Were the brothers in Matthew 13:55 Mary's sons?

[BeyondET]

Telling me Paul wasn't one of the twelve isn't explaining why apostle James's mere title of "the Lord's brother" rules out he was one of the twelve apostles. Also, again, where in Scripture do you read that Jesus elected His own "sibling" as an apostle?

Because Paul included the title so you would understand the difference of the two apostles present, one apostle was not Jesus brother and the other apostle was Jesus brother.

Since the account happens years after Jesus and everyone in his time are apostles, that's why Paul makes the distinction. He is not conveying James is one of the twelve from the beginning.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Pharisees were of the same opinion.

God said to Moses: "I AM WHO AM." (Ex. 3:14)]
Pharisees: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" (Jn. 8:57)
Jesus said to the Pharisees: "...before Abraham was made, I AM." (Jn. 8:58)

Have you ever read Exodus 3:13-15 in the Jewish Tanakh? It doesn't say what you think it does. Let me show you....
What name was Moses to tell Israel ?

"13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"		יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:
14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"		ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:
15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation." Complete Tanakh "The LORD God there is Yahweh. (יְהֹוָ֞ה) "I Am" makes no sense here because Moses was not telling them about the existence of a God that they didn't know. They knew their origins and they knew that their God's name was Yahweh. But you see that "I Am" is not how the meaning of God's name is rendered in the Jewish Tanakh. "I will be what I will be" indicated to Israel what Yahweh would be to them in the future. Whatever he needed to "be" to accomplish his purpose in connection with them, that is what he would prove to be. Exodus 3:15 has nothing to do with John 8:58. Its just a clever twist of scripture to promote what Christ never taught.		טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:

Jesus claimed to be eternal and to have existed before Abraham, but more importantly, He called himself by the ancient title ascribed only to God Himself, “I AM”.

No, I'm sorry but that's the story told in Christendom....it isn't true.
The Pharisees were asking him about how he was not yet 50 years old and yet he had seen Abraham, not whether he was claiming to be God.
He answered them by saying that he existed before Abraham, which was correct...he came down from heaven, but nowhere does it say he was God incarnate. It was "the Word" (God's Logos") who became flesh, not God. The Word was "with" GOD.....and the Word was divine.
In Greek, John 1:1 does not say what is translated into English by those wanting to promote their false doctrine.

The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus meant by this. From their perspective, Jesus said specifically, “I am God”. How do we know this was their interpretations of His words? We know it from their reaction. They responded by attempting to stone Jesus for claiming to be God (an act of blasphemy they considered worthy of death): "They took up stones therefore to cast at him." (Jn. 8:59)

"Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God." (Jn. 20:28)

Is that enough for you to recognize God in the flesh?

And if you look up the word "theos" in Greek you will see that Thomas was not calling Jesus "God" (capital "G") because that word relates to any divinely authorized person.....to God's son, to angels, and to human judges.
As an apostle, would Thomas have disagreed with what they, as the body of Christ were taught by Jesus himself?

Paul, in speaking in behalf of all the apostles said....
"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."

There you have a direct statement....there is "one God, the Father" AND "one Lord Jesus Christ". The two are not one God, let alone three.

You really have swallowed the devil's counterfeit religion whole-heartedly, haven't you? Its a shame really...I see such conviction in what you say, and I know its sincere, but I also know you have never really studied what you have been led to believe......if you had, then you may well have come to a very different conclusion about a lot of things.
Perhaps some original language word studies would be in order....?

 

[Sigma]

Because Paul included the title so you would understand the difference of the two apostles present, one apostle was not Jesus brother and the other apostle was Jesus brother.

Since the account happens years after Jesus and everyone in his time are apostles, that's why Paul makes the distinction.

Why cant an apostle of the twelve also be called by a given title?

 

[BeyondET]

Why cant an apostle of the twelve also be called by a given title?

Why can't Paul show the difference between the two people he saw. And the statement have nothing to do with rather both were of the twelve chosen. Certainly Paul was an apostle and afew other titles. But especially after the title of apostles expanded during Paul's time. And Jesus brother became an apostle.

Why didn't he just say he seen Peter and James? Instead of going into detail about James.

 

[BeyondET]

Have you ever read Exodus 3:13-15 in the Jewish Tanakh? It doesn't say what you think it does. Let me show you....
What name was Moses to tell Israel ?

