Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Moonwood]

Take it up with Koperski ...

I already did — I sent him a message laying out exactly what I explained to you. If he replies, I’ll let you know.

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

You’re saying two incompatible things at the same time.

On the one hand, you agree with me — and with Hegesippus — that:

Clopas was Joseph’s brother.
Which means:

• Clopas = Jesus’s uncle
• Clopas’s sons = Joseph’s nephews
• Joseph’s nephews = Jesus’s cousins
• These cousins = the men called Jesus’s adelphoi

That is the genealogy Hegesippus gives.
You said yourself: “You’re correct.”

But then you claim:

“The obvious reading of Matt 13:53–58 is that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are the children of Joseph & Mary.”

That is impossible if you accept Hegesippus’s genealogy.

Hegesippus explicitly identifies Symeon (Simon) — one of the same “brothers” — as:

“the son of Clopas… the Lord’s cousin.” (Hist. Eccl. III.11.2)

And Jude is grouped with Symeon (Simon) as one of the same “brothers.”

So if Symeon is Clopas’s son and Jesus’s cousin, and Jude is one of the same “brothers,” then Jude cannot be Mary’s biological son.

You cannot accept Hegesippus’s genealogy and interpret Jude as Mary’s child.
Hegesippus himself tells you what “brother” means in this context: cousin, exactly as in Jewish kinship usage and exactly as in the New Testament’s use of adelphos.

The contradiction is not in Hegesippus.
It’s in your interpretation.

This is why Koperski’s argument collapses:
He quotes the very sentence that proves Jude was not Mary’s son.

Either you don’t realize Hegesippus is using “brother” in the broad Semitic sense, or you do realize it and simply prefer your conclusion over Hegesippus’s actual genealogy.

 

[markalan]

I already did — I sent him a message laying out exactly what I explained to you. If he replies, I’ll let you know.

The only interest I have in what Koperski said about Hegesippus is that it shows appealing to extra-biblical sources is not a persuasive argument because there can be as much debate about their meaning as about the Bible itself.

Clopas was Joseph’s brother.
Which means:

• Clopas = Jesus’s uncle
• Clopas’s sons = Joseph’s nephews
• Joseph’s nephews = Jesus’s cousins
• These cousins = the men called Jesus’s adelphoi

1, 2 & 3 ... ok ... then you make a wild claim that contradicts all the Scripture presented.

Every time Matthew uses "adelphos" in reference to named individuals, he is referring to biological siblings.

 

[Moonwood]

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

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

The only interest I have in what Koperski said about Hegesippus is that it shows appealing to extra-biblical sources is not a persuasive argument because there can be as much debate about their meaning as about the Bible itself.

You’re saying — via Koperski — that appealing to extra‑biblical sources “is not persuasive,” but Koperski himself appealed to Hegesippus, and you used that appeal as part of your argument. You specifically cited Koperski’s claim that Hegesippus called Jude a “blood sibling,” and I responded directly to that claim by showing that Hegesippus’s own genealogy — and Scripture — contradict that interpretation. So if appealing to Hegesippus isn’t persuasive, then Koperski’s argument collapses by his own standard, and by yours, since you relied on his appeal as your evidence. I simply addressed the exact line you quoted.

1, 2 & 3 ... ok ... then you make a wild claim that contradicts all the Scripture presented.

Every time Matthew uses "adelphos" in reference to named individuals, he is referring to biological siblings.

You’re claiming that every time Matthew uses adelphos for named individuals, it means biological siblings. But that’s simply not true. Matthew uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49-50 — Jesus points to His named disciples and says, “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — “You are all brothers” — addressed to His named followers.
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell His brothers — the named apostles.

If adelphos = biological sibling “every time… in reference to named individuals,” then Jesus had:

• 12 biological brothers (the apostles)
• every disciple as a biological brother

Your rule collapses instantly.

You can’t apply “adelphos always means biological sibling” to Matthew 13:55 and then ignore the places where Matthew uses the same word for non‑siblings.

Your interpretation contradicts:

• Matthew’s own usage
• the rest of the New Testament
• Hegesippus’s genealogy
• the early Christian writers
• basic Greek semantics

And it contradicts your own admission that Clopas was Joseph’s brother — which makes Clopas’s sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children.

You can’t affirm:

Clopas/Cleophas = Joseph’s brother
Symeon (Simon) = Clopas's son
James = Clopas's son
Jude (Judas) = Clopas’s son

and also claim
Jude (Judas) = Mary’s son

Those two statements cannot both be true.

