Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[sondring7]

Do you think the Bible confirms Mary did not have 'relations' with her husband after the birth of Jesus ?

 

[Taken]

Mary a Virgin “forever”?
No.

Not a mystery, God instructed human husbands and their human wives to multiply.

Mary a virgin before her marriage to Joseph?
Yes.

Mary a virgin AFTER her agreed and religious requirement to abstain from sexual relations fulfilled?
No.

Fact- Mary was Pregnant before wedded to Joseph.

Agreed - Abstain from a sexual relationship with Joseph during her first pregnancy.
Yes.

Religious - Abstain from sexual relations After a delivered birth of a son…
Yes.

Mary Wedded Virgin-
Yes.

9 months Abstence from sexual relations.
Yes.

Delivery Day of First born son
+
7 days Abstence
+
33 days Abstence
+
Day she takes to the Priest an Animal offering To be Burnt by the Priest for her Cleansing.

Abstence Requirement Fulfilled for FIRST born Son…

More … multiplying of sons and daughters via sexual relations, no longer prohibited,
Rather, IN Fact…established by God, for husbands and wives…TO multiply.

Not a mystery.
God intervened… in Mary’s “FIRST Born Son”…

AFTER The birth of her First born Son…
Mary, Joseph, their children , Have VERY LITTLE signifance IN Gods intent that the Focus of ManKIND SHOULD rest:
ON Gods Offerings
OF Gods…
Lord……...Jesus
Priest…….Jesus
Son…….…Jesus
Word……..Jesus
Maker…….Jesus
Power……..Christ
Wisdom …Christ
Seed………Christ

“Debating” over the meaning of “until”…
Is simply a silly, irrelevant Deflection.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[sondring7]

To me the topic is not such a big deal.

I've read the arguments from both sides and I think it's more probable that Mary had kids with Joseph.

If Mary did choose not to love her husband then I consider that to be the actions of a bad wife.

I am unaware that the Bible teaches Mary did not ever have relations with Joseph and since Biblical marriage is also for the purpose of reproduction then good luck to anyone dogma beaten enough to try and prove Mary never had sex

 

[sondring7]

Mary a Virgin “forever”?
No.

Not a mystery, God instructed human husbands and their human wives to multiply.

Mary a virgin before her marriage to Joseph?
Yes.

Mary a virgin AFTER her agreed and religious requirement to abstain from sexual relations fulfilled?
No.

Fact- Mary was Pregnant before wedded to Joseph.

Agreed - Abstain from a sexual relationship with Joseph during her first pregnancy.
Yes.

Religious - Abstain from sexual relations After a delivered birth of a son…
Yes.

Mary Wedded Virgin-
Yes.

9 months Abstence from sexual relations.
Yes.

Delivery Day of First born son
+
7 days Abstence
+
33 days Abstence
+
Day she takes to the Priest an Animal offering To be Burnt by the Priest for her Cleansing.

Abstence Requirement Fulfilled for FIRST born Son…

More … multiplying of sons and daughters via sexual relations, no longer prohibited,
Rather, IN Fact…established by God, for husbands and wives…TO multiply.

Not a mystery.
God intervened… in Mary’s “FIRST Born Son”…

AFTER The birth of her First born Son…
Mary, Joseph, their children , Have VERY LITTLE signifance IN Gods intent that the Focus of ManKIND SHOULD rest:
ON Gods Offerings
OF Gods…
Lord……...Jesus
Priest…….Jesus
Son…….…Jesus
Word……..Jesus
Maker…….Jesus
Power……..Christ
Wisdom …Christ
Seed………Christ

“Debating” over the meaning of “until”…
Is simply a silly, irrelevant Deflection.

Glory to God,
Taken

A good common logical factual post Taken

 

[Moonwood]

To me the topic is not such a big deal.

I've read the arguments from both sides and I think it's more probable that Mary had kids with Joseph.

