Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Armour of God]

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 is possible if She expected normal marital relations with Joseph?

You seriously pressing this as an argument. Geez. Your clutching at straws if this is the best evidence you have for perpetual virginity.

NIV and ESV say the same thing. It's not a paraphrase. Mary is not talking about the future. She does not say she will remain a virgin in the future. She's clearly speaking past and present tense

 

[Moonwood]

NIV and ESV say the same thing. It's not a paraphrase. She's clearly speaking past and present tense

You’re asserting Mary is “clearly speaking past and present tense,” but that is not what the Greek text says.
The inspired wording is: οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα — “I do not know a man.”
(present tense, expressing an ongoing state)

NIV and ESV do not translate the Greek literally here.
They paraphrase the sexual idiom for readability.
Both ESV and NIV footnote the Greek as:
“Greek: do not know a man.”

So the Greek still says exactly what I quoted.

If Mary expected to know a man later — as any normal married woman would — She would not ask how conception would occur.
She 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 would occur if She expected normal marital relations with Joseph later?

 

[Armour of God]

You’re asserting Mary is “clearly speaking past and present tense,” but that is not what the Greek text says.
The inspired wording is: οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα — “I do not know a man.”
(present tense, expressing an ongoing state)

NIV and ESV do not translate the Greek literally here.
They paraphrase the sexual idiom for readability.
Both ESV and NIV footnote the Greek as:
“Greek: do not know a man.”

So the Greek still says exactly what I quoted.

If Mary expected to know a man later — as any normal married woman would — She would not ask how conception would occur.
She 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 would occur if She expected normal marital relations with Joseph later?

I don't trust your interpretation of Greek.

I trust what the English translations say.
Mary is not saying she will be a lifelong virgin. That is an erroneous claim.

Just admit it. Perpetual virgin is not biblical.
At least not explicitly

 

[Moonwood]

I don't trust your interpretation of Greek.
I trust what the English translations say.
Mary is not saying she will be a lifelong virgin. That is an erroneous claim.

I’m not claiming Mary explicitly says She will be a lifelong virgin.
I’m asking you to explain why She asks how She will conceive if She’s expecting relations — now or later.

Saying “Mary is not saying She will be a lifelong virgin” doesn’t even address the question.

It’s like asking:

“Why is the sky blue?”

And someone replying:

“The sky never said it was green.”

It’s irrelevant.

And you don’t have to trust my interpretation of Greek.
Trust the footnotes of the English translations you say you rely on.
ESV and NIV both footnote Luke 1:34 as:
“Greek: do not know a man.”

That is the inspired wording.

And that wording is present tense, expressing an ongoing state — not a past condition.

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

But if Mary wasn’t a lifelong virgin and I'm "clutching at straws," you should be able to answer this question:

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

 

[Moonwood]

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.

Mark, pointing out that the crowd “regarded Joseph as Jesus’ biological father” doesn’t help your argument — it proves my point.

Matthew’s Gospel makes clear that Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father:

• Matthew 1:18, 20
• Luke 1: 34–35
• Luke 3:23

So the crowd’s belief is mistaken.

And if the crowd is mistaken about Joseph’s biological relationship to Jesus, then their statement cannot be treated as authoritative genealogical evidence about James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

You can’t say:

• “The crowd believed Joseph was Jesus’s biological father,” even though Matthew says that belief is wrong,

but then insist:

• “The crowd must be correct about Jesus's brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,”

when both claims come from the same unbelieving, mistaken crowd in the same sentence.

That is not “context.”

That is selective acceptance based on the conclusion you want.

And nothing in the text requires “same womb.”

In biblical Greek, adelphos/adelphoi regularly includes cousins, nephews, and other male relatives. So the crowd could easily be using adelphoi ("brothers") in the ordinary Jewish sense of “kinsmen, or relatives” just as Scripture consistently does.

And you're discarding the verses that clarify the relationship of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25), while fully accepting the verses that clarify Joseph’s relationship to Him (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1: 34–35, 3:23). You can’t apply contextual correction to Joseph but forbid contextual correction to James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

That is selective interpretation, not consistent exegesis.

Mary, the wife of Clopas and sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, is explicitly named the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25) — two of the men named in Matthew 13:55. The earliest Christian writers affirm the same and add that Symeon (Simon) and Jude (Judas) are also her and Clopas's sons.

And you also agreed that Clopas is Joseph’s brother.

So you already accept:

• Clopas is Joseph’s brother
• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph
• Early Christian testimony identifies Simon and Jude as their siblings

So what reason do you have for accepting Joseph as Clopas’s brother and Mary as Clopas’s wife, but discarding the evidence that links Clopas and Mary's sons to Jesus’s adelphoi?

