph — as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). John explicitly calls her Mary’s adelphē, meaning sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary.

This identification is affirmed by all early Christian writers, and they further add that Clopas/Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, which means his sons — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas — were Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the biblical semantic range of adelphos.

So even in Matthew 13:55, the word adelphoi does not support your conclusion. The broader biblical usage and the Gospel genealogies identify these men as relatives, not Mary’s children.

So your new rule collapses just like the earlier ones. You’re not applying a consistent linguistic standard — you’re creating ad‑hoc exceptions every time Scripture contradicts your conclusion.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address the actual evidence — not just invent a new rule every time the previous one fails.

 

[markalan]

Your new statement, “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship,” is simply false. Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships repeatedly — just not in the narrow, modern‑English way you’re insisting on.

The whole point of your adelphos argument is that it means cousin in Mat 13:55 ... so the discussion is about familial relationships (sheesh, I can't believe I have to tell you that!)

And you have still not posted a single verse that refutes the claim: Matthew NEVER uses the word adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.

 

[Moonwood]

The whole point of your adelphos argument is that it means cousin in Mat 13:55 ... so the discussion is about familial relationships (sheesh, I can't believe I have to tell you that!)

And you have still not posted a single verse that refutes the claim: Matthew NEVER uses the word adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.

You’re misrepresenting my argument. I never said adelphos “means cousin.” I said — correctly — that its familial definition in biblical Greek is “brother, kinsman, or relative.” Cousins fall under that broad semantic range, but the word itself does not specify which type of relative is meant. That distinction comes from context, genealogy, and other passages, not from the word alone.

And your claim — “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother” — is still false.

1. Scripture itself contradicts your rule​

The LXX (the Bible Matthew quotes) routinely uses adelphos for relatives who are not biological siblings:

• Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew) Gen 13:8 LXX — “We are adelphoi.” Gen 14:14 LXX — Lot is Abraham’s adelphos.
• Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew) Gen 29:15 LXX — Laban calls Jacob adelphos.
• Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins 1 Chr 23:22 LXX — their cousins are called their adelphoi.

This is the standard biblical pattern.
In scriptural Greek, adelphos means brother, kinsman, or relative — not exclusively “biological sibling.”

2. Matthew follows the same biblical usage​

Matthew uses adelphos for personally identified individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples right in front of Him and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell “My brothers” — the apostles personally identified in the narrative.

These are specific individuals, not vague crowds, and none are biological siblings.

So Matthew absolutely does use adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brothers. Your rule is contradicted by Matthew’s own text.

3. Matthew 13:55 does not support your conclusion​

We both agree adelphoi is a familial term in Matthew 13:55 — but its familial definition is not “biological siblings.” It simply means kinsmen/relatives.

The type of relatives is clarified by other Scripture, not by the word itself.

Scripture identifies the mother of two of Jesus’s adelphoi — James and Joseph — as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus:

• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40
• John 19:25

John explicitly calls her Mary’s adelphe — meaning sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously affirm the same identification and add that Clopas/Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, which makes his sons — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the biblical semantic range of adelphos.

4. Your rule collapses again​

You keep changing the rule because each version is refuted by Scripture:

• First: “named individuals”
• Then: “named individuals in the immediate context”
• Now: “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother”

Every version fails.

You’re not applying a consistent linguistic standard — you’re creating ad‑hoc exceptions every time Scripture contradicts your conclusion.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address the actual evidence — not just invent a new rule every time the previous one fails.

 

[markalan]

You’re misrepresenting my argument. I never said adelphos “means cousin.” I said — correctly — that its familial definition in biblical Greek is “brother, kinsman, or relative.” Cousins fall under that broad semantic range, but the word itself does not specify which type of relative is meant. That distinction comes from context, genealogy, and other passages, not from the word alone.

So you do not know who the men are named in Mat 13:55-56?

And your claim — “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother” — is still false.

1. Scripture itself contradicts your rule​

The LXX (the Bible Matthew quotes) routinely uses adelphos for relatives who are not biological siblings:

• Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew) Gen 13:8 LXX — “We are adelphoi.” Gen 14:14 LXX — Lot is Abraham’s adelphos.
• Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew) Gen 29:15 LXX — Laban calls Jacob adelphos.
• Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins 1 Chr 23:22 LXX — their cousins are called their adelphoi.