If Mary did choose not to love her husband then I consider that to be the actions of a bad wife.

There are “probabilities and considerations,” and then there are the actual facts. And you haven’t addressed the facts I presented.

Here is everything you have not responded to:

You did not address the adelphos evidence:​

• You did not address that the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are never called sons of Mary.
• You did not address that they are never called sons of Joseph.
• You did not address that only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55).
• You did not address that only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).
• You did not address that the Gospels identify the actual mother of James and Joseph — the very names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi — as Mary of Clopas/Cleopas, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.
• You did not address that John 19:25 identifies Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as Mary’s adelphe — meaning a female relative.
• You did not address that two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, which means she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law.
• You did not address that this makes her sons Joseph’s nephews, which fits the kinship category of adelphos perfectly.
• You did not address the genealogical evidence showing why “cousins by marriage” is the correct kinship category.
• You did not address that Joseph’s nephews are not Jesus’s blood relatives, which is why the Gospels can call them “brothers” without implying they were Mary’s sons.
• You did not address the earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — who independently preserve the same identification.
• You did not address that these witnesses are geographically diverse, chronologically separated, and historically consistent.
• You did not address that James the Just, James the Less, James of Alphaeus, James the bishop of Jerusalem, and “the Lord’s brother,” are the same person — and not a younger biological son of Mary.
• You did not address that Judas (Thaddeus) is likewise identified as a son of Alphaeus, not Mary.
• You did not address that John 7:5 cannot refer to James and Judas, since both were believers, apostles, and authors of New Testament epistles.
• You did not address that the unbelieving “brothers” in John 7:5 must therefore be Joseph and Simon — the other sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas.

You did not address the Scriptural evidence about Joseph and Mary:​

• You did not address that Scripture never says Mary had marital intercourse.
• You did not address that Scripture never calls Mary a “bad wife.”
• You did not address that Scripture never says Mary “refused to submit sexually.”
• You did not address that Scripture never says Joseph “left Mary.”
• You did not address that Joseph remained married to Mary for at least twelve years (Luke 2:41-43).
• You did not address that Joseph is explicitly called a righteous man (Matthew 1:19).
• You did not address that Joseph protected Mary from shame rather than accusing Her (Matthew 1:19).
• You did not address that God sent an angel to tell Joseph not to divorce Mary, and Joseph obeyed immediately (Matthew 1:20).
• You did not address that Scripture never portrays Joseph as resentful, deprived, or mistreated.
• You did not address Mary’s stated intention in Luke 1:34.
• You did not address the 3‑step exercise I gave you, which directly contradicts your “bad wife” speculation.

You did not address the central question:​

Does Joseph look like a man who abandoned Mary because she “refused to submit sexually,” or does he look like a righteous man chosen by God to protect her unique vocation?

You didn’t answer that either.


Your conclusion (“it’s more probable Mary had kids with Joseph”) isn’t based on the evidence. It’s simply a preference — because the actual Scriptural and historical data point in a different direction.

If you want to continue the conversation, you’ll need to engage the evidence itself rather than repeating a conclusion without addressing the facts that contradict it.

 

[Moonwood]

I am unaware that the Bible teaches Mary did not ever have relations with Joseph and since Biblical marriage is also for the purpose of reproduction then good luck to anyone dogma beaten enough to try and prove Mary never had sex

You’re confident enough to assert that Mary had relations with Joseph, but you haven’t defended that claim or addressed any of the Scriptural evidence I already laid out in the opening post and posts #9; #14, #16. You haven’t even done this simple 3‑step exercise:

1. Suppose for a moment that you believed Mary remained a lifelong virgin for the same reasons I do — two of them being that God had consecrated Her for a unique vocation as the Virgin of Isaiah 7:14, and Her own stated intention to remain a virgin (Luke 1:34).