And it’s obvious why you added the “named individuals by Matthew” limitation — because you know adelphoi is used elsewhere in the New Testament for large groups like the 500 believers, and Jesus obviously didn’t have 500 biological siblings. But even with your limitation, the rule still collapses, because Matthew himself uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings (the apostles, the disciples). So the exception doesn’t save your argument; it just shows you’re trying to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage doesn’t support.

Your rule about adelphos doesn’t work in Matthew, doesn’t work in the NT, and doesn’t work with Hegesippus.
It only works if you selectively apply it to one verse and ignore the rest of Scripture.

 

[markalan]

You’re saying that appealing to extra‑biblical sources “is not persuasive,” but Koperski himself appealed to Hegesippus — and you quoted that appeal as part of your argument. You specifically cited Koperski’s claim that Hegesippus called Jude a “blood sibling,” and I responded directly to that claim by showing that Hegesippus’s own genealogy — and Scripture — contradict that interpretation. So if appealing to Hegesippus isn’t persuasive, then Koperski’s argument collapses by his own standard, and by yours, since you used his appeal as your evidence. I simply relayed my counter‑argument to Koperski addressing the exact line you quoted.

I referenced Koperski to show you that you cannot rely on extra-biblical sources ... sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong ... the Bible is the only infallible source of authority.

You’re claiming that every time Matthew uses adelphos for named individuals, it means biological siblings. But that’s simply not true. Matthew uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49-50 — Jesus points to His named disciples and says, “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — “You are all brothers” — addressed to His named followers.
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell His brothers — the named apostles.

The fact that the disciples had names is not very convincing ... everyone has a name ... to state the obvious.

See if I can make it simpler ... every time Matthew uses adelphos for individuals personally named in the immediate context of the word, it refers to biological siblings.

And it contradicts your own admission that Clopas was Joseph’s brother — which makes Clopas’s sons Jesus’s cousins, not Mary’s children.

You can’t affirm:
Clopas/Cleophas = Joseph’s brother
and also claim
Jude (Judas) = Mary’s son

You are confused by how similar or the same names are commonly used in the NT ... Wikipedia says 4-6 for Jude/Judas and about the same number for James, and a lot more for Joseph.

Mat 27:56 (Mary the mother of James and Joseph) does not contradict Matthew 25:55-56 where the biological children of Mary & Joseph are mentioned.

Is not this the carpenter's son? ​

Is not his mother called Mary? ​

And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?​

And are not all his sisters with us?​

 

[Moonwood]

I referenced Koperski to show you that you cannot rely on extra-biblical sources ... sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong ... the Bible is the only infallible source of authority.

You’re saying you only referenced Koperski to show that extra‑biblical sources “cannot be relied on,” but that doesn’t resolve the contradiction I pointed out. You didn’t cite Koperski as a warning — you cited him as evidence, specifically his claim that Hegesippus called Jude a “blood sibling":

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."​

After I refuted that interpretation with Hegesippus’s own genealogy, you didn’t say “extra‑biblical sources aren’t reliable.” Instead, you doubled down and appealed to Koperski again:

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

And again:

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

These are not statements of caution.
These are appeals to authority — you were relying on Koperski as a credible source.

In the same post, you made two contradicting statements:

You're correct but your conclusion is wrong.
The obvious reading of Mat 13:53-58 is that it is a reference to Jesus' immediate family ... James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are the children of Joseph & Mary.

Only after I replied pointing out why you cannot accept Hegesippus’s genealogy and interpret Jude as Mary’s child did you retreat to:

I referenced Koperski to show you that you cannot rely on extra-biblical sources ... sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong ... the Bible is the only infallible source of authority.

But you didn’t show Hegesippus to be unreliable in this case — because he supports exactly what Scripture says. The genealogy he gives (Clopas = Joseph’s brother; Symeon (Simon), James, Jude (Judas), and Joseph = Clopas’s sons) aligns perfectly with the Gospel identifications of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas and her children. It contradicts your claim, not mine.

So the problem isn’t that extra‑biblical sources “aren’t reliable.” The problem is that you only call them unreliable when they contradict your conclusion — even though you explicitly said you “prefer” Koperski’s scholarship and even appealed to his Greek expertise when you believed it supported your position.

