Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Moonwood]

It is entirely without foundation to identify James & Joseph in Mat 27:56 with James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas in Mat 13:55.

The three women in Mat 27:56 had children with the same names:

Mary wife of Clopas
James and Joseph
Mary wife of Zebedee
James and John
Mary, wife of Joseph
Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas

These three Marys, along with Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany, ought to make you see some names were very common.

Common names don’t override explicit genealogy.
Matthew 27:56 doesn’t just list “a James” and “a Joseph.”
It identifies their mother.

Matthew says:

• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph (27:56)

Matthew never says:

• Mary the mother of Jesus is the mother of James and Joseph

So Matthew gives you one genealogical identification, and it is not the one the Nazareth crowd assumed.

Your list of “three Marys with sons named James and Joseph” doesn’t solve the problem — it creates it:

• If names were that common, then the crowd’s assumption in 13:55 is even less reliable.
• And Matthew’s explicit correction in 27:56 becomes even more important.

You cannot treat the crowd’s mistaken genealogy as authoritative while dismissing Matthew’s actual genealogy as irrelevant.

Matthew corrects the crowd about Joseph in chapter 1. Matthew corrects the crowd about James and Joseph in chapter 27.

Both corrections come from outside the Nazareth scene.

If you’re going to discount Matthew’s correction in 27:56 because “names were common,” then you must also discount Matthew’s correction in 1:18–20 — because that also comes from outside the Nazareth scene.

You can’t keep one correction and reject the other.

Matthew’s genealogy stands.
The crowd’s assumption does not.

 

[markalan]

Common names don’t override explicit genealogy.
Matthew 27:56 doesn’t just list “a James” and “a Joseph.”
It identifies their mother.

Matthew says:

• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph (27:56)

Matthew never says:

• Mary the mother of Jesus is the mother of James and Joseph

So Matthew gives you one genealogical identification, and it is not the one the Nazareth crowd assumed.

Your list of “three Marys with sons named James and Joseph” doesn’t solve the problem — it creates it:

• If names were that common, then the crowd’s assumption in 13:55 is even less reliable.
• And Matthew’s explicit correction in 27:56 becomes even more important.

You cannot treat the crowd’s mistaken genealogy as authoritative while dismissing Matthew’s actual genealogy as irrelevant.

Matthew corrects the crowd about Joseph in chapter 1. Matthew corrects the crowd about James and Joseph in chapter 27.

Both corrections come from outside the Nazareth scene.

If you’re going to discount Matthew’s correction in 27:56 because “names were common,” then you must also discount Matthew’s correction in 1:18–20 — because that also comes from outside the Nazareth scene.

You can’t keep one correction and reject the other.

Matthew’s genealogy stands.
The crowd’s assumption does not.

There is no correction needed ... that is another strawman.
Matthew identifies Jesus in the very first chapter of his Gospel.

 

[Moonwood]

There is no correction needed ... that is another strawman.
Matthew identifies Jesus in the very first chapter of his Gospel.

Saying “there is no correction needed” doesn’t make Matthew’s correction disappear.
Matthew does correct the crowd’s genealogy — twice — and both corrections come from outside the Nazareth scene.

Matthew 1:18–20 corrects the crowd’s assumption about Joseph.
Matthew 27:56 corrects the crowd’s assumption about James and Joseph.

You accept the first correction because it helps your argument.
You reject the second correction because it hurts your argument.

But both corrections are Matthew’s own clarifications, and both occur outside the Nazareth scene.

If you’re going to discount Matthew’s correction in 27:56 because it’s “elsewhere,”
then you must also discount Matthew’s correction in 1:18–20 — because that is also elsewhere.

You can’t keep one correction and reject the other.

Matthew’s genealogy stands.
The crowd’s assumption does not.

 

[markalan]

Matthew 1:18–20 corrects the crowd’s assumption about Joseph.

It doesn't correct it at all ... it establishes it from the very beginning.

Matthew 27:56 corrects the crowd’s assumption about James and Joseph.

You really need to do some research on the very limited pool of first names used in the time of Jesus
so you do not continue to make the same erroneous leap from James & Joseph in Mat 27:56 to James & Joseph in Mat 13:55.

