Did Jesus have any brothers or sisters?

It is commonly believed they are His brothers and sisters,but there are those who think they are Josephs kids from a previous marriage and then there are those who believe they are the children conceived after Christs birth.I go for the later.As for being cousins,that is also another theory but is less credible than the first.

I guess it is possibly to have more than one child named the same,Look at George Foreman,all his sons are George from what I understand.But I am willing to look into it further.

Ok I have looked and apparently there were 4 women there,Christs mother,her sister,Clopas' wife and Magdalena.But I could be wrong,wouldnt be the first time.

Dont know if this will help you but heres Mary's Gen. also in laws were sometimes called brother or sister but because I find no relationship with either cloipas or Mary his wife mentioned anywhere else I dont think theres any relationship. but I do not read the verse quite that way you read it I read it as a pause after sister 19 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, (and also there was)Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene......................Marys genealogy is in Luke 3:23- it is shown through her fatherMary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).]. Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin - Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb. This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).also heres a link you might find helpful http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/names/starting_a.htm

Two points I want to make about Jesus' genealogy since I find this subject a very fascinating one:1) I always had problems with the doctrine that Jesus had brothers from Joseph's other marriage (i.e. they would really be his half-brothers). The reason I have problems with the half-brother doctrine is because Jesus would then fail to be firstborn (legally or otherwise) to Joseph, a requirement to be the primary inheritor of the throne of David. Grant it, sometimes God chose a younger brother to pass the blessing to in the Bible, but to my knowledge it was always mentioned that God chosen person B over person A. Anexample would be Jacob over Easu where it is specificallymentioned. The bible says that Mary brought forth her FIRSTBORNson and laid him in the manger. The bible always gave significanceto the firstborn as being God's, but that did not mean there were not other siblings later. And again, the statement "firstborn" leads the reader to at least agree that God saw Jesus as the firstborn to inherit the throne. I think anyone else older would have the legal right to dispute it otherwise.2) Let's look at Luke's genealogy. I agree with the teaching that this is Mary's lineage, but the society being male-oriented in genealogies skipped Mary and Heli was Jesus' grandfather. The Jewswould still consider a grandson as a son. For instance, we hear where Jesus is called "the son of David" many times. Of course Jesus was in reality David's great, great great.... grandson. everyone with me?OK. So let's put that thought to work by reading the scripture.When the bible says:
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
So many people think that this is saying Jesus was the son ofJoseph, and Joseph was the son of Heli. No. What is is really saying is this (If I may put it into the common language of the day):
Jesus was thirty years of age and was the supposed son ofJoseph, but (Jesus) was in fact the son of Heli
In other words, it was saying that Jesus was the supposed son ofJoseph, but was really the son of Heli, i.e. his grandfather.The genealogies makes more sense this way: Matthew's genealogy is his legal lineage connecting Jesus to the throne that was breached (by the curse of Jehoiachin) and Mary's genealogy in Luke is his fleshlineage to King David. Thus, David had a flesh son, and a legal inheritor thru the rightful (but cursed) lineage---- Jesus will repair that breach.

(setfree;20298)
I have been doing a study on the events between the resurrection and the ascension. I have ask others and can not seem to determine if the brethren in Matthew 13:54-56 are his siblings or cousins.
I would refer to them as HALF brothers and sisters. But then I don't follow the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

The easiest answers come from just a few verses in the NT. We don't have to do much theorizing to see that Christ had brothers. Besides, we have testimony from other sources than Luke's genealogy that Christ had brothers. These brothers included James and Jude--two authors in the NT.

Catholic view in case anyone is interested, no brothers,(or sistas)summary herehttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

Sadly, the Catholic view has to practice some pretty bad exegesis to ignore Christ's siblings as siblings and not cousins, half-whatevers, etc.See Matthew 1, 13, Luke 11 for starters. Paul also mentions the brothers of the Lord, etc. Of course I understand that there was not a specific word for half/step/whatever brothers, but given context, it is plain, obvious even, that Mary and Joseph conceived other children.

It's impossible for Mary to have had children before Christ. She was a virgin . We are all brothers and sisters of Christ .

(Ek Pyros;35427)
Sadly, the Catholic view has to practice some pretty bad exegesis to ignore Christ's siblings as siblings and not cousins, half-whatevers, etc.See Matthew 1, 13, Luke 11 for starters. Paul also mentions the brothers of the Lord, etc. Of course I understand that there was not a specific word for half/step/whatever brothers, but given context, it is plain, obvious even, that Mary and Joseph conceived other children.
The article answers common objections, am happy with that.If we accept your view, one is left to wonder why Mary is given to John and lives with him the rest of her life here instead of some of these alledged children. Did they disown her?