This is the standard biblical pattern.
In scriptural Greek, adelphos means brother, kinsman, or relative — not exclusively “biological sibling.”

The context is Matthew's Gospel.

2. Matthew follows the same biblical usage
Matthew uses adelphos for personally identified individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples right in front of Him and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell “My brothers” — the apostles personally identified in the narrative.

These are specific individuals, not vague crowds, and none are biological siblings.

familial relationships

So Matthew absolutely does use adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brothers. Your rule is contradicted by Matthew’s own text.

3. Matthew 13:55 does not support your conclusion​

We both agree adelphoi is a familial term in Matthew 13:55 — but its familial definition is not “biological siblings.” It simply means kinsmen/relatives.

... and it means biological brother ... more than a dozen times in Matthew's Gospel

The type of relatives is clarified by other Scripture, not by the word itself.

Scripture identifies the mother of two of Jesus’s adelphoi — James and Joseph — as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus:

• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40
• John 19:25

John explicitly calls her Mary’s adelphe — meaning sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously affirm the same identification and add that Clopas/Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, which makes his sons — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the biblical semantic range of adelphos.

All those things have been refuted so try to focus on one thing at a time.

4. Your rule collapses again
You keep changing the rule because each version is refuted by Scripture:

• First: “named individuals”
• Then: “named individuals in the immediate context”
• Now: “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother”

Initially I thought it was safe to assume you understood I was talking about familial relationships ...since that is the whole focus of the discussion on the meaning of adelphos. Discussing Jesus' followers is a strawman. We all know there is a "spiritual brother" application.

So again, identify one verse where Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother.

The word adelphos/adelphoi occurs 38 times in Matthew's Gospel ... 17 times it means spiritual brother ... and 21 times it means biological brother ... there are no other uses of the word in the whole Gospel.

Matthew 13:55-56 proves unequivocally that Mary had sons & daughters after Jesus was born.

Is not this the carpenter's son?
is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us?

.

 

[Moonwood]

So you do not know who the men are named in Mat 13:55-56?

Initially I thought it was safe to assume you understood I was talking about familial relationships ...since that is the whole focus of the discussion on the meaning of adelphos. Discussing Jesus' followers is a strawman. We all know there is a "spiritual brother" application.

So again, identify one verse where Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother.

The word adelphos/adelphoi occurs 38 times in Matthew's Gospel ... 17 times it means spiritual brother ... and 21 times it means biological brother ... there are no other uses of the word in the whole Gospel.

Matthew 13:55-56 proves unequivocally that Mary had sons & daughters after Jesus was born.

Is not this the carpenter's son?
is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us?

You keep repeating the same claim, but you’re still avoiding the central point:

You’re assuming “familial relationship” = “biological sibling.”​

That’s the very thing under dispute.

You can’t demand I prove Matthew uses adelphos for “familial relationships other than biological brother” when you’ve already decided that every non‑biological sibling use in Matthew is “spiritual only.” That’s circular — you’re excluding the counterexamples by definition.

The familial definition of the word adelphos is not specifically “biological sibling.”​

Its biblical definition is:

“a brother, kinsman, or relative.”

That’s the familial definition — and it includes cousins, nephews, step‑brothers, and brothers‑in‑law.

And Scripture itself proves this:

• Abraham calls his nephew Lot adelphos (Genesis 13:8, 14:14 LXX).
• Laban calls his brother-in-law Jacob adelphos (Genesis 29:15 LXX).
• Eleazar’s daughters call their cousins adelphoi (1 Chronicles 23:22 LXX).

These are familial relationships — but not biological siblings.

Matthew uses the same biblical Greek.
And once you recognize Matthew’s linguistic flexibility, you can’t treat the names in Matthew 13:55 as if they appear in a vacuum.

And yes — I do know exactly who the men in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are. But I didn't reach my conclusion using your method: isolating one verse and assuming the most literal modern‑English meaning.

If I did, then I'd have to apply it consistently to all of Jesus's other family members in those verses, and thus have to conclude that Joseph is Jesus’s biological father, because Matthew 13:55 calls Him “the carpenter's son” and names Joseph right alongside Him and Mary.

But that would be wrong, because other passages clarify Joseph’s relationship to Jesus:

• Joseph is Jesus’s putative, not biological father (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1: 34-35, 3:23).
• The phrase “carpenter’s son” is a social designation, not a biological claim.