"13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"		יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:
14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"		ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:
15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation." Complete Tanakh "The LORD God there is Yahweh. (יְהֹוָ֞ה) "I Am" makes no sense here because Moses was not telling them about the existence of a God that they didn't know. They knew their origins and they knew that their God's name was Yahweh. But you see that "I Am" is not how the meaning of God's name is rendered in the Jewish Tanakh. "I will be what I will be" indicated to Israel what Yahweh would be to them in the future. Whatever he needed to "be" to accomplish his purpose in connection with them, that is what he would prove to be. Exodus 3:15 has nothing to do with John 8:58. Its just a clever twist of scripture to promote what Christ never taught.		טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:

No, I'm sorry but that's the story told in Christendom....it isn't true.
The Pharisees were asking him about how he was not yet 50 years old and yet he had seen Abraham, not whether he was claiming to be God.
He answered them by saying that he existed before Abraham, which was correct...he came down from heaven, but nowhere does it say he was God incarnate. It was "the Word" (God's Logos") who became flesh, not God. The Word was "with" GOD.....and the Word was divine.
In Greek, John 1:1 does not say what is translated into English by those wanting to promote their false doctrine.


And if you look up the word "theos" in Greek you will see that Thomas was not calling Jesus "God" (capital "G") because that word relates to any divinely authorized person.....to God's son, to angels, and to human judges.
As an apostle, would Thomas have disagreed with what they, as the body of Christ were taught by Jesus himself?

Paul, in speaking in behalf of all the apostles said....
"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."

There you have a direct statement....there is "one God, the Father" AND "one Lord Jesus Christ". The two are not one God, let alone three.

You really have swallowed the devil's counterfeit religion whole-heartedly, haven't you? Its a shame really...I see such conviction in what you say, and I know its sincere, but I also know you have never really studied what you have been led to believe......if you had, then you may well have come to a very different conclusion about a lot of things.
Perhaps some original language word studies would be in order....?

Hmm, a king and his son.

Matthew 22
1 Once again, Jesus spoke to them in parables:

2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

3 He sent his servants to call those he had invited to the banquet, but they refused to come.

 

[Sigma]

Why can't Paul show the difference between the two people he saw.

I didn't say he can't, but why can't an apostle of the twelve also be called by a given title? Or, can they?

 

[Aunty Jane]

As shown above in Greek, we read God was the Word, and the Word (God) came and dwelt among us. Who was John referring to in Jn. 1:14? Jesus, and thus He was not only the Messiah, but God Incarnate as well.

Not what it says in Greek.....one little word changes the whole meaning of that verse and satan knows it.
You will not even see it unless you know what you’re looking at....

"Ἐν (In) ἀρχῇ (beginning) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word), καὶ (and) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (was) πρὸς τὸν (with) θεόν (God), καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word)..." (Jn. 1:1)

τὸν θεόν is “THE God” and this is how Yahweh is identified in Greek. The nameless God of the Jews was identified by the definite article (τὸν) and there is only one Yahweh in that verse. Whoever you are quoting has deliberately obscured this fact.
In Greek it reads “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus)......and the Word was with the God (Yahweh) and the Word was divine.

So then verse 14 says it was the Word who became flesh, not τὸν θεόν (Yahweh).

Run it through Google translate and see that it means “the God”....that is the way the Father is identified in the Greek scriptures. Jesus is identified as θεόν, which can apply to any divine personage or one authorised by God, as Jesus was.

In Jn. 8:58, first Jesus claimed to be eternal and to have existed before Abraham, but more importantly, He called himself by the ancient title ascribed only to God Himself, “I AM” (Ex. 3:14).

Since when does existing before Abraham make Jesus eternal? It simply means that he was in existence before Abraham was born....and we know that Col 1:16 says that Jesus is the “firstborn of ALL creation”. He is a creation of his Father as he himself admits...Rev 3:14....
“These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God”.

The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus meant by this. From their perspective, Jesus said specifically, “I am God”. How do we know this was their interpretations of His words? We know it from their reaction. They responded by attempting to stone Jesus for claiming to be God (an act of blasphemy they considered worthy of death):

Nonsense! The Jews were trying to pin a charge of blasphemy on him because they wanted an excuse to have him executed.
If you read John 10:31-36 in Greek you will see the use of the definite article again....

“Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” (theos) 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? (theos) 35 If he called ‘gods’(theos) those against whom the word of God (ho theos) came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s (ho theos) Son’?

The son is never called “ho theos”.......only the Father is identified that way.

To better help you understand, I'll use a sufficient enough analogy. Consider there exists three separate states of water (God): solid (the Father), liquid (the Son), and gas (the Holy Spirit), each serving a particular role, yet they all are water (God), and thus are called ''water" (God).

