Per the evidence in the OP, Apostle James of Alphaeus, James the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the Just, and James the brother of the Lord, etc, were the same person, and he is the one Paul is referencing in verse 7. Do you accept the evidence for this? If not, why?
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Per the evidence in the OP, Apostle James of Alphaeus, James the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the Just, and James the brother of the Lord, etc, were the same person, and he is the one Paul is referencing in verse 7. Do you accept the evidence for this? If not, why?
Partly because calling a son of Alphaeus a "brother of the Lord" just doesn't seem to fit. (According to Mark 2:14 Matthew is also a son of Alphaeus, yet is never called "brother of the Lord.") But mainly because there is a James referred to as Jesus' brother in Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3 who is not one of the apostles -- and we are told elsewhere that the Lord's brethren (presumably including this James) didn't believe in him (John 7:5). That makes this non-apostle James a prime candidate for conversion through a post-resurrection appearance, which is how I can make the most sense out of what Paul is trying to convey in listing post-resurrection appearances in 1 Cor. 15:5-9.
Per the evidence in the OP, the James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 was Apostle James of Alphaeus and James the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19), etc, Jesus's cousin and brother (sibling) of Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) also mentioned in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3.
The word "brother" has more meanings than just "sibling," such as "kinsman," or "fellow believer," etc. Also, for example, it's not impossible Jesus's cousin, Apostle James of Alphaeus, was called "brother of the Lord" in the sibling sense not because they were literally siblings, but because out of the four cousins he and Jesus were the most similar, and thus thought of like siblings. So, calling a son of Alphaeus a "brother of the Lord" can fit.
Regarding Alphaeus, if Apostle Matthew (Levi) in Mk. 2:14 was the son of the same Alphaeus, then he would've been named as a sibling of the four mentioned in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, but he wasn't, because more than one man named "Alphaeus" existed.
Jesus's unbelieving brothers in Jn. 7:3;5 are of those mentioned in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, but not all four. The evidence in the OP confirms all four were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, specifically His cousins, as well as illustrates that of the four only James and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus were two of His apostles, leaving Simon and Joseph of Alphaeus as the unbelieving ones.
Last edited by a moderator:
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
There are several problems with your theory, but it doesn't mean it's totally implausible.
1. In Matthew 13:55-56 several men (including James) are called brethren. In Mark 6:3 they were called brothers. While it is true that brethren can refer to countrymen, close or semi close relatives (such as cousins), it also can refer to a male with the same mother or father. So noting the fact that "brethren" and "brother" can have multiple meaning is speculation in regards to the notion that James and Jesus were cousins
2. There is something else present in the verses mentioned above: the presence of sisters. "Brethren" can also include females. But "sister" is a bit more specific. There are times "sister" is used as the female version of brethren, but they are few and it never is ambiguous with the intent of the writer.
In short, these verses (Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3) seem more to me that they were siblings and not cousins.
3. John 7:5 (with surrounding verses) states that Jesus's brethren did not believe him and actually tried to get him to leave town. Who were they? If James, Joses, Simon and Jude were apostles, who's left? Who were the brethren that didn't believe him?
4. Matthew 12:46 says Mary and Jesus's brethren came wanting to talk to him. It's an assumption, but I figure the Apostles were already there.
5. Check out James in Acts 21:20 and surrounding verses. While welcoming Paul, he is still a zealous law follower. I have strong doubts that an Apostle who Jesus had opened understanding to the scriptures would fall in this line of thinking.
6. There are extra biblical writings that don't coincide with your sources. Personally, I like to stay within the Bible. But for example, the Gospel of James claims that James is a half brother of Jesus as a result of a former marriage of Joseph. I, in no way believe that, but it shows that extrabiblical sources shouldn't be fully trusted as they have conficting reports concerning this matter.
7. Lastly, Mary's perpetual virginity (and thus, hernot having other children) is severely challenged, if not refuted, in Matthew 1:25:
Matthew 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Joseph did not have intercourse with Mary until after Jesus was born. But they did have intercourse as the verse suggests.