You accept that correction because other verses clarify the relationship.

But you refuse to apply the same principle to Jesus’s adelphoi.
You’re relying on a method you don’t apply consistently.

If "carpenter’s son" in Matthew 13:55 doesn’t force biological fatherhood, why must "brothers" in the same verse force biological siblinghood?

I know who Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas are because of the same method you use for Joseph: you interpret Matthew 13:55 in light of other Scripture, not in isolation.

And those other passages identify their mother:

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

From these we learn:

• Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is the mother of at least two sons: James and Joseph.
• She is called the adelphe (sister/kinswoman) of Mary the Mother of Jesus.

The Koine Greek word adelphe has the definitions: “a sister; kinswoman or female relative; a fellow countrywoman; a female member of the Christian community.” Despite being named alongside other female Christians and fellow countrywomen, she is specifically called Jesus’s Mother’s adelphe, so its familial definition must apply there. Since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, adelphe here means sister‑in‑law, and that makes Clopas/Cleophas Joseph’s brother.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously affirm the same identification and add that Clopas/Cleophas had four sons:

• Joseph
• Symeon (Simon)
• James
• Jude (Judas)

Which makes them Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the biblical semantic range of adelphos: “a brother, kinsman, or relative.”

You said: “You’re correct but your conclusion is wrong.”
But you didn’t explain how it’s wrong.

You agreed that:

• Clopas is Joseph’s brother (John 19:25, Hist. Eccl.).
• That makes Clopas Jesus’s uncle, and
• Clopas’s sons — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage.

That is the only genealogical conclusion that follows from the evidence.
If you believe it’s “wrong,” then you need to show why, using Scripture or history — not simply assert it.

And your question:

So again, identify one verse where Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother.

has already been answered:

• Matthew 13:55 — familial, but not biological siblings.
• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus identifies the disciples as His adelphoi.
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus calls His followers adelphoi.
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus calls the apostles adelphoi.

These are all familial uses of adelphos that are not biological siblings.

And no — discussing Jesus’ followers is not a strawman.

It is Matthew’s own usage of adelphos for specific, personally identified individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples standing right in front of Him and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus tells His followers: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus calls the apostles “My brothers.”

These verses do not mean the disciples are Jesus’s biological brothers; they simply prove that Matthew uses adelphos for non‑biological relationships, which refutes your claim that Matthew uses the word only for biological siblings.

Even when Jesus uses adelphos for disciples, He’s not abandoning the familial sense — He’s expanding it. That proves Matthew is comfortable using adelphos for real, named individuals in non‑biological familial relationships.

These are not “spiritual metaphors.” They are familial designations applied to real individuals present in the narrative, exactly like Matthew 13:55.

Your own numbers prove this: you say Matthew uses adelphos 38 times — 17 “spiritual,” 21 “biological.” But that classification is your invention, not Matthew’s. You’re sorting the uses based on your conclusion, not based on the word’s meaning.

If adelphos must mean “same womb,” how do you explain:

• Romans 9:3 — “my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh”
• Matthew 5:22-23 — “your brother” in the sense of fellow Israelite/neighbor

Even Protestant scholars admit adelphos can mean “kinsman” or “countryman” depending on context. That undercuts your “only biological or spiritual” dichotomy completely.

Your rule collapses again. You’re not applying a consistent linguistic standard — you’re inventing a new rule every time Scripture contradicts your conclusion.

 

[markalan]

I'll take that as a no you can't.

The other issues you raise have been refuted in this thread
and in another thread "Who were the brothers of Jesus"
where posts very similar to yours were made by Soul.og.

I have nothing further to add to the refutations previously proffered.

 

[Moonwood]

I'll take that as a no you can't.

The other issues you raise have been refuted in this thread
and in another thread "Who were the brothers of Jesus"
where posts very similar to yours were made by Soul.og.

I have nothing further to add to the refutations previously proffered.

Mark, you didn’t refute anything — you simply avoided every point and declared victory. But you still haven’t answered the central question that your entire argument depends on:

If “carpenter’s son” in Matthew 13:55 does not force biological fatherhood, why must “brothers” in the same verse force biological siblinghood?