The fact that the disciples had names is not very convincing ... everyone has a name ... to state the obvious.

...every time Matthew uses adelphos for individuals personally named in the immediate context of the word, it refers to biological siblings.

You’ve now changed your rule again — from “named individuals” to “individuals personally named in the immediate context.” But Matthew still uses adelphos for personally named individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings.

For example:

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

These are not vague groups. These are specific individuals present in the scene, personally identified in the immediate context of the word adelphos. And none of them are biological siblings.

So your revised rule collapses just like the earlier one. You’re not defending a linguistic principle; you’re creating ad‑hoc limitations to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage does not support.

And it’s obvious why you’re adding and changing these limitations — because you know adelphoi is used elsewhere in the New Testament for large groups like the 500 believers, and Jesus obviously didn’t have 500 biological siblings. But even with your limitation, the rule still collapses, because Matthew himself uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings (the apostles, the disciples). So the exception doesn’t save your argument; it just shows you’re trying to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage doesn’t support.

You are confused by how similar or the same names are commonly used in the NT ... Wikipedia says 4-6 for Jude/Judas and about the same number for James, and a lot more for Joseph.

Mat 27:56 (Mary the mother of James and Joseph) does not contradict Matthew 25:35 where the biological children of Mary & Joseph are mentioned.

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

You’re shifting the issue to “similar names in the NT,” but that doesn’t address the actual point. Hegesippus doesn’t give us vague names — he gives us a genealogy, and genealogies identify which James, which Symeon (Simon), which Jude/Judas, and thus which Joseph he is talking about.

Hegesippus explicitly says:

• Clopas = Joseph’s brother
• Symeon = Clopas’s son
• James = Clopas’s son
• Judas = Clopas’s son
• Joseph = Clopas's son

That’s not a name‑confusion problem.
That’s a family tree.

And the passage you quoted actually reinforces this, not your conclusion. Hegesippus says:

“the descendants of Jude… said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh,” (Hist. Eccl. III.19)

and then:

“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude… said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” (Hist. Eccl. 20.1

This Jude is not ambiguous.
Hegesippus identifies him by:

• his father (Clopas),
• his brothers (James, Symeon (Simon), Joseph),
• his descendants (his grandchildren under Domitian).

There is no mistaking which Jude he means.
He is Clopas’s son, not Mary’s.

So you can’t affirm:

Clopas/Cleophas = Joseph’s brother
Symeon/Simon = Clopas’s son
James = Clopas’s son
Jude/Judas = Clopas’s son
Joseph = Clopas's son

and also claim:

Jude/Judas of Clopas = Mary’s son

Those two positions cannot both be true. If Hegesippus is right about Clopas’s genealogy, then the Jude/Judas he mentions is Clopas’s son, not Mary’s.

Appealing to “similar names” doesn’t solve the contradiction — it avoids it. The issue isn’t that there are multiple Judes; the issue is that Hegesippus identifies which Jude he means, and the Jude he identifies is not Mary’s child.

And Matthew 27:56 doesn’t help your case, because Matthew never says that “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” is the same woman as Mary the mother of Jesus in Matthew 13:55. In fact, Matthew, Mark, and John all describe the same group of women at the crucifixion, and together they identify her as Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, the mother of Joseph and James — two of the individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi:

• “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matthew 27:56)
• "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James (the younger) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)
• “His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)

Because all three accounts refer to the same scene and the same women, the identifications reinforce each other: Mary the mother of James and Joseph is Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

John calls her Mary’s adelphe (“sister”), which in context means sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, Joseph’s brother. That makes her sons — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children, a relationship fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

So the genealogy you just affirmed (Clopas’s sons) directly contradicts your assumption.

You agreed with the genealogy.
The conclusion follows from the genealogy.
If Clopas is Joseph’s brother, then Clopas’s sons are Jesus’s cousins by marriage — not Mary’s children.

 

[Armour of God]

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



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

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



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

Your excuses haven't swayed me.

Matthew said what he did because he knew they had kids together.

The Bible never explicitly says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. In fact it suggest that Mary did have a family with Joseph I believe.

 

[Moonwood]

Your excuses haven't swayed me.

Matthew said what he did because he knew they had kids together.

The Bible never explicitly says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. In fact it suggest that Mary did have a family with Joseph I believe.

You’re not addressing anything I actually argued. Saying “your excuses haven’t swayed me” and repeating your conclusions isn’t a rebuttal — it’s just a way of avoiding the evidence.

