If you think Mary remained a virgin till she died, then bet on it

[Eternally Grateful]

Scripture says NOTHING about stepping aside to study for yourself to come to the truth.

Jesus said it IS his body/blood and to do it in memory of him. THAT is why we have to keep eating this food....because He TOLD us to. The 1st century Christians did it DAILY in remembrance of Him. Paul re-affirmed it IS His body/blood and for 2,000 years Christianity has taught that! You deny it.

No where at not time does Scripture EVER say Mary had other children. That is why it has been a disagreement for 500 years. For 2,000 Christianity has taught she DID NOT have other children. The teaching that she did started 500 years ago.

You LOOSE on EVERY point.....but since YOU think that YOU are the final authority YOU will never accept that.

Its not win or lose

you believe what you are told. No one will convince you otherwise.

they call that being imprisoned. .

 

[Eternally Grateful]

ONE MORE TIME:

The average Jew DID NOT KILL JESUS. A lot of them converted to His teachings. The Romans killed Jesus at the bequest of the Jewish leadership. That is why he was crucified on a cross. The cross was the method the ROMANS used to kill.

According to Scripture The Church CAN'T be wrong since it is the pillar and foundation of truth. You are still looking for that Church....I have found it. I will continue to pray for you that you will someday learn the truth so that the truth will set you free.

There are some men in The Church who are wrong. But when the men of The Church speak in unison on a matter, The Church is not wrong. Just like Scripture says......but you skipped over those parts of Scripture....Didn't you?

Yawn

the people chose Barabbus over Jesus

Go ahead and follow your men

I will follow God

 

[Peterlag]

This OP is NOT about whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. I assume that you think she was. This post is about betting on what you believe.

Let proposition P1 = Mary remained a virgin till she died.
P2 = Mary did not remain a virgin till she died.

Between 0 and 10, how much weight do you put on each of the above propositions? The stronger your belief in a proposition, the higher the weight.

Are you willing to bet based on your weighting scheme?

This is not a lotto/gambling bet. This is a bet to mathematically and scientifically measure the strength of your belief. Put money where your mouth is. I am interested in finding out the strength of your belief mathematically. See Subjective (Bayesian) Probability.

You can say you are 100% sure the earth is flat. Words are cheap unless you are willing to bet on it.

She had a number of kids so what are we talking about?

 

[BlessedPeace]

YES, it is in dispute. That is what we are doing right now

Your Protestant men started disputing it about 500 years ago. YOU don't dispute it because you reject the 2,000-year teaching of Christianity and accept a 500 year teaching. AND you reject what Scripture says when properly translated.

Keeping it real....Mary

Properly translated?

After the Papal palace council of Trent's acts against God and Christ?
You make Mary a perpetual virgin, despite having other children,and label the Magdalene an adulteress when she was no such thing.

Stay with your pagan church.

Protestors centuries ago realized that's what it is,and walked into the path of the real Jesus.

Hate us?
We can live with that and with God, eternally.

No dead emissaries asking God to do us favors. We have a direct line to the Father.

BTW? God does not have a mother.

 

[Augustin56]

Fear of what?

Yawn

the people chose Barabbus over Jesus

Go ahead and follow your men

I will follow God

Actually you are following men. If you followed God, you would belong to the Church He founded. God created a (one) Church and promised to be with it till the end. He never, ever said, "Go start your own churches based solely on what you personally interpret from the Scriptures." (See 2 Peter 1:20-21, which warns against personal interpretation of Scriptures, and which all Protestantism is based upon. Mere men started Protestantism 16 centuries after Christ founded the Catholic Church. And even then, they have continually disagreed with what Scripture says to the point of creating literally thousands of differing, disagreeing man-made denominations. Every one appointed him-/herself as their own Pope.

 

[Augustin56]

She had a number of kids so what are we talking about?

Nowhere in Scripture does it say Mary had other kids. Nowhere. No one, other than Jesus, is said to be the child of Mary. It says Jesus had brothers, etc., but that means that either they were cousins, who in that time and culture were often called brothers.

See the following article for a more in-depth explanation: "Brethren of the Lord"

 

[Augustin56]

Properly translated?

After the Papal palace council of Trent's acts against God and Christ?
You make Mary a perpetual virgin, despite having other children,and label the Magdalene an adulteress when she was no such thing.

Stay with your pagan church.

Protestors centuries ago realized that's what it is,and walked into the path of the real Jesus.