1. In Matthew 13:55-56 several men (including James) are called brethren. In Mark 6:3 they were called brothers. While it is true that brethren can refer to countrymen, close or semi close relatives (such as cousins), it also can refer to a male with the same mother or father. So noting the fact that "brethren" and "brother" can have multiple meaning is speculation in regards to the notion that James and Jesus were cousins
2. There is something else present in the verses mentioned above: the presence of sisters. "Brethren" can also include females. But "sister" is a bit more specific. There are times "sister" is used as the female version of brethren, but they are few and it never is ambiguous with the intent of the writer.
In short, these verses (Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3) seem more to me that they were siblings and not cousins.
3. John 7:5 (with surrounding verses) states that Jesus's brethren did not believe him and actually tried to get him to leave town. Who were they? If James, Joses, Simon and Jude were apostles, who's left? Who were the brethren that didn't believe him?
4. Matthew 12:46 says Mary and Jesus's brethren came wanting to talk to him. It's an assumption, but I figure the Apostles were already there.
5. Check out James in Acts 21:20 and surrounding verses. While welcoming Paul, he is still a zealous law follower. I have strong doubts that an Apostle who Jesus had opened understanding to the scriptures would fall in this line of thinking.
6. There are extra biblical writings that don't coincide with your sources. Personally, I like to stay within the Bible. But for example, the Gospel of James claims that James is a half brother of Jesus as a result of a former marriage of Joseph. I, in no way believe that, but it shows that extrabiblical sources shouldn't be fully trusted as they have conficting reports concerning this matter.
7. Lastly, Mary's perpetual virginity (and thus, hernot having other children) is severely challenged, if not refuted, in Matthew 1:25:
Matthew 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Joseph did not have intercourse with Mary until after Jesus was born. But they did have intercourse as the verse suggests.
See the evidence in the OP for why Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's cousins.
Regarding Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56/Mk. 6:3, since the evidence in the OP illustrates Jesus's four brothers in the same scene were his kinsmen, specifically cousins, these women could've been extended family as well.
The word "sister" doesn't only mean "sibling." For example, in Jn. 19:25, Mary of Cleophas/Clopas is called the "sister" of Jesus's mother, Mary. Not only is it unlikely they were siblings with the same name, but there's evidence in the OP that illustrates they were sisters-in-law.
Jesus's unbelieving brothers who didn't want Him to enter Jerusalem (Jn. 7:3;5) and wanted to talk to Him (Matt. 12:46) were two of those mentioned in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3. The evidence in the OP confirms all four were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, specifically His cousins, as well as illustrates that of the four only James and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus were two of His apostles, leaving Simon and Joseph of Alphaeus as the ones.
Your strong doubts are weak compared to the testimonies of prominent early Christians in the OP that say Apostle James of Alphaeus and James the Bishop of Jerusalem were the same person.
There is false extra-biblical information, but not all is, because God is alive, and He continues to reveal true information not mentioned in the Bible to people, for the Bible doesn't contain all there is to know, which makes that information "extra-biblical" too. Therefore, no one should automatically dismiss any extra-biblical information, rather discern, and trust God to help them know what's true and false.
In my research, there's more evidence James was the cousin of Jesus, with scriptural verses to support, rather than the son of Joseph from a previous marriage, and thus a half-sibling.
There's another explanation for that verse, but regarding the one you believe, some men and women can have sex with each other, but cannot produce children together. So, this verse doesn't prove the four in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings, nor that He had siblings in general.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Glad you brought up this topic. I was confused too. I found an intereating study that seems to sort thing out.
The Three James' | Learn The Bible | LearnTheBible.org
1. James, brother of John and both sons of Zebedee
2. James, brother of Matthew and both sons of Alpheus.
These first two were the original Apostles.
3. James, half-brother of Jesus, brother of Jude and son of Joseph.
Was this James the writer of the book of James? Maybe.
The Three James' | Learn The Bible | LearnTheBible.org
1. James, brother of John and both sons of Zebedee
2. James, brother of Matthew and both sons of Alpheus.
These first two were the original Apostles.
3. James, half-brother of Jesus, brother of Jude and son of Joseph.
Was this James the writer of the book of James? Maybe.
It's simpler than that.