Until you answer that, your claim that Matthew “always” uses adelphos for biological siblings unless Jesus is speaking metaphorically is not a rule — it’s an assumption. And it’s contradicted by Matthew’s own use of adelphos for non‑biological familial relationships, not merely “spiritual” ones, in:

• Matthew 12:49-50
• Matthew 23:8
• Matthew 28:10
• Romans 9:3
• Matthew 5:22-23
• the LXX
• and the earliest Christian writers.

If you want to continue the discussion, address the actual arguments instead of dismissing them. If you don’t want to, that’s fine — but simply saying “I already refuted everything” doesn’t make it true.

 

[markalan]

If “carpenter’s son” in Matthew 13:55 does not force biological fatherhood, why must “brothers” in the same verse force biological siblinghood?

Notice who is speaking in Mat 13:55 ... the words are spoken by unbelieving people in Nazareth who regarded Joseph as Jesus' biological father. Context is crucial.

Until you answer that, your claim that Matthew “always” uses adelphos for biological siblings unless Jesus is speaking metaphorically is not a rule — it’s an assumption. And it’s contradicted by Matthew’s own use of adelphos for non‑biological familial relationships, not merely “spiritual” ones, in:

• Matthew 12:49-50
• Matthew 23:8
• Matthew 28:10
• Matthew 27:56

In the first three references, Jesus is talking about His followers - His spiritual brothers & sisters.
The word adelphos is not used in your last reference.

There is no verse in Matthew's Gospel that uses adelphos as other than biological siblings or spiritual brethren.

simply saying “I already refuted everything” doesn’t make it true.

I did not say that ... I said the refutations in this thread and the other thread about Jesus' brothers ... which include a number of posters.

 

[Armour of God]

Notice who is speaking in Mat 13:55 ... the words are spoken by unbelieving people in Nazareth who regarded Joseph as Jesus' biological father. Context is crucial.



In the first three references, Jesus is talking about His followers - His spiritual brothers & sisters.
The word adelphos is not used in your last reference.

There is no verse in Matthew's Gospel that uses adelphos as other than biological siblings or spiritual brethren.



I did not say that ... I said the refutations in this thread and the other thread about Jesus' brothers ... which include a number of posters.

There are no bible verses that teach that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

I don't know how the RCC came up with that dogma but it's definitely not biblical.

However there are several verses that teach that she wasn't a perpetual virgin

Matthew 1:25
Matthew 13:55–56
Mark 6:3
Matthew 12:46
Mark 3:31
Luke 8:19

 

[sondring7]

So you do not know who the men are named in Mat 13:55-56?



The context is Matthew's Gospel.



familial relationships



... and it means biological brother ... more than a dozen times in Matthew's Gospel



All those things have been refuted so try to focus on one thing at a time.



Initially I thought it was safe to assume you understood I was talking about familial relationships ...since that is the whole focus of the discussion on the meaning of adelphos. Discussing Jesus' followers is a strawman. We all know there is a "spiritual brother" application.

So again, identify one verse where Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother.

The word adelphos/adelphoi occurs 38 times in Matthew's Gospel ... 17 times it means spiritual brother ... and 21 times it means biological brother ... there are no other uses of the word in the whole Gospel.

Matthew 13:55-56 proves unequivocally that Mary had sons & daughters after Jesus was born.

Is not this the carpenter's son?
is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us?

.

You are wasting your time Mark, your talents are more suited to interacting with people who want to learn what the Bible teaches rather than the Catholic perpetual virgin nonsense and other unbiblical teachings that they waffle on about via their Catechism & Magisterium hoo hah

 

[Moonwood]

There are no bible verses that teach that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

However there are several verses that teach that she wasn't a perpetual virgin

Matthew 1:25
Matthew 13:55–56
Mark 6:3
Matthew 12:46
Mark 3:31
Luke 8:19

How can those verses prove Mary didn’t take a vow of lifelong virginity when Mary Herself explicitly asks Gabriel, "How will this be, since I know not man?" after hearing, "You will conceive in Your womb and bear a Son." At this moment Mary is already betrothed to Joseph — legally bound to him in Jewish custom — and a vow of lifelong virginity could not have been hidden from him; She would have disclosed it before betrothal, and Joseph would have had to accept it, or even share in it. And Luke even identifies Her as both "a virgin" and "the virgin" (Luke 1:27), using the term first as a description and then as a title — something that makes sense only if Her virginity was a committed, enduring state rather than a temporary condition expected to end at consummation. So a woman expecting normal marital relations would simply assume she’d conceive in the natural way. Her question in Luke 1:34 only makes sense if She was not planning to have marital relations with Joseph. If She expected normal intercourse later, She would have no reason to question how conception would occur. Instead, She asks how She could conceive — and only after Her question does Gabriel explain that the conception will be miraculous, by the Holy Spirit. This shows that before Gabriel’s explanation, Mary was not expecting conception through a man at all, which strongly implies She had already committed Herself to lifelong virginity.