You’re accepting half of the genealogy and discarding the half that contradicts your conclusion.

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

That is demonstrably incorrect. Matthew’s Gospel frequently uses adelphos/adelphoi outside of strict biological siblings or spiritual brothers.

In biblical Greek, and within Matthew specifically, adelphos/adelphoi are used broadly for national kinship, close associations, and community:

• Fellow Countrymen / Kinsmen:
  Jesus uses adelphos in Matthew 5:22–24 when He warns against being angry with your “brother.” In this context, adelphos refers to a fellow Israelite, neighbor, or countryman — not a biological sibling and not a modern “spiritual brother."
  
  
• Familial metaphor / redefined kinship:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 12:49–50 metaphorically to describe those who do the will of His Father — including His disciples — as His “brothers,” but in a family‑redefinition context.
  
  
• Community‑level kinship (disciples):
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 23:8 to refer to His followers and students as “brothers,” expressing a community‑level kinship among His disciples.
  
  
• The Apostles:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 28:10 when He tells the women to go tell His brothers to go to Galilee, specifically referencing the apostles.

Even BDAG—the standard Protestant Greek lexicon—notes that adelphos/adelphoi has multiple non‑biological uses throughout the NT.

So why are you restricting adelphos/adelphoi to only “biological or spiritual brothers” within Matthew's Gospel when Matthew himself identifies James and Joseph — two of Jesus's adelphoi named in Matthew 13:55 — as sons of Mary of Clopas (Matthew 27:56), not Mary the mother of Jesus? And Mark (15:40; 16:1), Luke (24:10), John (19:25), and early Christian writers all confirm the same genealogy.

That is selective restriction, not consistent exegesis.

If you restrict adelphos to “biological or spiritual brothers only” in Matthew, you end up misreading Jesus’s teaching about ordinary interactions with fellow Israelites, neighbors, and the broader community. Matthew uses adelphos/adelphoi in multiple non‑biological senses, and the rigid rule you’re imposing simply isn’t in the text.

 

[quietthinker]

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

Would you bother going into a debate about whether Jesus had a Roman nose or otherwise? It's a bit like that for me with this subject, I look at what you've presented and go Maa, I don't buy it.....and frankly, couldn't be bothered trying to persuade you otherwise. No disrespect.

 

[Moonwood]

Would you bother going into a debate about whether Jesus had a Roman nose or otherwise? It's a bit like that for me with this subject, I look at what you've presented and go Maa, I don't buy it.....and frankly, couldn't be bothered trying to persuade you otherwise. No disrespect.

Then you shouldn’t have bothered quoting my opening post and replying with “Sorry, not persuasive” if you weren’t actually willing to engage with the reasoning. Otherwise, it’s just weightless words.

 

[Armour of God]

I’m not claiming Mary explicitly says She will be a lifelong virgin.
I’m asking you to explain why She asks how She will conceive if She’s expecting relations — now or later.

Saying “Mary is not saying She will be a lifelong virgin” doesn’t even address the question.

It’s like asking:

“Why is the sky blue?”

And someone replying:

“The sky never said it was green.”

It’s irrelevant.

And you don’t have to trust my interpretation of Greek.
Trust the footnotes of the English translations you say you rely on.
ESV and NIV both footnote Luke 1:34 as:
“Greek: do not know a man.”

That is the inspired wording.

And that wording is present tense, expressing an ongoing state — not a past condition.

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

But if Mary wasn’t a lifelong virgin and I'm "clutching at straws," you should be able to answer this question:

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

I've already answered your question. She asks the angel that because she was still a virgin at the time. It's not a reference to the future. She's not saying she will always be a virgin. That's just your erroneous claim

That's your best scriptural evidence for perpetual virginity.
One passage that doesn't even say anything about Mary being a lifelong virgin

Very weak.

The bible never says that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

 

[Moonwood]

I've already answered your question. She asks the angel that because she was still a virgin at the time.

And I’ve already explained why that didn’t answer the question.

Again, 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, expressing an ongoing state)

Both your preferred translations, ESV and NIV, footnote the Greek as:
“Greek: do not know a man.”

If Mary expected normal marital relations later, She would not ask how conception would occur.
She 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:
If Mary wasn’t a lifelong virgin and I’m “clutching at straws,” you should be able to answer this:

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

 

[quietthinker]

Then you shouldn’t have bothered quoting my opening post and replying with “Sorry, not persuasive” if you weren’t actually willing to engage with the reasoning. Otherwise, it’s just weightless words.

They might be weightless to you....not to me.

 

[Moonwood]

They might be weightless to you....not to me.

That’s fine, but unless you’re willing to defend those words in a public discussion, they’re considered weightless by those who are actually engaging — and best kept to yourself.