2. Consider the following facts:

• Joseph remained married to Mary for at least twelve years (Luke 2:41-43).
• Joseph is repeatedly described as a righteous man (Matthew 1:19).
• When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant, he did not accuse Her or treat Her as a “bad wife”; he sought to protect Her from shame (Matthew 1:19).
• God sent an angel specifically to tell Joseph not to divorce Mary, and Joseph obeyed without hesitation (Matthew 1:20). Would God have sent an angel to affirm Mary’s innocence and instruct Joseph to stay married to Her — and would a righteous man like Joseph have obeyed — if She were actually doing something wrong?
• Nothing in Scripture portrays Joseph as resentful, deprived, or mistreated, nor does anything suggest he “left Mary” or viewed Her as failing in marital duty.

3. Ask yourself honestly:

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 whom God specifically chose because he would understand that his marriage to Mary was part of God’s plan — a plan that required protecting Her unique vocation, safeguarding Her purity, and providing a righteous home for God the Word Incarnate once the Divine and Virgin Conception occurred?

Until you address these Scriptural points — and the analysis of Matthew 1:25 I already gave — simply asserting that Mary "obviously" had relations with Joseph isn’t an argument. It’s just an assumption Scripture itself never states.

 

[Armour of God]

There are “probabilities and considerations,” and then there are the actual facts. And you haven’t addressed the facts I presented.

Here is everything you have not responded to:

You did not address the adelphos evidence:​

• You did not address that the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are never called sons of Mary.
• You did not address that they are never called sons of Joseph.
• You did not address that only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55).
• You did not address that only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).
• You did not address that the Gospels identify the actual mother of James and Joseph — the very names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi — as Mary of Clopas/Cleopas, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.
• You did not address that John 19:25 identifies Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as Mary’s adelphe — meaning a female relative.
• You did not address that two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, which means she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law.
• You did not address that this makes her sons Joseph’s nephews, which fits the kinship category of adelphos perfectly.
• You did not address the genealogical evidence showing why “cousins by marriage” is the correct kinship category.
• You did not address that Joseph’s nephews are not Jesus’s blood relatives, which is why the Gospels can call them “brothers” without implying they were Mary’s sons.
• You did not address the earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — who independently preserve the same identification.
• You did not address that these witnesses are geographically diverse, chronologically separated, and historically consistent.
• You did not address that James the Just, James the Less, James of Alphaeus, James the bishop of Jerusalem, and “the Lord’s brother,” are the same person — and not a younger biological son of Mary.
• You did not address that Judas (Thaddeus) is likewise identified as a son of Alphaeus, not Mary.
• You did not address that John 7:5 cannot refer to James and Judas, since both were believers, apostles, and authors of New Testament epistles.
• You did not address that the unbelieving “brothers” in John 7:5 must therefore be Joseph and Simon — the other sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas.

You did not address the Scriptural evidence about Joseph and Mary:​

• You did not address that Scripture never says Mary had marital intercourse.
• You did not address that Scripture never calls Mary a “bad wife.”
• You did not address that Scripture never says Mary “refused to submit sexually.”
• You did not address that Scripture never says Joseph “left Mary.”
• You did not address that Joseph remained married to Mary for at least twelve years (Luke 2:41-43).
• You did not address that Joseph is explicitly called a righteous man (Matthew 1:19).
• You did not address that Joseph protected Mary from shame rather than accusing Her (Matthew 1:19).
• You did not address that God sent an angel to tell Joseph not to divorce Mary, and Joseph obeyed immediately (Matthew 1:20).
• You did not address that Scripture never portrays Joseph as resentful, deprived, or mistreated.
• You did not address Mary’s stated intention in Luke 1:34.
• You did not address the 3‑step exercise I gave you, which directly contradicts your “bad wife” speculation.

You did not address the central question:​

Does Joseph look like a man who abandoned Mary because she “refused to submit sexually,” or does he look like a righteous man chosen by God to protect her unique vocation?

You didn’t answer that either.


Your conclusion (“it’s more probable Mary had kids with Joseph”) isn’t based on the evidence. It’s simply a preference — because the actual Scriptural and historical data point in a different direction.

