Who is "James?"

[Soul]

Who is "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3? ​

Some teach that he and Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Jude) were Jesus' step/half-brothers, based on the assumption "sibling" applies to the word "brothers" in the following verse:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude (Judas)" (Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3)

Now the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) has a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc. Considering the context of the verse above, these four were Jesus' brothers as in kinsmen. Is there actual evidence to support that they were Jesus' kinsmen, as in "siblings," specifically, step/half-brothers? The answer lies in comparing "James" with the identity of the only other "James" called Jesus' brother, as in, "kinsman," and he was also an apostle:

"...other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord" (Ga. 1:19)

Two of the twelve apostles were named "James:" Apostle James of Zebedees' brother [sibling] was Apostle John (Mt. 4:21, Mk. 1:19;3:17;10:35, Lk. 5:10, Ac. 12:1-2), and Apostle James of Alphaeus' brother [sibling] was Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) (Mt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13). It is indisputable the latter apostle-James correlates with "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and "James" in Ga. 1:19.

Elsewhere in Scripture, in a couple of instances a woman named "Mary," who is not Mary of Joseph — is mentioned as the mother of at least James (the Less) and Joseph (Mt. 27:55-56, Mk. 15:40-41) and James (Mk. 16:1, Lk. 24:1;9-10).

Early Christian Testimonials
​

I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις: 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" 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)

"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)

"...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)

Summary​

The scriptural verses and testimonials of prominent early Christians above illustrate "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "Apostle James of Alphaeus," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James were the same, and that he, Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas) were sons of Josephs' brother [sibling], Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), and Mary of Josephs' sister-in-law, Mary of Cleophas/Clopas, and thus Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically cousins. This disproves the teaching that states they were Jesus' step-brothers and undermines the teaching that states they were half-brothers.

 

[FHII]

This is an old debate on this forum and without doubt one that has been a debate that is centuries old. I believe the underlying reason for the debate is because the perpetual virginity of Mary is at stake.

My belief is that yes, they are the half brothers of Jesus. This debate isn't going to be settled here, but at least hear my reasoning:

1. The first thing people who believe they were not siblings is that "brethren" sometimes means "kinsmen", "cousins" or simply, "fellow believers". While that is true, it ALSO can mean a sibling. Whether it be a half brother, a full brother or even a step brother.

We know that in Bible terms a kinsmen can be called a brother or brethren. Why? Well because somewhere the Bible will explain that. An example is Abraham and Lot. Lot was his nephew, but in on verse he is called abram's brother. Furthermore, if you compare linages between the books of Kings, Samuel and Chronicles, you will learn that sometimes brothers were actually cousins or other relatives.

However, like I said, the Bible clarifies those cases. The Bible never directly--if at all-- the relationship between "James" and Jesus. Thus, its only reasonable to take the word "brother" as it's primary meaning, which is a sibling.

2. "Early Christian writers" (who weren't even around at the time) are not un agrreance as to whom James was. Some say a cousin, some say it was the apostle James, and some say James was the son of Joseph from a different marriage (thus making James a step brother). Well, because they can't agree... It sends up a red flag to me. Their only similarity seems to be to protect Mary's perpetual virginity.
3. I have no doubt James was not a cousin because Jesus DID have a cousin... I guess it was a second cousin, but I am not sure how all that works in titles. Elizabeth was Mary's cousin and thus, Hohn the Baptist was Jesus's second cousin. There is very little information about Mary's family other than that. But the Bible knew how to identify a cousin, so I see no reason to believe that James and Jesus were cousins.

4. Matthew 12. In that chapter Jesus is preaching and its mentioned that Mary and Jesus's brethren (remember, that can mean kinsmen OR siblings OR fellow believers) stood without and wanted to talk to him.

I am having a real hard time believing that the Apostle James was hanging out with Mary while Jesus was teaching.