 

[quietthinker]

That’s fine, but unless you’re willing to defend those words in a public discussion, they’re considered weightless by those who are actually engaging — and best kept to yourself.

For me there are better hills to die on my dear. The idea that a young married woman should remain a virgin is as ridiculous as it gets.

 

[Armour of God]

If Mary expected normal marital relations later, She would not ask how conception would occur.
She would simply assume She’d conceive naturally once the marriage was consummated.

I'm not accepting your assumption.
Mary was not saying she will be a perpetual virgin at all.

So the best scriptural evidence you have for Mary bring a lifelong virgin is this...

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” - Luke 1:34 ESV

I rest my case

 

[Moonwood]

For me there are better hills to die on my dear. The idea that a young married woman should remain a virgin is as ridiculous as it gets.

That’s fine, but calling the idea “ridiculous” still doesn’t answer the question. You’re free to hold whatever personal view you want — but unless you’re willing to defend it with actual reasoning, it remains weightless in a public discussion.

 

[Moonwood]

I'm not accepting your assumption.
Mary was not saying she will be a perpetual virgin at all.

So the best scriptural evidence you have for Mary bring a lifelong virgin is this...

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” - Luke 1:34 ESV

I rest my case

My only “assumption” is your own assertion — that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations and children. If you now reject the idea that Mary would expect consummation with Joseph later, then you are rejecting your own position.

So which is it?

• Did Mary expect marital relations with Joseph later? If yes, then Her question makes no sense.
• Or did Mary not expect marital relations with Joseph later? If so, you’ve abandoned the very claim you’ve been defending.

If Mary, while betrothed to Joseph, expected to have marital intercourse with him later (and you assert they did), then why did She ask how conception would occur?

And instead of answering straightforwardly, you have cycled through:

• Non‑Responsive Answering: Giving an answer that only restates Mary’s present state (“She was a virgin at the time”) while ignoring the question about Her future expectation.
• Misquoting: Changing or selectively quoting the text.
• Appealing to English paraphrases: While your own preferred translations footnote the Greek as “do not know a man.”
• Reframing: Turning my question into a claim I never made.
• Attacking claims I never made: Insisting “It doesn’t imply She remained a virgin” as if that were my argument.
• Dismissing the question: Calling it “clutching at straws” instead of engaging with the reasoning.
• Attacking claims I never made (again): Insisting “Mary is not saying She will be a lifelong virgin” as if that were my argument.
• Mocking the question: Calling it “very weak” rather than showing where the logic fails.
• Circular Answering: Repeating “She was a virgin at the time” as if that answers the question, while ignoring the issue of Her future expectation.
• Selective Quoting & “Resting Your Case” Without Addressing the Logic: Ignoring the full argument I presented, quoting only two sentences out of an entire explanation, treating the conclusion of that argument as an “assumption,” and then declaring the matter settled while still not explaining why Mary, while betrothed to Joseph, asked how conception would occur if She expected to have marital relations with him later (and you assert they did).
  
  Example:
  
  After I explained:
  
  
• Mary does not say: “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” — that is an English paraphrase.
• She says: “…since I do not know a man (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα)” — present tense, ongoing state.
• Both your preferred translations, ESV and NIV, footnote the Greek as: “do not know a man.”
• Her question only makes sense if She was not planning to know a man at all — not now, not later, not after marriage.
• If She expected consummation, She would simply assume conception would occur naturally.
  
  And after I asked:
  
  “If Mary, while betrothed to Joseph, expected to have marital intercourse with him later (and you assert they did), then why did She ask how conception would occur?”
  
  You only quoted this section from my post:
  
  “If Mary expected normal marital relations later, She would not ask how conception would occur. She would simply assume She’d conceive naturally once the marriage was consummated.”
  
  Then replied:
  
  “I’m not accepting your assumption. Mary was not saying she will be a perpetual virgin at all… I rest my case.”
  
  This ignored the Greek, the footnotes, the present‑tense meaning, the logical structure, and the actual question — while pretending the issue was resolved.
  
  When someone presents themselves as prepared to defend the assertion that Mary and Joseph had marital intercourse and children, this is not the kind of engagement one expects. A position that is confident, scriptural, and well‑supported should be able to withstand a simple, direct question. Instead, every response you’ve given has avoided the central issue: explaining why Mary asked how conception will occur if She expected marital relations with Joseph later, as you assert She did. Until that question is answered, the assertions you’re defending remain unsupported by the very text you claim to rely on.

 

[quietthinker]

That’s fine, but calling the idea “ridiculous” still doesn’t answer the question. You’re free to hold whatever personal view you want — but unless you’re willing to defend it with actual reasoning, it remains weightless in a public discussion.

Tell me, what is beneficial about believing Mary had no other children?