If you want to continue the conversation, you’ll need to engage the evidence itself rather than repeating a conclusion without addressing the facts that contradict it.

Your not the first person to address this and you won't be the last.

I've considered it all before and I'm satisfied that ive reached my conclusion accordingly.

 

[Moonwood]

There are “probabilities and considerations,” and then there are the actual facts. And you haven’t addressed the facts I presented.

Here is everything you have not responded to:

You did not address the adelphos evidence:​

• You did not address that the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are never called sons of Mary.
• You did not address that they are never called sons of Joseph.
• You did not address that only Jesus is called “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55).
• You did not address that only Jesus is called “the Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).
• You did not address that the Gospels identify the actual mother of James and Joseph — the very names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi — as Mary of Clopas/Cleopas, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.
• You did not address that John 19:25 identifies Mary of Clopas/Cleophas as Mary’s adelphe — meaning a female relative.
• You did not address that two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, which means she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law.
• You did not address that this makes her sons Joseph’s nephews, which fits the kinship category of adelphos perfectly.
• You did not address the genealogical evidence showing why “cousins by marriage” is the correct kinship category.
• You did not address that Joseph’s nephews are not Jesus’s blood relatives, which is why the Gospels can call them “brothers” without implying they were Mary’s sons.
• You did not address the earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — who independently preserve the same identification.
• You did not address that these witnesses are geographically diverse, chronologically separated, and historically consistent.
• You did not address that James the Just, James the Less, James of Alphaeus, James the bishop of Jerusalem, and “the Lord’s brother,” are the same person — and not a younger biological son of Mary.
• You did not address that Judas (Thaddeus) is likewise identified as a son of Alphaeus, not Mary.
• You did not address that John 7:5 cannot refer to James and Judas, since both were believers, apostles, and authors of New Testament epistles.
• You did not address that the unbelieving “brothers” in John 7:5 must therefore be Joseph and Simon — the other sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas.

You did not address the Scriptural evidence about Joseph and Mary:​

• You did not address that Scripture never says Mary had marital intercourse.
• You did not address that Scripture never calls Mary a “bad wife.”
• You did not address that Scripture never says Mary “refused to submit sexually.”
• You did not address that Scripture never says Joseph “left Mary.”
• You did not address that Joseph remained married to Mary for at least twelve years (Luke 2:41-43).
• You did not address that Joseph is explicitly called a righteous man (Matthew 1:19).
• You did not address that Joseph protected Mary from shame rather than accusing Her (Matthew 1:19).
• You did not address that God sent an angel to tell Joseph not to divorce Mary, and Joseph obeyed immediately (Matthew 1:20).
• You did not address that Scripture never portrays Joseph as resentful, deprived, or mistreated.
• You did not address Mary’s stated intention in Luke 1:34.
• You did not address the 3‑step exercise I gave you, which directly contradicts your “bad wife” speculation.

You did not address the central question:​

Does Joseph look like a man who abandoned Mary because she “refused to submit sexually,” or does he look like a righteous man chosen by God to protect her unique vocation?

You didn’t answer that either.


Your conclusion (“it’s more probable Mary had kids with Joseph”) isn’t based on the evidence. It’s simply a preference — because the actual Scriptural and historical data point in a different direction.

If you want to continue the conversation, you’ll need to engage the evidence itself rather than repeating a conclusion without addressing the facts that contradict it.

Your not the first person to address this and you won't be the last.

I've considered it all before and I'm satisfied that ive reached my conclusion accordingly.

If you’ve truly “considered it all,” then you should be able to address at least one of the specific points I listed. But you didn’t. You didn’t respond to the Gospel data, the genealogical evidence, the identification of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, the early Christian testimony, Joseph’s righteousness, the angel’s intervention, or Mary’s stated intention in Luke 1:34.