You claimed Matthew used “until” because he knew Joseph and Mary later had children. But that’s not what heos hou means in Scripture. It marks a boundary without implying anything afterward — exactly as in 2 Samuel 6:23, Deuteronomy 34:6, and Psalm 110:1. Matthew 1:25 safeguards the divine and virginal conception; it does not assert later relations. You’re reading modern English into a Semitic idiom.

You also said the NT writers “would have used the Greek word for cousin,” but that collapses immediately: Luke doesn’t use anepsios for Mary’s relative Elizabeth; he uses syngenis, a broad kinship term just like adelphos. And Matthew himself uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings (the apostles, the disciples). So your linguistic rule doesn’t survive Matthew’s own usage.

Then you said the Bible “suggests” Mary had children with Joseph, but the texts you’re referring to identify the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus. John calls her Mary’s adelphe — a kinship term that includes sisters‑in‑law — and two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is married to Clopas/Cleophas, Joseph’s brother, which makes her sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. That’s why the earliest Christian writers unanimously identify Jesus’s “brothers” as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary.

None of this is “excuses.” It’s the actual textual and historical evidence. You’re rejecting it not because it’s wrong, but because it doesn’t fit the conclusion you’ve already decided on.

 

[Armour of God]

You’re not addressing anything I actually argued. Saying “your excuses haven’t swayed me” and repeating your conclusions isn’t a rebuttal — it’s just a way of avoiding the evidence.

You claimed Matthew used “until” because he knew Joseph and Mary later had children. But that’s not what heos hou means in Scripture. It marks a boundary without implying anything afterward — exactly as in 2 Samuel 6:23, Deuteronomy 34:6, and Psalm 110:1. Matthew 1:25 safeguards the divine and virginal conception; it does not assert later relations. You’re reading modern English into a Semitic idiom.

You also said the NT writers “would have used the Greek word for cousin,” but that collapses immediately: Luke doesn’t use anepsios for Mary’s relative Elizabeth; he uses syngenis, a broad kinship term just like adelphos. And Matthew himself uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings (the apostles, the disciples). So your linguistic rule doesn’t survive Matthew’s own usage.

Then you said the Bible “suggests” Mary had children with Joseph, but the texts you’re referring to identify the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus. John calls her Mary’s adelphe — a kinship term that includes sisters‑in‑law — and two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is married to Clopas/Cleophas, Joseph’s brother, which makes her sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. That’s why the earliest Christian writers unanimously identify Jesus’s “brothers” as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary.

None of this is “excuses.” It’s the actual textual and historical evidence. You’re rejecting it not because it’s wrong, but because it doesn’t fit the conclusion you’ve already decided on.

I've refuted most of your excuses on here and other threads. They are weak assumptions. Very speculative.

The Bible never says that Mary remained a virgin... NEVER

 

[Moonwood]

I've refuted most of your excuses on here and other threads. They are weak assumptions. Very speculative.

The Bible never says that Mary remained a virgin... NEVER

You haven’t addressed anything I actually argued. Saying “I’ve addressed your excuses” and repeating your conclusion isn’t a rebuttal — it’s just avoiding the evidence.

You keep asserting that “the Bible never says Mary remained a virgin,” but that doesn’t answer the point I made: Matthew 1:25 doesn’t say she didn’t. Heos hou never implies a later reversal, and the biblical examples prove that. You’re importing a modern English expectation into a Semitic idiom.

And you still haven’t touched the genealogy. The NT explicitly identifies the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus. John calls her Mary’s adelphe, which includes sisters‑in‑law, and two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is Joseph’s brother’s wife, which makes her sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. That’s why the earliest Christian writers unanimously say Jesus’s “brothers” were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas.

None of that is an “excuse.” It’s the textual and historical evidence. You’re rejecting it because it contradicts the conclusion you’ve already decided on, not because you’ve shown it to be wrong.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address the actual arguments — the meaning of heos hou, the usage of adelphos, and the genealogy — not just repeat your conclusion.

 

[Armour of God]

You haven’t addressed anything I actually argued. Saying “I’ve addressed your excuses” and repeating your conclusion isn’t a rebuttal — it’s just avoiding the evidence.

You keep asserting that “the Bible never says Mary remained a virgin,” but that doesn’t answer the point I made: Matthew 1:25 doesn’t say she didn’t. Heos hou never implies a later reversal, and the biblical examples prove that. You’re importing a modern English expectation into a Semitic idiom.