 

[Moonwood]

It doesn't correct it at all ... it establishes it from the very beginning.

If Matthew 27:56 “doesn’t correct anything,” then by your logic Matthew 1:18–20 doesn’t correct anything either — which would mean Joseph is Jesus’s biological father.
But Matthew explicitly says he isn’t.

So you do accept Matthew’s correction in chapter 1.

You just refuse to accept Matthew’s correction in chapter 27.

You’re keeping the correction that helps your argument and rejecting the correction that destroys it — even though both corrections come from outside the Nazareth scene.

You can’t have it both ways.

You really need to do some research on the very limited pool of first names used in the time of Jesus
so you do not continue to make the same erroneous leap from James & Joseph in Mat 27:56 to James & Joseph in Mat 13:55.

Again, yes, names were common. That’s exactly why explicit genealogy matters. Common names don’t justify ignoring Matthew’s own identifications.

Matthew 27:56 doesn’t just say “a James” and “a Joseph.” It tells you who their mother is.

• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56)
• Matthew never says Mary the mother of Jesus is the mother of James and Joseph

So Matthew gives you one clear genealogy for James and Joseph—and it is not the one the Nazareth crowd assumed.

If names were as limited and common as you say, then:

• the crowd’s assumption in Matthew 13:55 is even less reliable
• and Matthew’s explicit clarification in 27:56 is even more important

You’re asking me to ignore Matthew’s actual genealogy because “names were common,” while treating the crowd’s uncorrected assumption as if it were genealogy.

That’s backwards.

Matthew’s genealogy stands.
The crowd’s assumption does not.

 

[markalan]

If Matthew 27:56 “doesn’t correct anything,” then by your logic Matthew 1:18–20 doesn’t correct anything either — which would mean Joseph is Jesus’s biological father.

That's just silly.
I've said a number of times, Matthew does not "correct" what some unbelievers said ... anywhere!
Mathew 1 establishes the fact of Jesus' divine birth.

• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56)
• Matthew never says Mary the mother of Jesus is the mother of James and Joseph

So now you arguing from silence ... an argument that does not stand up against what the text actually states ... presented by posters in all these Marian threads.

 

[Moonwood]

That's just silly.
I've said a number of times, Matthew does not "correct" what some unbelievers said ... anywhere!
Mathew 1 establishes the fact of Jesus' divine birth.

Then you’re calling your own logic silly, because if Matthew “does not correct what unbelievers said anywhere,” then the crowd’s statement in Matthew 13:55–56 that Jesus is “the carpenter’s son” must be treated as true — which means Joseph is Jesus’s biological father. But Matthew 1:18–20 explicitly says he isn’t.

So Matthew does correct the crowd’s assumption about Joseph.

You accept that correction because you have to.

You just refuse Matthew’s correction in 27:56 about James and Joseph — even though both corrections come from outside the Nazareth scene and both contradict the crowd’s genealogy.

You can’t keep one correction and reject the other.

Matthew’s genealogy stands.
The crowd’s assumption does not.

That's just silly.
I've said a number of times, Matthew does not "correct" what some unbelievers said ... anywhere!
Mathew 1 establishes the fact of Jesus' divine birth.



So now you arguing from silence ... an argument that does not stand up against what the text actually states ... presented by posters in all these Marian threads.

It’s not an argument from silence.
Matthew 27:56 is not “silence” — it is an explicit genealogical identification.
It names the mother of James and Joseph.

That is the opposite of silence.

What you are doing is treating the crowd’s assumption in Matthew 13:55–56 as if it were genealogy, even though Matthew never identifies Mary the mother of Jesus as the mother of James and Joseph.

That is an argument from silence.

Matthew gives one explicit genealogy for James and Joseph:

• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56)

Matthew never gives a second genealogy identifying:

• Mary the mother of Jesus as the mother of James and Joseph

So Matthew provides one identification, and it contradicts the crowd’s assumption.

That is not silence.
That is Matthew’s own data.

You’re asking me to ignore Matthew’s explicit genealogy because “names were common,” while treating the crowd’s uncorrected assumption as if it were genealogy.