You didn’t show where any of those points are wrong.
You didn’t offer counter‑evidence.
You didn’t engage the argument.

You simply repeated your conclusion.

That’s fine — you’re free to hold your view — but it doesn’t change the fact that the Scriptural and historical evidence I presented remains unanswered (opening post and posts #9; #14; #16; #21).

 

[markalan]

Your not the first person to address this and you won't be the last.

I've considered it all before and I'm satisfied that ive reached my conclusion accordingly.

This false doctrine is so pernicious because it's aim is to elevate Mary to a position of worship ... while trying to muddy the waters with words such as "honor" & "veneration." A tree is known by its fruit.

 

[Moonwood]

This false doctrine is so pernicious because it's aim is to elevate Mary to a position of worship ... while trying to muddy the waters with words such as "honor" & "veneration." A tree is known by its fruit.

Accusing the doctrine of being “pernicious” or aimed at “worship” doesn’t address any of the Scriptural evidence I presented. It’s just a motive‑attack — not an argument.

Nothing I wrote involved worship.
Nothing involved elevating Mary above God.
I cited Scripture, genealogy, the Gospel family lists, and the earliest Christian writers.

If you disagree with the evidence, then address the evidence.
If you think Mary had other children, then show where Scripture says that. If you think Mary was not a lifelong virgin, then deal with Luke 1:34, Joseph’s righteousness, the angel’s intervention, and the identification of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, etc. — refer to the opening post and posts #9; #14; #16; #21.

But dismissing the entire argument as “pernicious” without engaging a single point is not a rebuttal. It’s just a reaction.

 

[markalan]

Accusing the doctrine of being “pernicious” or aimed at “worship” doesn’t address any of the Scriptural evidence I presented. It’s just a motive‑attack — not an argument.

All of the "evidence" you have presented is speculative interpretation.

The aim of promoting Mary is obvious ... and it is contrary to Paul's Gospel.

 

[Moonwood]

All of the "evidence" you have presented is speculative interpretation.

The aim of promoting Mary is obvious ... and it is contrary to Paul's Gospel.

Calling the evidence (opening post and posts #9; #14; #16; #21) “speculative” and accusing me of “promoting Mary” doesn’t address a single scriptural point I presented. It’s just another motive‑attack.

Nothing I cited was speculation:

• Isaiah 7:14 is not speculation.
• Luke 1:34 is not speculation.
• Matthew 1:19–20 is not speculation.
• Matthew 1:24 is not speculation.
• Luke 2:41–43 is not speculation.
• The identification of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas in John 19:25 is not speculation.
• The fact that James and Joseph — those among Jesus's adelphoi — are her sons, not Mary’s, is not speculation.
• The earliest Christian writers identifying the “brothers” as relatives, not children of Mary, is not speculation.

And the 3‑step exercise you’re dismissing wasn’t speculation at all — it was built entirely on Scripture:

• Isaiah 7:14 — Mary is identified prophetically as the Virgin.
• Luke 1:34 — Mary’s own statement as a married woman that She “knows not man.”
• Matthew 1:19 — Joseph is a righteous man.
• Matthew 1:20 — God sends an angel to stop Joseph from divorcing Mary.
• Matthew 1:24 — Joseph obeys immediately.
• Luke 2:41–43 — Joseph remains married to Mary for at least twelve years.

The exercise simply asked you to approach these verses from the position I explained, instead of assuming the conclusion you already hold. That’s not “promoting Mary.” That’s basic exegesis.

If you think any of those passages or historical sources are “contrary to Paul’s Gospel,” then show how. Quote Paul. Engage the text. Demonstrate the contradiction.

But simply declaring the evidence “speculative” and accusing me of ulterior motives is not a rebuttal. It’s just a dismissal.

 

[markalan]

Calling the evidence (opening post and posts #9; #14; #16; #21) “speculative” and accusing me of “promoting Mary” doesn’t address a single scriptural point I presented. It’s just another motive‑attack.