Good grief, that has been done to death.....how is God three presentations of “water”? There are two separate entities spoken about in scripture...the Father and the son......these speak to one another and the son prays to his Father, but the Father never prays to the son. The two can be in completely different places at the same time. Each can have a different will. The Father can know things the son does not. Please tell me how Jesus can be the same personage as his God and Father. How can Jesus have a God if he is God? (Rev 3:12)

The holy spirit is not a person but it is the power of God that enables God’s will to be carried out. It enables ordinary humans to do extraordinary things. Even Jesus before his baptism, could not perform miracles.
At his baptism he received Holy Spirit and his first miracle was turning water into fine wine. How does God give a part of himself to himself? It’s a bit ridiculous.

 

[BeyondET]

I didn't say he can't, but why can't an apostle of the twelve also be called by a given title? Or, can they?

Yes they can, Jesus called the brothers James and John two of the twelve, "Sons of Thunder".

the James in Gal 19 is the Lord's brother.

mark 3:17
and to James the son of Zebedee, and to his brother John, he gave the name “Boanerges” (that is, “Sons of Thunder” );

More than likely because of a later incident below.

Luke 9:54
When the disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them? ”

 

[Sigma]

Yes they can, Jesus called the brothers James and John two of the twelve, "Sons of Thunder".

mark 3:17
and to James the son of Zebedee, and to his brother John, he gave the name “Boanerges” (that is, “Sons of Thunder” );

So, you agree that an apostle of the twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of James and John of Zebedee. In the case of apostle James in Gal. 1:19, why does his title "the Lord's brother" mean he couldn't have been one of the twelve as well?

 

[BeyondET]

So, you agree that an apostle of the twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of James and John of Zebedee. In the case of apostle James in Gal. 1:19, why does his title "the Lord's brother" mean he couldn't have been one of the twelve as well?

There isn't two James of the twelve. And James and John were sons of Zebedee. Paul certainly would of said James (Zebedee son) or James (John's brother). If that James was Zebedee son and John's brother.

Paul had apostles, Peter had apostles, so did James have apostles. And all three were apostles.

Again it isn't describing both are of the twelve. No Paul is describing that James the Lord's brother was there and included as an apostle just like Paul and Barnabas any many other apostles.

Galatians was written around 50 years after the resurrection. If you think there was only twelve apostles around your mistaken.

 

[Sigma]

There isn't two James of the twelve.

Incorrect, two of the Twelve were named "James:" James of Zebedee and James of Alphaeus. Now, you agree that an apostle of the Twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of James and John of Zebedee with their title "the Sons of Thunder." And, in Gal. 1:18, Paul referred to the apostle Simon of the Twelve by calling him "Cephas," so people knew he wasn't referring to apostle Simon the Zealot of the Twelve. Therefore, regarding apostle James in Gal. 1:19, it's possible "the Lord's brother" was a title for either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, to distinguish him from the other James of the Twelve.

 

[BeyondET]

Incorrect, two of the Twelve were named "James:" James of Zebedee and James of Alphaeus. Now, you agree that an apostle of the Twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of James and John of Zebedee with their title "the Sons of Thunder." And, in Gal. 1:18, Paul referred to the apostle Simon of the Twelve by calling him "Cephas," so people knew he wasn't referring to apostle Simon the Zealot of the Twelve. Therefore, regarding apostle James in Gal. 1:19, it's possible "the Lord's brother" was a title for either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, to distinguish him from the other James of the Twelve.

You mean Levi

Mark 2
14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.

And in these verses James isn't of the twelve, but an apostle in verse seven.

1cor 15
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

 

[Sigma]

You mean Levi

Mark 2
14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.

Why would I mean apostle Levi (Matthew) of Alphaeus of the Twelve in reply to your claim there wasn't two apostles of the Twelve named "James?" I wouldn't mean that, which is why I named the two Jameses: "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these...James the son of Zebedee (10:2)...James the son of Alphaeus..." (Matt. 10:3).

Now, you agree that an apostle of the Twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of apostles James and John of Zebedee of the Twelve with their title "the Sons of Thunder." And, in Gal. 1:18, Paul referred to the apostle Simon of the Twelve by calling him "Cephas" (Matt. 10:2), so people knew that he wasn't referring to apostle Simon the Zealot of the Twelve (Matt. 10:4). Therefore, regarding apostle James in Gal. 1:19, it's possible it was either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, and Paul called them by their title "the Lord's brother" to distinguish him from the other. If it's not a possibility to you, then explain why you think it's not.