1. Apostle James of Zebedee, brother of Apostle John of Zebedee
2. Apostle James of Alphaeus, brother of Simon, Joseph, and Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3), all of whom were Jesus's brothers as in kinsmen, specifically cousins. Apostle Matthew (Levi) was the son of another man also named "Alphaeus." Anyway, this James is also "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James.
See the evidence in the OP for why.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Nope. James, son of Alphaeus is NOT Jesus brother. THAT JAMES is the brother of Matthew.
Obviously, James, bother of Jesus, IS the SON of Joseph and Mary, NOT THE SON OF ALPHAEUS.
Nowhere in Scripture does it say Apostle James of Alphaeus and Apostle Matthew (Levi) of Alphaeus were brothers. Of the twelve apostles, only Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus is called this James's brother. Therefore, James and Matthew (Levi) each merely had a father who shared the name "Alphaeus."
Furthermore, the evidence in the OP illustrates Apostle James of Alphaeus was the brother of Simon, Joseph, and Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3), all of whom were Jesus's brothers as in kinsmen, specifically cousins. It also illustrates this James was "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James as well.
Challenge that evidence, if you think you can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Encyclopedia Brittanica has James the "brother" of the Lord/bishop of Jerusalem as not one of the Twelve, and often mistaken for James son of Alphaeus.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica is wrong, because there's stronger evidence in the OP, supported by Scripture, that illustrates Apostle James of Alphaeus, "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person.
Challenge that evidence, if you think you can.
Well, it's obviously not clear cut. I hesitate to rely on a Fragment of Papias for any hard and fast conclusions here. Jerome's and Eusebius's writings quote in the OP do not declare James the Les and James the Just/Bishop/Brother to be the same person. Ditto for Josephus, Clement and Hegesippus.
Not a big deal. Let's just agree to disagree on this, and move on.
Not a big deal. Let's just agree to disagree on this, and move on.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Matthew is Levi, Son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14). In Mark he is regarded as a tax collector (Matthew 9:9).
Matthew (Levi) of Alphaeus (Mk. 2:14) the tax collector was chosen to be an apostle:
"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. And he rose up and followed him." (Matt. 9:9)
"And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him." (Matt. 10:2-4)
Now, again, nowhere in Scripture does it say Apostle James of Alphaeus and Apostle Matthew (Levi) of Alphaeus were brothers. Of the twelve apostles, only Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus is called this James's brother (Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13).
More than one man named "Alphaeus" existed.
Furthermore, the evidence in the OP illustrates Apostle James of Alphaeus was the brother of Simon, Joseph, and Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3), all of whom were Jesus's brothers as in kinsmen, specifically cousins. It also illustrates this James was "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James as well.
Challenge that evidence, if you think you can.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Jesus will introduce you to them when you get up there and sort it all out for you.
I've already got it sorted out, thanks to His help. Further proof of that is you have nothing to say to what I've presented.
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I did read it, and thus I responded. I do not find it as indisputable proof for the reasons I mentioned, which I will again address shortly.
Well, no there isn't evidence that they were sister in laws. While rarely is it the case, it is true that "sister" doesn't always mean sibling. When that happens, it's abundantly made clear; more so than "brethren" which an also include females. As I stated before, the primary meaning of the words sister and brother is "siblings". Thus, that's what you start with and let contexttell you otherwise.
Here is something I left out concerning Matthew 13:55 which shows Context: the doubters mentioned Jesus was a carpenter's son. No doubt that was Joseph his step father. They mentioned Mary as his mother and wife of Joseph. So we have a nuclear family here so far: Jesus, Joseph and Mary. After that, there is mention of so called "cousins": James, Simon, Jose and Jude as well as sister? The context switch from nuclear to extended family is awkward and not probable. What's even more startling is that the most famous cousin of Jesus (at the time) wasn't mentioned: John the Bapist. It really doesn't make sense. It makes more sense that the doubters were still talking about immediate family members.
That is nice and all, and even worth looking at, but it is pure speculation on your part. But here is another interesting question: what verse do you have that says Mary of Cleophas had a son named Simon?
Speaking of Cleophas, what Biblical evidence do you have that he was Aphaeus? James the Apostle was the son of Aplhaeus. Yes, Jude was his brother. They are never called the son of Cleophas.