And you still haven’t touched the genealogy. The NT explicitly identifies the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus. John calls her Mary’s adelphe, which includes sisters‑in‑law, and two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is Joseph’s brother’s wife, which makes her sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. That’s why the earliest Christian writers unanimously say Jesus’s “brothers” were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas.

None of that is an “excuse.” It’s the textual and historical evidence. You’re rejecting it because it contradicts the conclusion you’ve already decided on, not because you’ve shown it to be wrong.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address the actual arguments — the meaning of heos hou, the usage of adelphos, and the genealogy — not just repeat your conclusion.

I don't need to do anything again.
You can have your belief but it's not biblical at all.
Scripture never says that Mary remained a virgin.

 

[Moonwood]

I don't need to do anything again.
You can have your belief but it's not biblical at all.
Scripture never says that Mary remained a virgin.

You’re not engaging the argument. Repeating your conclusion doesn’t address the textual, linguistic, genealogical, or historical evidence I presented. If you want to continue, you’ll need to respond to those points directly — not just restate your belief.

 

[Armour of God]

you’ll need to

I don't need to do anything for you.
Your belief isn't based on scripture.
No where have you shown that Scripture tells us that Mary remained a virgin.

You've only taken the versus that support Jesus having siblings and tried to put doubt into them, unsuccessfully.

If they meant cousin then they would of used the appropriate wording.

If Mary and Joseph didn't have sex then Matthew wouldn't have said so.

Your arguments against these things are only speculative. They don't confirm Mary's virginity at all. None of the bible does

 

[Moonwood]

I don't need to do anything for you.
Your belief isn't based on scripture.
No where have you shown that Scripture tells us that Mary remained a virgin.

You've only taken the versus that support Jesus having siblings and tried to put doubt into them, unsuccessfully.

If they meant cousin then they would of used the appropriate wording.

If Mary and Joseph didn't have sex then Matthew wouldn't have said so.

Your arguments against these things are only speculative. They don't confirm Mary's virginity at all. None of the bible does

You’re still not engaging the argument. Saying “I don’t need to do anything” and repeating your conclusion doesn’t address the textual, linguistic, genealogical, or historical evidence I presented.

You keep insisting that “Scripture never says Mary remained a virgin,” but that doesn’t answer the point: Matthew 1:25 doesn’t say She didn’t. Heos hou never implies a later reversal, and the biblical examples demonstrate that. You’re importing a modern English expectation into a Semitic idiom.

You also repeat that “they would have used the appropriate word for cousin,” but Luke didn’t use anepsios for Mary’s relative Elizabeth (universally understood to have been her Her cousin) — he used syngenis, a broad kinship term exactly like adelphos. And Matthew uses adelphos for people who are not biological siblings. Your linguistic rule collapses under the NT’s own usage.

And you still haven’t addressed the genealogy. The NT identifies the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus. John calls her Mary’s adelphe, which includes sisters‑in‑law, and two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is Joseph’s brother’s wife, which makes her sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. That’s why the earliest Christian writers unanimously say Jesus’s “brothers” were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas.

None of this is “speculation.” It’s the textual and historical evidence. You’re rejecting it because it contradicts the conclusion you’ve already decided on, not because you’ve shown it to be wrong.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address those points directly — not just restate your belief.

 

[Armour of God]

You’re still not engaging the argument. Saying “I don’t need to do anything” and repeating your conclusion doesn’t address the textual, linguistic, genealogical, or historical evidence I presented.

You keep insisting that “Scripture never says Mary remained a virgin,” but that doesn’t answer the point: Matthew 1:25 doesn’t say She didn’t. Heos hou never implies a later reversal, and the biblical examples demonstrate that. You’re importing a modern English expectation into a Semitic idiom.

You also repeat that “they would have used the appropriate word for cousin,” but Luke didn’t use anepsios for Mary’s relative Elizabeth (universally understood to have been her Her cousin) — he used syngenis, a broad kinship term exactly like adelphos. And Matthew uses adelphos for people who are not biological siblings. Your linguistic rule collapses under the NT’s own usage.

And you still haven’t addressed the genealogy. The NT identifies the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus. John calls her Mary’s adelphe, which includes sisters‑in‑law, and two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is Joseph’s brother’s wife, which makes her sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. That’s why the earliest Christian writers unanimously say Jesus’s “brothers” were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas.