...James isn't of the twelve, but an apostle in verse seven.

1 cor 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

"...He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." 1. Cor. 1:7
So, because James wasn't called one of the Twelve outright here, he wasn't one of the Twelve.

According to that logic of yours, because Cephas (Peter) wasn't called one of the Twelve outright, he wasn't one of the Twelve.
"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor. 1:5)

 

[BeyondET]

Why would I mean apostle Levi (Matthew) of Alphaeus of the Twelve in reply to your claim there wasn't two apostles of the Twelve named "James?" I wouldn't mean that, which is why I named the two Jameses: "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these...James the son of Zebedee (10:2)...James the son of Alphaeus..." (Matt. 10:3).

Now, you agree that an apostle of the Twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of apostles James and John of Zebedee of the Twelve with their title "the Sons of Thunder." And, in Gal. 1:18, Paul referred to the apostle Simon of the Twelve by calling him "Cephas" (Matt. 10:2), so people knew that he wasn't referring to apostle Simon the Zealot of the Twelve (Matt. 10:4). Therefore, regarding apostle James in Gal. 1:19, it's possible it was either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, and Paul called them by their title "the Lord's brother" to distinguish him from the other. If it's not a possibility to you, then explain why you think it's not.



"...He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." 1. Cor. 1:7
So, because James wasn't called one of the Twelve outright here, he wasn't one of the Twelve.

According to that logic of yours, because Cephas (Peter) wasn't called one of the Twelve outright, he wasn't one of the Twelve.
"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor. 1:5)

Like Simon to Peter to Cephas, Levi to James. And Matthew and his brother which are not the sons of Alphaeus. But Levi whos title was James.

 

[Sigma]

...Levi to James. And Matthew and his brother which are not the sons of Alphaeus. But Levi whos title was James.

I don't know where you're getting that the apostle Levi of Alphaeus had a brother, but I know Levi wasn't also called "James," but rather "Matthew:"

"And when Jesus passed on from hence, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me." (Matt. 9:9)

"And when he was passing by, he saw Levi the son of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of custom; and he saith to him: Follow me." (Mk. 2:14

"And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him: Follow me." (Lk. 5:27)

"...the names of the twelve apostles are these...Matthew the publican." (Matt. 10:3)

There isn't two James of the twelve.

Incorrect, two of the Twelve were named "James:" "...the names of the twelve apostles are these...James the son of Zebedee (10:2)...James the son of Alphaeus..." (Matt. 10:3)

Now, you agree that an apostle of the Twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of apostles James and John of Zebedee of the Twelve with their title "the Sons of Thunder." And, in Gal. 1:18, Paul referred to the apostle Simon of the Twelve by calling him "Cephas" (Matt. 10:2), so people knew that he wasn't referring to apostle Simon the Zealot of the Twelve (Matt. 10:4). Therefore, regarding apostle James in Gal. 1:19, it's possible it was either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, and Paul called them by their title "the Lord's brother" to distinguish him from the other. If it's not a possibility to you, then explain why you think it's not.

...James isn't of the twelve, but an apostle in verse seven.

1 cor 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

"...He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." (1. Cor. 1:7)
So, because James wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.

According to that logic of yours, because Cephas (Peter) wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.
"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor. 1:5)

 

[BeyondET]

The apostle Levi of Alphaeus wasn't also called "James," but rather "Matthew:"

"And when Jesus passed on from hence, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me." (Matt. 9:9)

"And when he was passing by, he saw Levi the son of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of custom; and he saith to him: Follow me." (Mk. 2:14

"And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him: Follow me." (Lk. 5:27)

"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these...Matthew the publican." (Matt. 10:3)



Incorrect, two of the Twelve were named "James:" "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these...James the son of Zebedee (10:2)...James the son of Alphaeus..." (Matt. 10:3)

Now, you agree that an apostle of the Twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of apostles James and John of Zebedee of the Twelve with their title "the Sons of Thunder." And, in Gal. 1:18, Paul referred to the apostle Simon of the Twelve by calling him "Cephas" (Matt. 10:2), so people knew that he wasn't referring to apostle Simon the Zealot of the Twelve (Matt. 10:4). Therefore, regarding apostle James in Gal. 1:19, it's possible it was either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, and Paul called them by their title "the Lord's brother" to distinguish him from the other. If it's not a possibility to you, then explain why you think it's not.



"...He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." (1. Cor. 1:7)
So, because James wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.