No, you don't have to explain it:I know where you got it from, and you did mention it in the OP. What I'm looking for is Biblical evidence.
.
Oh really? That's interesting because I am looking at Biblical evidence, which your "prominent" early Christians didn't have to support their claims! I have support from prominent early Christians too: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul and John. They were early. They were prominent and they were Christians. Who were your guys again?
Furthermore, you dodged the point completely: James in Acts 21 is not holding a doctrine as an Apostle of Jesus would hold. James' doctrine was one of mixing the law with grace through faith.
There are counter points you can make (and I can help you with that) but avoiding the question by propping up your "early prominent Christians" is not helping your argument.
If you want to keep pushing how great they were... I have something shocking to tell you: they weren't that great! I admire them and count them as brethren... but they weren't always right and in many ways were pretty ignorant.
In short, your research, while interesting and worthy of looking at, contains a whole lot of speculation and holes. While they are good arguments, they are not indisputable as you referred to them.
James Macbeth
Active Member
James was the brother of Saint Matthew.
Luke 5:27 describe Jesus's calling of the tax collector Levi, the son of Alphaeus.
Matthew 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus
"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen." (Jn. 19:25). So, according to your logic, you must believe Jesus's mother Mary and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas were siblings with the same name. Lol.
There's evidence in the OP that confirms Jesus's mother Mary and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas were sisters, and clarifies them as sisters-in-law. Do you have no other argument for why that evidence is insufficient, other than its not in the Bible, which I've refuted below?
Regarding why Jesus's cousin, John the Baptist, wasn't mentioned, the Nazarenes in the crowd speaking were literally referring to Jesus's relatives among them, because they said, "...are not also his sisters here with us?" (Matt. 13:55-56, Mk. 6:3).
Now, it wouldn't be "awkward and not probable" if context switched from immediate to extended family if Jesus didn't have siblings, and the evidence in the OP illustrates He didn't.
Rather the evidence in the OP illustrates Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's cousins, because they were sons of Mary and Joseph's brother, Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas).
Regarding Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56/Mk. 6:3, since the evidence in the OP illustrates Jesus's four brothers in the same scene were his kinsmen, specifically cousins, these women could've been extended family as well.
Again, the Bible doesn't contain all there is to know, which means there's more true information not found in it, and thus is considered "extra-biblical." If you don't accept that fact, you're choosing to be willfully ignorant, and thus limiting yourself in knowledge and understanding of the reality that God created. Now, there's also false extra-biblical information, but because there's true information as well, no one should automatically dismiss any extra-biblical information, rather discern, and trust God to help them know what's true and false.
As you said, I provided evidence in the OP for why Mary of Cleophas/Clopas was the mother of Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus), and Alphaeus and Cleophas/Clopas were the same person. Do you have no other argument for why that evidence is insufficient, other than its not in the Bible, which I've refuted above?
What you don't consider is that while Apostle James of Alphaeus became a Christian, he was still very much a Jew as well, in his mentality, view of the world, and his approach to religion. He didn't lose Jewish habits overnight, nor over the course of just three years with Jesus. So, when he became Bishop of Jerusalem, he was trying to incorporate Jewish customs with this new religion called Christianity, a religion that grew up within Judaism itself. Therefore, this argument of yours is weak, even more so compared to the evidence I've presented.
Last edited by a moderator:
Matthew (Levi) of Alphaeus (Mk. 2:14) the tax collector was chosen to be an apostle:
"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. And he rose up and followed him." (Matt. 9:9)
"And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him." (Matt. 10:2-4)
Nowhere in Scripture does it say Apostle James of Alphaeus and Apostle Matthew (Levi) of Alphaeus were brothers. Of the twelve apostles, only Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus is called this James's brother (Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13).
More than one man named "Alphaeus" existed.
Furthermore, the evidence in the OP illustrates Apostle James of Alphaeus was the brother of Simon, Joseph, and Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3), all of whom were Jesus's brothers as in kinsmen, specifically cousins. It also illustrates this James was "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James as well.
Challenge that evidence, if you think you can.
Similar threads