None of this is “speculation.” It’s the textual and historical evidence. You’re rejecting it because it contradicts the conclusion you’ve already decided on, not because you’ve shown it to be wrong.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address those points directly — not just restate your belief.

In order for you to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin you need to show where it says that in scripture.

But you have failed to do that explicitly or implicitly.

That's why you haven't convinced me at all. Your arguments only consist of throwing doubt into the passages that tells us they had sex. And their very weak arguments.

For example brother and sister could mean cousin. So what. It still most likely means brother and sister. Their are other words they would have used for cousin.

You dismiss Matthew 1:25 because some OT scripture uses until differently. So what. Most of the bible still uses until the same way so you can't just dismiss it based on that.

And this claim that another Mary is the mother is just nonsense. Thats not what is said in those verses. Mary, Joseph and the siblings are mentioned together.

You show me where it says Mary is a perpetual virgin then you have an argument. Till then you have nothing but lame excuses.

At least explain to me how Mary and Joseph could have possibly left Jesus in Jerusalem age 12 if he was the only son?

 

[markalan]

You’re saying you only referenced Koperski to show that extra‑biblical sources “cannot be relied on,” but that doesn’t resolve the contradiction I pointed out. You didn’t cite Koperski as a warning — you cited him as evidence, specifically his claim that Hegesippus called Jude a “blood sibling":



After I refuted that interpretation with Hegesippus’s own genealogy, you didn’t say “extra‑biblical sources aren’t reliable.” Instead, you doubled down and appealed to Koperski again:



And again:



These are not statements of caution.
These are appeals to authority — you were relying on Koperski as a credible source.

In the same post, you made two contradicting statements:



Only after I replied pointing out why you cannot accept Hegesippus’s genealogy and interpret Jude as Mary’s child did you retreat to:



But you didn’t show Hegesippus to be unreliable in this case — because he supports exactly what Scripture says. The genealogy he gives (Clopas = Joseph’s brother; Symeon (Simon), James, Jude (Judas), and Joseph = Clopas’s sons) aligns perfectly with the Gospel identifications of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas and her children. It contradicts your claim, not mine.

So the problem isn’t that extra‑biblical sources “aren’t reliable.” The problem is that you only call them unreliable when they contradict your conclusion — even though you explicitly said you “prefer” Koperski’s scholarship and even appealed to his Greek expertise when you believed it supported your position.



You’ve now changed your rule again — from “named individuals” to “individuals personally named in the immediate context.” But Matthew still uses adelphos for personally named individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings.

For example:

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

These are not vague groups. These are specific individuals present in the scene, personally identified in the immediate context of the word adelphos. And none of them are biological siblings.

So your revised rule collapses just like the earlier one. You’re not defending a linguistic principle; you’re creating ad‑hoc limitations to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage does not support.

And it’s obvious why you’re adding and changing these limitations — because you know adelphoi is used elsewhere in the New Testament for large groups like the 500 believers, and Jesus obviously didn’t have 500 biological siblings. But even with your limitation, the rule still collapses, because Matthew himself uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings (the apostles, the disciples). So the exception doesn’t save your argument; it just shows you’re trying to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage doesn’t support.



You’re shifting the issue to “similar names in the NT,” but that doesn’t address the actual point. Hegesippus doesn’t give us vague names — he gives us a genealogy, and genealogies identify which James, which Symeon (Simon), which Jude/Judas, and thus which Joseph he is talking about.

Hegesippus explicitly says:

• Clopas = Joseph’s brother
• Symeon = Clopas’s son
• James = Clopas’s son
• Judas = Clopas’s son
• Joseph = Clopas's son

That’s not a name‑confusion problem.
That’s a family tree.

And the passage you quoted actually reinforces this, not your conclusion. Hegesippus says:

“the descendants of Jude… said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh,” (Hist. Eccl. III.19)

and then:

“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude… said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” (Hist. Eccl. 20.1

This Jude is not ambiguous.
Hegesippus identifies him by:

• his father (Clopas),
• his brothers (James, Symeon (Simon), Joseph),
• his descendants (his grandchildren under Domitian).

There is no mistaking which Jude he means.
He is Clopas’s son, not Mary’s.