According to that logic of yours, because Cephas (Peter) wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.
"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor. 1:5)

Ooo so all of a sudden Levi cant be called James, but it's ok with James given a title the lords brother. Or Cephas called Peter or Simon. You contradict most everything you say.

So is Matthew describing himself?

"And when Jesus passed on from hence, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me." (Matt. 9:9)

Certainly there couldn't have been two tax collectors, right? like there was only one fisherman?

 

[BeyondET]

The difference is apostle James is actually given the title "the Lord's brother," there's no verse where apostle Levi is called "James." If you think apostle Levi was called "James" then show where.



Incorrect, two of the Twelve were named "James:" "...the names of the twelve apostles are these...James the son of Zebedee (10:2)...James the son of Alphaeus..." (Matt. 10:3)

Now, you agree that an apostle of the Twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of apostles James and John of Zebedee of the Twelve with their title "the Sons of Thunder." And, in Gal. 1:18, Paul referred to the apostle Simon of the Twelve by calling him "Cephas" (Matt. 10:2), so people knew that he wasn't referring to apostle Simon the Zealot of the Twelve (Matt. 10:4). Therefore, regarding apostle James in Gal. 1:19, it's possible it was either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, and Paul called them by their title "the Lord's brother" to distinguish him from the other. If it's not a possibility to you, then explain why you think it's not.



"...He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." (1. Cor. 1:7)
So, because James wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.

According to that logic of yours, because Cephas (Peter) wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.
"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor. 1:5)

I agree your grasping at straws, to argue a perpetual vigin concept.

Is there two Alphaeus or one?

 

[quietthinker]

Were the brothers in Matthew 13:55 Mary's sons?​

Thrashing around in irrelevancies ensures a blindness which masquerades as light!

 

[Sigma]

...Levi to James. And Matthew and his brother which are not the sons of Alphaeus. But Levi whos title was James.

So is Matthew describing himself?

"And when Jesus passed on from hence, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me." (Matt. 9:9)

Certainly there couldn't have been two tax collectors, right?

I don't know where you're getting that the apostle Levi of Alphaeus of the Twelve had a brother, but I know Levi wasn't also called "James," but rather also "Matthew:"

"And when Jesus passed on from hence, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me." (Matt. 9:9)

"And when he was passing by, he saw Levi the son of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of custom; and he saith to him: Follow me." (Mk. 2:14

"And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him: Follow me." (Lk. 5:27)

"...the names of the twelve apostles are these...Matthew the publican." (Matt. 10:3)

As shown above, Levi (Matthew) of Alphaeus was a publican (tax collector) who was chosen to be one of the twelve apostles.

Ooo so all of a sudden Levi cant be called James, but it's ok with James given a title the lords brother.

The difference is apostle James is actually given the title "the Lord's brother," there's no verse where apostle Levi is also called "James." If you think apostle Levi was called "James" then show where.

There isn't two James of the twelve.

Incorrect, two of the Twelve were named "James:" "...the names of the twelve apostles are these...James the son of Zebedee (10:2)...James the son of Alphaeus..." (Matt. 10:3)

Now, you agree that an apostle of the Twelve can also be called by a given title, as in the case of apostles James and John of Zebedee of the Twelve with their title "the Sons of Thunder." And, in Gal. 1:18, Paul referred to the apostle Simon of the Twelve by calling him "Cephas" (Matt. 10:2), so people knew that he wasn't referring to apostle Simon the Zealot of the Twelve (Matt. 10:4). Therefore, regarding apostle James in Gal. 1:19, it's possible it was either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, and Paul called them by their title "the Lord's brother" to distinguish him from the other. If it's not a possibility to you, then explain why you think it's not.

Is there two Alphaeus or one?

There's two: one was the father of apostle Levi (Matthew) and the other was the father of apostles James and Judas.

...James isn't of the twelve, but an apostle in verse seven.

1 cor 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

"...He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." (1. Cor. 1:7)
So, because James wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.

According to that logic of yours, because Cephas (Peter) wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.
"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor. 1:5)

 

[BeyondET]

According to that logic of yours, because Cephas (Peter) wasn't called one of the Twelve directly here he wasn't one of the Twelve.
"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor. 1:5)

That's another twist in thinking you know my thoughts.

My thoughts are just the opposite since Cephas was one of the twelve. He talked to him then the group of twelve as a whole. And that should be plain for you to understand in the verse. But you tryed to twist some ignorant logic into it.

James in verse seven, is an apostle. And He talked to James an apostle then all the other apostles. Not of the twelve because He already spoke to them in verse five.