That’s backwards.

Matthew’s genealogy stands.
The crowd’s assumption does not.

 

[Armour of God]

@Moonwood

Why do you have this unhealthy obsession with Mary's sex life?

 

[Moonwood]

@Moonwood

Why do you have this unhealthy obsession with Mary's sex life?

You know that I believe Mary was a lifelong virgin. Virgins don't have sex lives, so there's no sex life for me to "obsess over"...

 

[Armour of God]

You know that I believe Mary was a lifelong virgin. Virgins don't have sex lives, so there's no sex life for me to "obsess over"...

You sure are an evasive person.
Your still avoiding my question.

Why are you so obsessed with Mary's virginity?

 

[Moonwood]

You sure are an evasive person.
Your still avoiding my question.

You asked:

@Moonwood

Why do you have this unhealthy obsession with Mary's sex life?

And I answered directly:

You know that I believe Mary was a lifelong virgin. Virgins don't have sex lives, so there's no sex life for me to "obsess over"...

 

[Armour of God]

You asked:



And I answered directly:

Iv asked you several times now, you told me to ask you in another thread, i did, ive rephrased the question to ask why your obsessed with Mary's virginity, and your still avoiding the question.

This is a major sign of dishonesty.

Your obsession with Mary's virginity is a very unhealthy one to say the least

 

[Moonwood]

I've asked you several times now, you told me to ask you in another thread, I did...

Correct: you asked:

@Moonwood

Why do you have this unhealthy obsession with Mary's sex life?

And I answered directly:

You know that I believe Mary was a lifelong virgin. Virgins don't have sex lives, so there's no sex life for me to "obsess over"...

In reply to that answer, you asserted that I "avoided" that question, but I clearly didn't.

Now you're asking me this question:

Why are you so obsessed with Mary's virginity?

Your question assumes I’m obsessed with Mary’s virginity. I’m not going to justify a premise that isn’t true. If you think otherwise, you’ll need to explain why.

 

[Armour of God]

Four threads on the same topic in only 6 weeks of being on this forum

That is the definition of
OBSESSED

 

[Moonwood]

Four threads on the same topic in only 6 weeks of being on this forum

That is the definition of
OBSESSED

You didn't identify which four threads.

 

[Armour of God]

I don't need to identify anything.
You've created several threads on this topic.
YOUR
OBSESSED

 

[Moonwood]

I don't need to identify anything.

Then why stop at the number four? Why not say a hundred or a thousand threads if you don't think you need to substantiate your claims?

 

[Armour of God]

Then why stop at the number four? Why not say a hundred or a thousand threads if you don't think you need to substantiate your claims?

The point is you've started multiple threads on this topic in a short amount of time you've been on this forum.
Your obsessed with Mary's virginity.

 

[Armour of God]

But let's pretend that Mary did remain a virgin her whole life, that she never made love to her husband...

Does that make her holy? No
Does that make her righteous? No
Does that make her a good person? No

Actually that would make Mary a bad person, a sinner in fact.

No man marries a woman to remain celibate. That would be absurd. A man works for his wife, provides everything for his wife, protects his wife, especially back then when women didn’t work and fully depended on their husbands to provide. In return the husband expects to make love to his wife and have children with her. A man wouldn't marry, work, provide and protect a woman otherwise.

The Bible commands women to submit to their husbands. Refusing to do so would be a sin. So Mary would be a bad wife and a sinful wife to refuse to submit to her husband.

Mary would also had to be a bad parent if she only had the one child yet forgot to bring him home, leaving him alone back in Jerusalem when he was 12 years old. Only a bad parent could do that.

So the assumption that Mary was a perpetual virgin only makes her a bad person.
It makes her a sinner.
It makes her a bad wife.
It makes her a bad mother.

 

[Moonwood]

The point is you've started multiple threads on this topic in a short amount of time you've been on this forum.

I've created three threads, not four, in the past 9 weeks, not six. One of them is about Mary, the other about Jesus's brothers, and the other about Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany.

Are you obsessed with the word "obsessed":

obsessed

obsessed

obsession

OBSESSED

OBSESSED

... obsessed