So you can’t affirm:

Clopas/Cleophas = Joseph’s brother
Symeon/Simon = Clopas’s son
James = Clopas’s son
Jude/Judas = Clopas’s son
Joseph = Clopas's son

and also claim:

Jude/Judas of Clopas = Mary’s son

Those two positions cannot both be true. If Hegesippus is right about Clopas’s genealogy, then the Jude/Judas he mentions is Clopas’s son, not Mary’s.

Appealing to “similar names” doesn’t solve the contradiction — it avoids it. The issue isn’t that there are multiple Judes; the issue is that Hegesippus identifies which Jude he means, and the Jude he identifies is not Mary’s child.

And Matthew 27:56 doesn’t help your case, because Matthew never says that “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” is the same woman as Mary the mother of Jesus in Matthew 13:55. In fact, Matthew, Mark, and John all describe the same group of women at the crucifixion, and together they identify her as Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, the mother of Joseph and James — two of the individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi:

• “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matthew 27:56)
• "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James (the younger) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)
• “His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)

Because all three accounts refer to the same scene and the same women, the identifications reinforce each other: Mary the mother of James and Joseph is Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

John calls her Mary’s adelphe (“sister”), which in context means sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, Joseph’s brother. That makes her sons — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children, a relationship fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

So the genealogy you just affirmed (Clopas’s sons) directly contradicts your assumption.

You agreed with the genealogy.
The conclusion follows from the genealogy.
If Clopas is Joseph’s brother, then Clopas’s sons are Jesus’s cousins by marriage — not Mary’s children.

I am not going to address your long post because it is full of strawman arguments ... whether deliberate or based on lack of comprehension I do not know.

The fact is you cannot find one example in Matthew's Gospel where adelphos is used to identify the relationship between named individuals where they are not biological brothers.

The examples of Jesus calling His followers 'brothers' smacks of desperation in trying to justify the perpetual virginity of Mary, Queen of Heaven.

 

[Moonwood]

In order for you to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin you need to show where it says that in scripture.

But you have failed to do that explicitly or implicitly.

That's why you haven't convinced me at all. Your arguments only consist of throwing doubt into the passages that tells us they had sex. And their very weak arguments.

For example brother and sister could mean cousin. So what. It still most likely means brother and sister. Their are other words they would have used for cousin.

You dismiss Matthew 1:25 because some OT scripture uses until differently. So what. Most of the bible still uses until the same way so you can't just dismiss it based on that.

And this claim that another Mary is the mother is just nonsense. Thats not what is said in those verses. Mary, Joseph and the siblings are mentioned together.

You show me where it says Mary is a perpetual virgin then you have an argument. Till then you have nothing but lame excuses.

You’re still not engaging the argument. Repeating “show me the verse” doesn’t address the textual, linguistic, genealogical, or historical evidence I’ve already given. Scripture doesn’t have to use your exact modern phrasing (“Mary remained a perpetual virgin”) for a doctrine to be biblical. You accept the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the canon the same way — by how Scripture speaks, not by one isolated sentence.

Here are the points you still haven’t answered:

• Matthew 1:25: it does not say Mary later had relations. Heos hou never implies a reversal, and the OT/NT examples prove that. You’re importing modern English into a Semitic idiom.
• Kinship terms: adelphos and syngenis are broad kinship words. Luke uses syngenis — not anepsios — for Mary’s relative Elizabeth (universally believed to be her cousin), and Matthew uses adelphos for non‑siblings. Your “they would have used the word for cousin” rule collapses under the NT’s own usage.
• Genealogy: the Gospels identify the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, Joseph’s brother’s wife, not Mary the mother of Jesus. The earliest Christian writers unanimously say the same.
• Isaiah 7:14: Isaiah calls her “the virgin” — a title, not a momentary description. Matthew says this prophecy is fulfilled in Mary. The sign loses its force if She immediately becomes an ordinary wife with normal relations.
• Luke 1:34: Mary herself does not expect sexual relations: “How shall this be, since I do not know a man?” A newly betrothed Jewish woman would assume children through her husband. Her question only makes sense if She is not expecting relations.

None of this is “throwing doubt.” It’s the actual textual and historical evidence. You haven’t refuted any of that—you’ve just called it “lame excuses” and gone back to your conclusion. If you’re unwilling to engage the actual evidence, there’s not much point in continuing.

At least explain to me how Mary and Joseph could have possibly left Jesus in Jerusalem age 12 if he was the only son?

