[ealgeone]

The bible does not note in the passage you refer to. But it does note their children in other passages. And please, don’t appeal to the Catholic talking points that brother can mean more than a family brother. The context of the text tells us Joseph and Mary had other children. The Greek also tells us this as well.

[ebb tide]

[metmom]

Mary of the Bible certainly did have other children...

Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.

Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?”... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”

Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

1 Corinthians 9:4-5 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Strong's Concordance

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

adelphos: a brother

Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: adelphos

Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')

Short Definition: a brother

Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.

http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm

The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.

It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.

It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.

They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.

The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.

And it would not be *cousin*.

The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.

http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm

Strong's Concordance

suggenes: akin, a relative

Original Word: συγγενής, ές

Part of Speech: Adjective

Transliteration: suggenes

Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')

Short Definition: akin, a relative

Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.

And again, the only requirement was that Mary be virgin when she bore Jesus. When that happened, prophecy was fulfilled and the matter was then irrelevant.

Joseph was then free to take Mary AS HIS WIFE as the angel told him to.

And he knew her not until AFTER she gave birth.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Every language has specific words for family members with no confusion. Every language.

[Campion]

But it does note their children in other passages.

Nothing in the Bible identifies anyone, except Jesus, as a son or daughter of Joseph -- to say nothing of identifying them as a son or daughter of Mary. You're injecting a manmade tradition -- one that all of the "Reformers" rejected, BTW.

It's a sin in Judaism to exempt someone else from obeying mitzvot. One of the chief mitzvot is "Honor thy father and thy mother". For Jesus, on the cross, to give Mary to John (not a blood relative), means either that his alleged younger siblings were all dead, or that practically Jesus' last act in his life was to commit a sin.

BTW we know that at least some of the "brothers of Jesus" did not die before Jesus, because they're mentioned in Acts and elsewhere. We also know the parentage of some of the so-called "brothers of Jesus". It's in the Bible! James and Joses were the "sons of Alphaeus". Jude Thaddeus ("Judas, not the Iscariot") was the son of James, the grandson of Alphaeus. Look it up!

[Campion]

“there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”.” (Ulrich Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639

I'll stand with those guys on this point.