 

[Armour of God]

How can those verses prove Mary didn’t take a vow of lifelong virginity when Mary Herself explicitly asks Gabriel, "How will this be, since I know not man?" after hearing, "You will conceive in Your womb and bear a Son." At this moment Mary is already betrothed to Joseph — legally bound to him in Jewish custom — and a vow of lifelong virginity could not have been hidden from him; She would have disclosed it before betrothal, and Joseph would have had to accept it, or even share in it. And Luke even identifies Her as both "a virgin" and "the virgin" (Luke 1:27), using the term first as a description and then as a title — something that makes sense only if Her virginity was a committed, enduring state rather than a temporary condition expected to end at consummation. So a woman expecting normal marital relations would simply assume she’d conceive in the natural way. Her question in Luke 1:34 only makes sense if She was not planning to have marital relations with Joseph. If She expected normal intercourse later, She would have no reason to question how conception would occur. Instead, She asks how She could conceive — and only after Her question does Gabriel explain that the conception will be miraculous, by the Holy Spirit. This shows that before Gabriel’s explanation, Mary was not expecting conception through a man at all, which strongly implies She had already committed Herself to virginity.

Perpetual virginity is not scriptural.

Show me where the bible teaches
perpetual virginity?

 

[Moonwood]

How can those verses prove Mary didn’t take a vow of lifelong virginity when Mary Herself explicitly asks Gabriel, "How will this be, since I know not man?" after hearing, "You will conceive in Your womb and bear a Son." At this moment Mary is already betrothed to Joseph — legally bound to him in Jewish custom — and a vow of lifelong virginity could not have been hidden from him; She would have disclosed it before betrothal, and Joseph would have had to accept it, or even share in it. And Luke even identifies Her as both "a virgin" and "the virgin" (Luke 1:27), using the term first as a description and then as a title — something that makes sense only if Her virginity was a committed, enduring state rather than a temporary condition expected to end at consummation. So a woman expecting normal marital relations would simply assume she’d conceive in the natural way. Her question in Luke 1:34 only makes sense if She was not planning to have marital relations with Joseph. If She expected normal intercourse later, She would have no reason to question how conception would occur. Instead, She asks how She could conceive — and only after Her question does Gabriel explain that the conception will be miraculous, by the Holy Spirit. This shows that before Gabriel’s explanation, Mary was not expecting conception through a man at all, which strongly implies She had already committed Herself to lifelong virginity.

Perpetual virginity is not scriptural.

Show me where the bible teaches
perpetual virginity?

Scripture teaches Mary’s lifelong virginity the same way it teaches the Trinity — not by a single proof‑text, but by the combined witness of prophecy, identity, narrative logic, and the inspired author’s description of Mary as the virgin who asks how conception is possible despite being betrothed. Luke 1:27 and Luke 1:34 are Scripture teaching lifelong virginity.

And you didn't answer my question:
How can these verses — Matthew 1:25, 12:46, 13:55–56, Mark 3:31, 6:3, Luke 8:19 — prove Mary didn’t take a vow of lifelong virginity when Mary Herself explicitly asks Gabriel, “How will this be, since I know not man?” immediately after being told She will conceive a Son?

A woman expecting normal marital relations would not ask how conception is possible. Her question only makes sense if She was not planning to “know a man” at all — not now, not later, not after marriage.

So before anything else, please answer this:
Why does Mary ask how conception will occur if She expected normal marital relations with Joseph later?

 

[sondring7]

Perpetual virginity is not scriptural.

Show me where the bible teaches
perpetual virginity?

Show me the money !!!

 

[Armour of God]

Luke 1:27 and Luke 1:34 are Scripture teaching lifelong virginity.

At least another Catholic member on this forum, bread of life, admits there is no scripture that says Mary was a perpetual virgin. His argument is to basically trust the the RCC.