Nothing I cited was speculation:

• Isaiah 7:14 is not speculation.
• Luke 1:34 is not speculation.
• Matthew 1:19–20 is not speculation.
• Matthew 1:24 is not speculation.
• Luke 2:41–43 is not speculation.
• The identification of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas in John 19:25 is not speculation.
• The fact that James and Joseph — those among Jesus's adelphoi — are her sons, not Mary’s, is not speculation.
• The earliest Christian writers identifying the “brothers” as relatives, not children of Mary, is not speculation.

And the 3‑step exercise you’re dismissing wasn’t speculation at all — it was built entirely on Scripture:

• Isaiah 7:14 — Mary is identified prophetically as the Virgin.
• Luke 1:34 — Mary’s own statement as a married woman that She “knows not man.”
• Matthew 1:19 — Joseph is a righteous man.
• Matthew 1:20 — God sends an angel to stop Joseph from divorcing Mary.
• Matthew 1:24 — Joseph obeys immediately.
• Luke 2:41–43 — Joseph remains married to Mary for at least twelve years.

The exercise simply asked you to approach these verses from the position I explained, instead of assuming the conclusion you already hold. That’s not “promoting Mary.” That’s basic exegesis.

If you think any of those passages or historical sources are “contrary to Paul’s Gospel,” then show how. Quote Paul. Engage the text. Demonstrate the contradiction.

But simply declaring the evidence “speculative” and accusing me of ulterior motives is not a rebuttal. It’s just a dismissal.

All of your "evidence" has been addressed in this thread ... even though you reject it.

I am more interested in the doctrinal implications

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he [Joseph] had no union with her [Mary] until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.​

 

[Moonwood]

All of your "evidence" has been addressed in this thread ... even though you reject it.

How can I reject what I never received? I'm in the middle of a discussion with DavidLamb, ArmourofGod, sondring7, and even you, and none of you has replied to my latest post in each of those conversations. None of you has addressed the evidence in the opening post. And none of you has even attempted the 3‑step exercise, which was built entirely on Scripture.

If something has been “addressed,” then show where. Quote the part of my argument you think was answered and the reply that supposedly answered it. Because so far, every specific point I raised — Scriptural, historical, genealogical, and linguistic — remains untouched.

Simply saying “it’s all been addressed” doesn’t make it true.

I am more interested in the doctrinal implications

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he [Joseph] had no union with her [Mary] until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

If Matthew 1:25 were “clear and unambiguous,” then you would not need to ignore every other relevant passage in Scripture to defend your conclusion.

You didn’t address:

• Isaiah 7:14 — Mary is prophetically identified as the Virgin.
• Luke 1:34 — Mary’s own statement as a married woman that she “knows not man.”
• Matthew 1:19 — Joseph is a righteous man, not resentful or deprived.
• Matthew 1:20 — God sends an angel to stop Joseph from divorcing Mary.
• Matthew 1:24 — Joseph obeys immediately.
• Luke 2:41–43 — Joseph remains married to Mary for at least twelve years.
• John 19:25 — Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is Mary’s adelphe, and her sons are James and Joseph (those among Jesus's adelphoi).
• Mark 6:3 / Matthew 13:55 — Jesus alone is called “the Son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s Son.”
• The earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — all identify the “brothers” as relatives, not children of Mary.

You also didn’t address the fact that Matthew 1:25 does not imply a change afterward. “Until” (heos hou) in Greek does not require a reversal after the stated point (cf. 2 Sam 6:23; Deut 34:6; 1 Tim 4:13).

Your conclusion is based entirely on one verse, interpreted in isolation, while ignoring the rest of Scripture and the entire historical record.

If you believe Matthew 1:25 overrides Mary’s own words in Luke 1:34, Joseph’s righteousness, the angel’s intervention, the identification of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, and the earliest Christian testimony, then you’ll need to show how — not simply repeat the same assertion.