Hate us?
We can live with that and with God, eternally.

No dead emissaries asking God to do us favors. We have a direct line to the Father.

BTW? God does not have a mother.

You seem to have the same certitude that the Catholic Church is not Christ's Church as the Pharisees were that Christ wasn't the Messiah. Interesting.

 

[Peterlag]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say Mary had other kids. Nowhere. No one, other than Jesus, is said to be the child of Mary. It says Jesus had brothers, etc., but that means that either they were cousins, who in that time and culture were often called brothers.

See the following article for a more in-depth explanation: "Brethren of the Lord"

Matthew 13:55-56
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

What do you think her husband did for all those years after he took Mary to be his wife. You must be Catholic.

 

[Rockerduck]

I've met several former Catholics in my day that left the Catholic churches. Once they become born again from above, they leave the Catholic church because the Holy Spirit leads them away.

 

[Augustin56]

Matthew 13:55-56
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

What do you think her husband did for all those years after he took Mary to be his wife. You must be Catholic.

Nowhere in Matthew 13:55-56 does it say that Jesus' brethren were Mary's children. You are twisting Scriptures to say what you want vs. what the author intended. Don't read into Scripture what isn't there. Recall, too, that Joseph was a widower. He certainly could have had children who would have been Jesus' step-brothers. And don't look at Scripture through a modern viewpoint. Our culture is as different from the culture of Jesus' time and the writers of Scripture as our culture is from the natives in New Guinea.

Because neither Hebrew or Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.”

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies, older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Actually you are following men. If you followed God, you would belong to the Church He founded. God created a (one) Church and promised to be with it till the end. He never, ever said, "Go start your own churches based solely on what you personally interpret from the Scriptures." (See 2 Peter 1:20-21, which warns against personal interpretation of Scriptures, and which all Protestantism is based upon. Mere men started Protestantism 16 centuries after Christ founded the Catholic Church. And even then, they have continually disagreed with what Scripture says to the point of creating literally thousands of differing, disagreeing man-made denominations. Every one appointed him-/herself as their own Pope.

I am following that church

If I followed the Church of Rome I would have to throw my Bible out. Because I could not believe a word it said.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You seem to have the same certitude that the Catholic Church is not Christ's Church as the Pharisees were that Christ wasn't the Messiah. Interesting.

Interesting fact is the roman church would reject the messiah also. Because he would tell them what he told the pharisee

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Nowhere in Matthew 13:55-56 does it say that Jesus' brethren were Mary's children. You are twisting Scriptures to say what you want vs. what the author intended.

Are you not doing that very thing?

No where does it say they were NOT her children.

 

[Augustin56]

I am following that church

If I followed the Church of Rome I would have to throw my Bible out. Because I could not believe a word it said.

The Church you are rejecting was the one, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the authority given it by Christ, that gave you the New Testament and selected the Septuagent version of the Old Testament. In other words, you have a Bible based on the authority of this same Church. Protestantism with its thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting beliefs, came long in the 16th century, long long after Christ established His Church!

See Acts 9:4, where Jesus knocked Saul (Paul by his Hebrew name) off his horse, as he was going around persecuting Christians. He said to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note, Jesus didn't say, "....why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church. And that Church wasn't one that came along 16 centuries later, founded by mere men.

 

[Cassandra]

The Church you are rejecting was the one, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the authority given it by Christ, that gave you the New Testament and selected the Septuagent version of the Old Testament. In other words, you have a Bible based on the authority of this same Church. Protestantism with its thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting beliefs, came long in the 16th century, long long after Christ established His Church!

See Acts 9:4, where Jesus knocked Saul (Paul by his Hebrew name) off his horse, as he was going around persecuting Christians. He said to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note, Jesus didn't say, "....why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church. And that Church wasn't one that came along 16 centuries later, founded by mere men.

The development of the Christian Bible, including the New Testament and the Old Testament, is a complex historical process that involved many individuals and groups, including early Christian communities, Church councils, and both Catholic and Protestant leaders.