Those verses you mentioned only say that Mary was a virgin before. It does not say remained a virgin her whole life.

Your arguments are becoming dishonest

And you didn't answer my question:
How can these verses — Matthew 1:25, 12:46, 13:55–56, Mark 3:31, 6:3, Luke 8:19 — prove Mary didn’t take a vow of lifelong virginity when Mary Herself explicitly asks Gabriel, “How will this be, since I know not man?” immediately after being told She will conceive a Son?

You are dishonest.
Those verses don't say that Mary made any kind of vow to remain a virgin.
That's just your erroneous assertion.

A woman expecting normal marital relations would not ask how conception is possible. Her question only makes sense if She was not planning to “know a man” at all — not now, not later, not after marriage.

So before anything else, please answer this:
Why does Mary ask how conception is possible if She expected normal marital relations with Joseph?

She asked that because she was a virgin at the time. It doesn't at all imply she remained a virgin. That's just another of your erroneous presumption

If Mary was a perpetual virgin then the biblical authors would of explicitly said so. Instead they talk about Jesus having siblings and of Mary having sex with Joseph.

Your trying to prove that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. But it's not biblical at all. You've provided no biblical verses that say Mary was a perpetual virgin

 

[Moonwood]

Why does Mary ask how conception will occur if She expected normal marital relations with Joseph later?

She asked that because she was a virgin at the time.

This is not what the text says.

Mary does not say:

• “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

She says:

• “How will this be, since I know not a man?”
  (present tense, ongoing state)

If She expected to “know a man” later — as a normal married woman would — She would not ask how conception would occur.

A woman expecting future intercourse would simply assume she’d conceive naturally once the marriage was consummated.

Her question only makes sense if She was not planning to know a man at all — not now, not later, not after marriage.

 

[Armour of God]

This is not what the text says.

Mary does not say:

• “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

She says:

• “How shall this be, since I know not a man?” (present tense, ongoing state)

If She expected to “know a man” later — as a normal married woman would — She would not ask this question.

Her question only makes sense if She was not planning to know a man at all.

Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen? I am still a virgin.” -
Luke 1:34 ERV

Mary doesn't say she's remaining a virgin her whole life.

Your argument for perpetual virginity is very weak. It's not based on any scripture that's explicit. Not even any scripture that implicit.

Your better off arguing that's its not biblical but is by the authority of the RCC, as bread of life does.

 

[quietthinker]

There are Christians who assume that because Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas are called Jesus’s adelphoi (“brothers”) in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, they must have been additional sons of Mary. But once the New Testament’s own data and the earliest Christian testimony are brought back into view, that assumption collapses. The term adelphos does not, by itself, indicate biological brotherhood, and the men in question are never identified as Mary’s sons. What follows is a structured demonstration of that point.

I begin where the argument must begin: with the Gospels themselves — with the identities of the men called Jesus’s adelphoi and with the family relationships the New Testament actually describes. From there, I trace how the earliest Christian writers, independent and geographically diverse, preserve the same identification of James and his brothers. The cumulative picture is coherent, historically stable, and fully compatible with Paul’s language in Galatians.

1. The Gospels do not identify these men as Mary’s sons
Matthew and Mark list Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas as Jesus’s adelphoi. But several textual details immediately undermine the assumption that they were Mary’s biological sons:

• These men are never called sons of Joseph.
• These men are never called sons of Mary.
• Only Jesus is called "the carpenter’s Son" (Matthew 13:55).
• Only Jesus is called "the Son of Mary" (Mark 6:3)

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 an apostle, since Paul explicitly includes him among the Twelve he met. This immediately rules out the idea that he was a younger biological son of Mary, because the Gospels list no such James in the apostolic circle. And since among the Twelve only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus), 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.

2. 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.

3. Why “cousins by marriage” is the correct kinship category (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38)
This kinship category is not a conjecture but a conclusion drawn from the New Testament’s own genealogical data. Matthew 1:1-17 traces Jesus’s legal lineage through Joseph, following the royal succession from David through Solomon and down to Joseph. Luke 3:23-38, by contrast, traces Jesus’s biological ancestry through a different son of David—Nathan—recording Mary’s line under Joseph’s name, as was customary when women’s genealogies were not formally kept. This explains why both genealogies include Zerubbabel but diverge at his sons: Matthew follows Abiud, while Luke follows Rhesa. Joseph cannot biologically descend from both brothers, so the two genealogies necessarily serve different purposes—one legal, one biological. And 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.