Quoting Matthew 1:25 again is not a rebuttal.
It’s just a restatement of your conclusion.

 

[markalan]

How can I reject what I never received? I'm in the middle of a discussion with DavidLamb, ArmourofGod, sondring7, and even you, and none of you has replied to my latest post in each of those conversations. None of you has addressed the evidence in the opening post. And none of you has even attempted the 3‑step exercise, which was built entirely on Scripture.

If something has been “addressed,” then show where. Quote the part of my argument you think was answered and the reply that supposedly answered it. Because so far, every specific point I raised — Scriptural, historical, genealogical — remains untouched.

Simply saying “it’s all been addressed” doesn’t make it true.



If Matthew 1:25 were “clear and unambiguous,” then you would not need to ignore every other relevant passage in Scripture to defend your conclusion.

You didn’t address:

• Isaiah 7:14 — Mary is prophetically identified as the Virgin.
• Luke 1:34 — Mary’s own statement as a married woman that she “knows not man.”
• Matthew 1:19 — Joseph is a righteous man, not resentful or deprived.
• Matthew 1:20 — God sends an angel to stop Joseph from divorcing Mary.
• Matthew 1:24 — Joseph obeys immediately.
• Luke 2:41–43 — Joseph remains married to Mary for at least twelve years.
• John 19:25 — Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is Mary’s adelphe, and her sons are James and Joseph (those among Jesus's adelphoi).
• Mark 6:3 / Matthew 13:55 — Jesus alone is called “the Son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s Son.”
• The earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — all identify the “brothers” as relatives, not children of Mary.

You also didn’t address the fact that Matthew 1:25 does not imply a change afterward. “Until” (heos hou) in Greek does not require a reversal after the stated point (cf. 2 Sam 6:23; Deut 34:6; 1 Tim 4:13).

Your conclusion is based entirely on one verse, interpreted in isolation, while ignoring the rest of Scripture and the entire historical record.

If you believe Matthew 1:25 overrides Mary’s own words in Luke 1:34, Joseph’s righteousness, the angel’s intervention, the identification of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, and the earliest Christian testimony, then you’ll need to show how — not simply repeat the same assertion.

Quoting Matthew 1:25 again is not a rebuttal.
It’s just a restatement of your conclusion.

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 ... two of Clopas's children were called James & Joseph, very common names.
John 19:25 simply shows that the status of a sister by marriage was the same as that of a biological sister.

• 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 & sisters in the same context as His mother and 'father'.

• 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.


.

 

[markalan]

The "perpetual virginity of Mary" occurs in the context of Mariology which includes these 'infallible' dogmas that underpin each other:

The Immaculate Conception is the teaching that Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception by her mother.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is the teaching that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus. She never consummated her marriage to Joseph and so never bore him any children.

The Assumption of Mary is the teaching that at the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken body and soul into heaven, defined by Pope Pius XII November 1950.

 

[Armour of God]

All of the "evidence" you have presented is speculative interpretation.

It's all based on speculation and assumption.

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.

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.

 

[Armour of God]

The "perpetual virginity of Mary" occurs in the context of Mariology which includes these 'infallible' dogmas that underpin each other:

The Immaculate Conception is the teaching that Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception by her mother.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is the teaching that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus. She never consummated her marriage to Joseph and so never bore him any children.

The Assumption of Mary is the teaching that at the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken body and soul into heaven, defined by Pope Pius XII November 1950.

There are four Marian dogmas.
The three you mentioned and this one

Mother of God
That was the first one in 431AD

 

[markalan]

It's all based on speculation and assumption.

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.

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.

One poster quoted Matthew 13:55 as evidence Jesus had no brothers or sisters ... but a close look at this passages shows they were identifying Jesus' by His immediate family - father, mother, brothers & sisters.


Matthew 13:55-56
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?

 

[markalan]

There are four Marian dogmas.
The three you mentioned and this one

Mother of God
That was the first one in 431AD

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.