People didn’t travel as isolated nuclear families. They traveled in large caravans for Passover, with men and women in separate groups. That means:

• Joseph would assume Jesus was with him and the other men.
• Mary would assume Jesus was with Joseph and the other men.
• Jesus, at 12, was old enough to move among relatives and neighbors freely.
• Both groups were surrounded by dozens of extended‑family members and fellow villagers.

In that setting, it’s not hard at all for each parent to think Jesus was with a particular group. It doesn’t require “a bunch of kids.” It only requires a crowded caravan and normal human assumptions.

Luke even says explicitly:

“Supposing him to be in the group, they went a day’s journey.” (Luke 2:44)

They didn’t lose Him because they had many children. They lost Him because they supposed He was with the group — exactly what happens in caravan travel.

 

[Moonwood]

I am not going to address your long post because it is full of strawman arguments ... whether deliberate or based on lack of comprehension I do not know.

The fact is you cannot find one example in Matthew's Gospel where adelphos is used to identify the relationship between named individuals where they are not biological brothers.

The examples of Jesus calling His followers 'brothers' smacks of desperation in trying to justify the perpetual virginity of Mary, Queen of Heaven.

Calling my entire post a “strawman” without addressing a single point isn’t an argument — it’s just avoiding the evidence.

Your new rule — “adelphos must refer to biological brothers when the individuals are named in Matthew” — is something you invented after your earlier rule collapsed. And it still doesn’t work.

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 standing right in front of Him (named individuals in the scene) and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly (named individuals present in the context) 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, named individuals in the immediate context of the word adelphos. And none of them are biological siblings.

So your revised rule collapses just like the earlier one. You’re not defending a linguistic principle — you’re creating ad‑hoc exceptions to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage does not support.

And calling Mary “Queen of Heaven” as a way to dismiss the argument doesn’t answer anything. It just shows you’re reacting to a label, not the evidence.

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

 

[markalan]

Calling my entire post a “strawman” without addressing a single point isn’t an argument — it’s just avoiding the evidence.

Your new rule — “adelphos must refer to biological brothers when the individuals are named in Matthew” — is something you invented after your earlier rule collapsed. And it still doesn’t work.

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 standing right in front of Him (named individuals in the scene) and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly (named individuals present in the context) 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, named individuals in the immediate context of the word adelphos. And none of them are biological siblings.

So your revised rule collapses just like the earlier one. You’re not defending a linguistic principle — you’re creating ad‑hoc exceptions to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage does not support.

And calling Mary “Queen of Heaven” as a way to dismiss the argument doesn’t answer anything. It just shows you’re reacting to a label, not the evidence.

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

And you have still not identified even one example where adelphos identifies a familial relationship other than biological brother.

... but don't let that stop you from trying ... we all know the Marian dogmas collapse without it.

PS .. Sorry, I did not realize I needed your permission "to continue"

 

[Moonwood]

And you have still not identified even one example where adelphos identifies a familial relationship other than biological brother.

... but don't let that stop you from trying ... we all know the Marian dogmas collapse without it.

PS .. Sorry, I did not realize I needed your permission "to continue"

Your rule keeps changing. First it was “named individuals,” then “named individuals in the immediate context,” and now it’s “adelphos must identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.” You’re not defending a linguistic principle — you’re inventing narrower and narrower conditions to protect a conclusion Matthew’s own usage doesn’t support.

And your latest rule still collapses.

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 standing right in front of Him, men personally present in the scene, and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly, individuals present in the immediate context, 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 Scripture itself contradicts your claim that adelphos must mean biological brother. The LXX — the Bible used by the NT authors — 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.”

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

And the PS only reinforces the pattern: you’re reacting to a doctrine you dislike, not engaging the evidence.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address the actual points — not just repeat a rule that Scripture itself contradicts.

 

[markalan]

Your rule keeps changing. First it was “named individuals,” then “named individuals in the immediate context,” and now it’s “adelphos must identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.” You’re not defending a linguistic principle — you’re inventing narrower and narrower conditions to protect a conclusion Matthew’s own usage doesn’t support.

And your latest rule still collapses.

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 standing right in front of Him, men personally present in the scene, and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly, individuals present in the immediate context, 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 Scripture itself contradicts your claim that adelphos must mean biological brother. The LXX — the Bible used by the NT authors — 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.”

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

And the PS only reinforces the pattern: you’re reacting to a doctrine you dislike, not engaging the evidence.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address the actual points — not just repeat a rule that Scripture itself contradicts.

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.