1. New Testament: The New Testament, as a collection of Christian texts, was formed over several centuries. The process of determining which books were to be considered part of the New Testament was largely complete by the 4th century. This was done through a series of councils and synods, where bishops and other church leaders discussed and debated the merits of various texts. The Catholic Church, as it existed before the Protestant Reformation, played a significant role in this process. However, it's important to note that this was before the split between Catholic and Protestant traditions, so it wasn't a case of the Catholic Church "giving" the New Testament to Protestants.
2. Old Testament: Regarding the Old Testament, the Catholic Church traditionally uses a version that includes the books of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint includes several books not found in the Hebrew Bible, known in Protestant circles as the "Apocrypha." When the Protestant Reformation occurred, reformers like Martin Luther chose to use the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament, which does not include these additional books. Thus, Protestants typically have a slightly different Old Testament than Catholics.

In summary, while the Catholic Church played a crucial role in the formation of the Bible as we know it, the situation is more nuanced than simply saying they "gave" the New Testament to Protestants or selected the Septuagint version of the Old Testament for them. The formation of the Christian biblical canon was a complex and gradual process influenced by many historical and theological factors.
go Chat!

 

[Pierac]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say Mary had other kids. Nowhere. No one, other than Jesus, is said to be the child of Mary. It says Jesus had brothers, etc., but that means that either they were cousins, who in that time and culture were often called brothers.

See the following article for a more in-depth explanation: "Brethren of the Lord"

Well... It's both in scripture... and in our history books.... If you would actually study instead of just trusting what your told... You would know this!!!

Think of it this way, If we only had the writings of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus we would only know about John the Baptist, Jesus the Christ, and James the brother, but we would not know that, for example, Peter or Paul ever existed. And if we calculated comparative importance by amount of space, the ranking would be, first, James with 27 lines of Greek in the Jewish Antiquities 20.199-203, then John with 24 lines in 18.116-19, and finally Jesus with 13 lines in 18.63-64. James, in other words, gets twice the space of his brother Jesus.

Around the end of the first century C.E., Luke records in the second volume, Acts, that the Roman appointed ruler of Palestine Herod Agrippa I, executed "James, the brother of John" (Acts 12:2). Both James and John had been identified as "sons of Zebedee" in his gospel (Luke 5:10). Agrippa also imprisoned Peter at that time in 41 C.E., and when he escaped, Peter said, and Acts 12:17, to "tell this to James," clearly not the just-executed James but another with the same name. Luke never identifies this second James any further but his authority is indicated as recipient of that message and I conclude that he is the same James who later acts the most authoritatively in Acts 15:13 and 21:18. Furthermore, the earliest gospel, Mark, identifies a James in the first place among the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3), and Matthew 13:55 followed Mark in that listing, but Luke omitted it entirely.

In summary, then you would know from Luke that there was a second and very important James but you would never know from either of Luke's volumes that James was in fact the brother of Jesus.

On the other hand, none of Paul's letters in the New Testament dating to the 40s and 50s ever mentioned James, son of Zebedee, brother of John.

Note, too! James had lived in Jerusalem for at least 30 years without incurring anti-Christian persecution and his execution toppled a high priests. James was clearly important not just to the Christian Jews but also to non-Christian Jews and presumably to Pharisaic Jews in Jerusalem, who called for the removel of the high priests Ananite for the crime of executing James “the Just”.

Hope this helps...
The other Paul

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Church you are rejecting was the one, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the authority given it by Christ, that gave you the New Testament and selected the Septuagent version of the Old Testament. In other words, you have a Bible based on the authority of this same Church. Protestantism with its thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting beliefs, came long in the 16th century, long long after Christ established His Church!

See Acts 9:4, where Jesus knocked Saul (Paul by his Hebrew name) off his horse, as he was going around persecuting Christians. He said to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note, Jesus didn't say, "....why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church. And that Church wasn't one that came along 16 centuries later, founded by mere men.

Sorry my friend, Your church did not give me the NT. God did.

Gods church would not take credit for doing the work of God. They would give God the credit

They also would follow his word. Not contradict it and distort it to where it is nonsensical.

 

[Peterlag]

Nowhere in Matthew 13:55-56 does it say that Jesus' brethren were Mary's children. You are twisting Scriptures to say what you want vs. what the author intended. Don't read into Scripture what isn't there. Recall, too, that Joseph was a widower. He certainly could have had children who would have been Jesus' step-brothers. And don't look at Scripture through a modern viewpoint. Our culture is as different from the culture of Jesus' time and the writers of Scripture as our culture is from the natives in New Guinea.

Because neither Hebrew or Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.”

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies, older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

There has to be a reason why you would want to paint Mary as a woman who would not sleep with her husband in the way that all husband and wives do. But I don't know what that reason is.