Thus, the genealogical evidence confirms the familial identification already established by the Gospel family lists: the men called Jesus’s adelphoi were Joseph’s nephews, not Mary’s sons.

4. The earliest Christian writers preserve the same identification
From the 1st through the 4th century, independent Christian writers consistently identify the “brothers of the Lord” as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus):

Josephus of Jerusalem (as preserved by Eusebius)
Records the martyrdom of “James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ” (Ant. Jud., via Hist. Eccl. II.23.20), identifying him as a known figure in Jerusalem.

Papias of Hierapolis
States that Mary the wife of Cleophas/Alphaeus was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, Simon, Thaddeus (Judas), and Joseph (Fragment X). These are the very names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi.

Hegesippus of Jerusalem
Reports that Clopas was Joseph’s brother, making his sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. He identifies James the Just as the leader of the Jerusalem Church and “the Lord’s brother,” and notes that after James’s martyrdom, Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas, became bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord (via Hist. Eccl. II.23; III.32.3,6).

Clement of Alexandria
Distinguishes James the Just from James son of Zebedee and explicitly calls him bishop of Jerusalem (via Hypotyposes, Hist. Eccl. II.1.3-4).

Eusebius of Caesarea
Affirms that James the Just, “the Lord’s brother,” was the first bishop of Jerusalem, was known as a son of Joseph, and authored the Epistle of James. He identifies him with the James mentioned in Galatians 1:19 and records that Symeon son of Clopas, Jesus’s cousin, succeeded him (Hist. Eccl. II.1.2-4; II.23; III.11.2; III.32.1).

Jerome of Stridon
States plainly that Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus and the mother of James the Less (De Viris Illustribus; De Perpetua Virginitate).

These witnesses are independent, geographically diverse, and chronologically separated — yet they preserve the same identification of James. Their convergence is exactly the kind of multi-source stability historians look for.

5. The unified identification of Jesus’s adelphoi
Taken together, the Gospels and the early Christian writers show that:

• Jesus’s “brothers” — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — were the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas (also called Alphaeus) and her husband.
• James and Judas were the same individuals as James of Alphaeus and Judas (Thaddeus), apostles among the Twelve.
• James of Alphaeus, James the Less, James the Just, James the Lord’s brother, and James the bishop of Jerusalem are one and the same person — and the author of the Epistle of James.
• Judas (Thaddeus), son of Alphaeus, authored the Epistle of Jude.

6. The belief‑status of Jesus’s adelphoi (John 7:5)
The Gospel note that “not even His brothers believed in Him” (John 7:5) cannot refer to James and Judas (Thaddeus), since both were believers, apostles, and authors of New Testament epistles. This leaves Joseph and Simon—the other two sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas—as the unbelieving relatives mentioned in John’s narrative. Thus, even the belief status of Jesus’s adelphoi aligns with the broader evidence: they were His cousins by marriage, not children of Mary.

When all the evidence is considered, the lexical range of adelphos, the Gospel family lists, the apostolic identification of James, and the unanimous testimony of the earliest Christian writers form a single, coherent historical picture. The men called Jesus’s adelphoi were not additional sons of Mary, but the well‑attested sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, two of whom were numbered among the Twelve. No alternative reconstruction accounts for the New Testament data, the patristic record, and the internal consistency of the early Church’s memory as fully or as precisely. The traditional identification is not a later theological invention; it is simply the only reading that fits the facts.

Sorry, not persuasive.

 

[Moonwood]

Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen? I am still a virgin.” -
Luke 1:34 ERV

The ERV is a paraphrase.

The Greek text does not say “I am still a virgin.”

Mary literally says: “I do not know a man.” (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα — present tense, expressing an ongoing state)

If She expected to know a man later — as any normal married woman would — She would not ask how conception would occur.

A woman expecting future intercourse would simply assume she’d conceive naturally once the marriage was consummated.

Her question only makes sense if She was not planning to know a man at all — not now, not later, not after marriage.

So again:

Why does Mary ask how conception will occur if She expected normal marital relations with Joseph later?

 

[Moonwood]

Sorry, not persuasive.

Simply saying “not persuasive” isn’t an argument. If you think something is wrong, you need to show where the reasoning fails.