 

[Peterlag]

I've met several former Catholics in my day that left the Catholic churches. Once they become born again from above, they leave the Catholic church because the Holy Spirit leads them away.

Now here's an honest question: Are Catholics born again?

 

[Sigma]

Well... It's both in scripture... and in our history books....

False.
I'll show you why below.

Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 are called His "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi) and "αδελφαι" (sing. ἀδελφή adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), translated to "brothers" and "sisters" in English. The aforementioned Koine Greek words have multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "a near kinsman/kinswoman, or relative," etc.

The context of Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 shows the meaning "a near kinsman/kinswoman, or relative" applies to Jesus's brothers and sisters. However, a kinsman/kinswoman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc., and information needed to determine the type of kinship that applies here is lacking in those same verses.

I've shown below the type of kinship Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were to Him.
This was accomplished primarily by identifying James.

Early Christian and Scriptural References​

I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Jn. 19:25)

II. "...James, who is called the brother of the Lord ... as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord ... after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (cf. Jud. 1:1) and "...Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, cf. Jn. 19:25)

III. Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] relates the following in his Historia Ecclesiastica:

James, the brother of the Lord, was the "...author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles" and that while it is disputed, "as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles," it is known they have been "...read publicly in very many churches." (Bk. I, ch. 23, cf. Jud. 1:1)

"James ... surnamed the Just ... bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord..." and "Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Bk. II, ch. 1)

"...those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord ... with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh ... pronounced Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas ... to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph." (Bk. III, ch. 11)

"Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.'" (Bk. II, ch. 23)

"...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE], Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)

"...James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" and "...but there were two Jameses: one called the Just ... thrown from the pinnacle of the temple ... and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." (Bk. II, ch. 1) (Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD], Hypotyposes, Bk. VII, cf. Ac. 12:1-2)

"...James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church ... called the Just ..." (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom ... Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop ... because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)

Additional Scriptural Support

The teaching that Mary of Cleophas (Clopas/Alphaeus) was the mother of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), as well as the sister-in-law of Jesus's mother, Mary of Joseph, can be further supported by these verses:

"his (Jesus's) mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas" (Jn. 19:25)
"Mary, mother of James" (Mk. 16:1)
"Mary of James" (Lk. 24:10)
"Mary, mother of James and Joseph" (Matt. 27:56)
"Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph" (Mk. 15:40)

If, at the very least, you agree that "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 63 and the apostle "James" in Gal. 1:19 were the same person,
consider the following about two of the twelve apostles named "James:"
​

Apostle James, son of Zebedee, whose brother [sibling] was Apostle John, and their mother is only known to have been the mother of "the sons of Zebedee." It's indisputable that of the two, this James-apostle doesn't correlate with the "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19. (Matt. 4:21;20:20;27:56, Mk. 1:19;3:17;10:35, Lk. 5:10, Ac. 12:1-2)

Apostle James, son of Alphaeus, whose brothers [siblings] were Apostle Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) and Joseph. It's indisputable that of the two, this James-apostle correlates more with "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19. (Matt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13)

Summary

Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD] indicated "Apostle James of Alphaeus" and "James the bishop of Jerusalem" were the same person, as well as the brother [sibling] of Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus), and that these four were the sons of Mary and Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas). (Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10)

Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE] indicated "James the bishop of Jerusalem," "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Less," and the "author of the Epistle of James," were the same person. He also said this James was the son of Jesus's mother's sister, Mary the wife of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas, cf. Jn. 19:25), which coincides with Papias's testimony, and thus Jerome would've known he was Apostle James of Alphaeus as well. (De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae)

Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] indicated "James the bishop of Jerusalem," "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Just," and the "author of the Epistle of James," were the same person. He also said, "Apostle Paul makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. I, ch. 23, Bk. II, ch. 1)

Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD] indicated "James the bishop of Jerusalem" and "James the Just" were the same person. (Hypotyposes, Bk. VII)

Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE] indicated "James the brother of the Lord" and "James the Just" were the same person. (Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)

Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD] indicated "James the brother of the Lord" and "James the Just" were the same person. (Hypomnemata)

The scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources, even if not every surname is listed by each individual source, collectively show that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3;apostle James of Alphaeus; James the Less; James the Just; James the bishop of Jerusalem; James "the brother of the Lord;" and the author of the Epistle of James were the same person, and the son of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Cleophas (Clopas/Alpaheus), and thus he and his siblings Simon, Joseph, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's cousins.​