5. Jesus also had sisters. Never named... Butt Mark 6:3. Says he had some. Yes, sisters can mean sisters in the Lord but while brother and brethren can mean something wider than siblings, sister is rarely used in that way.

6. Lets examine Matthew 13:55. They ask if this is Joseph's son and Mary's son. They were correct. Yes, we as believers know Joseph was his step father, but they didn't. However, they established a line of thinking: they were talking in terms of a nuclear family: mother, father and children. Jesus was just an ordinary guy like us! His daddy is Joseph, mom is Mary and his brothers and sisters we know. It just seems odd that his critics would add a disciple to a list of immediate family members.

7. The James in Acts 15 and 21 was a believer in following the Law. Does this sound like an apostle of Jesus?

So there you have my talking points. I think tjey are reasonable to consider. In the end, it doesn't matter to me. If the truth is that Jesus had nlt siblings, my faith isn't changed.

 

[Enoch111]

Who is "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3?

There is no question that one of the half-brothers of Jesus was "James" (as noted in these two passages). None of the brothers and sisters of Christ believed on Him until His resurrection. Therefore we must identify others who were also called James:

1. James the brother of John (sons of Zebedee), features prominently in the Gospels. Since this James is shown as being killed in Acts 12:2, the James mentioned in Acts 12:17 would have been the brother (or half-brother) of Jesus. He is in fact called "James, the Lord's brother".

2. James the son of Alphaeus, was a disciple and also apostle of Christ. His brother was Judas, but not Judas Iscariot.

3. "James the less", the brother of Joses, was the same as James the half-brother of Jesus (or the Lord's brother). His mother is identified as Mary. This is the James who was the leading elder in the church at Jerusalem, and who wrote the epistle in the NT. His brother is called "Judas" in the Gospels, and he is also the one called "Jude" (in the epistle) since he identifies himself as the brother of James.

It should be crystal clear that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had many children after her firstborn son, who was virgin born and conceived miraculously. All Catholic arguments are simply specious.

 

[Soul]

1. ..."brethren" sometimes means "kinsmen", "cousins" or simply, "fellow believers". While that is true, it ALSO can mean a sibling. Whether it be a half brother, a full brother or even a step brother.

I already covered that in the OP.

We know that in Bible terms a kinsmen can be called a brother or brethren. Why? Well because somewhere the Bible will explain that. An example is Abraham and Lot. Lot was his nephew, but in on verse he is called abram's brother. Furthermore, if you compare linages between the books of Kings, Samuel and Chronicles, you will learn that sometimes brothers were actually cousins or other relatives.

However, like I said, the Bible clarifies those cases. The Bible never directly--if at all-- the relationship between "James" and Jesus. Thus, its only reasonable to take the word "brother" as it's primary meaning, which is a sibling.

It is not reasonable to assume the brotherly relationship between "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Jesus were that of siblings because there are scriptural verses that illustrate they were not, which is confirmed by multiple prominent early Christians.

2. "Early Christian writers" (who weren't even around at the time) are not un agrreance as to whom James was. Some say a cousin, some say it was the apostle James, and some say James was the son of Joseph from a different marriage (thus making James a step brother). Well, because they can't agree... It sends up a red flag to me. Their only similarity seems to be to protect Mary's perpetual virginity.

You said, "early Christian writers," as a blanket statement, thus it is fair by me to say, in general, if all early Christian writers wanted to protect Mary of Josephs' perpetual virginity, then why did Helvidius [c. 340–390 AD], for example, say She was the mother of Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3?

Now, referring to an age-old occurrence, such as disagreement, as a reason to disregard the testimonials of prominent early Christians quoted in the OP — some of whom existed during the time of the apostles, or shortly thereafter, etc., is asinine and lazy.

Additionally, you are either ignorant of or omitted that enough early Christians understood Mary of Joseph only gave birth to Jesus for it to be considered part of the Christian Canon, even before Emperor Constantine gave the order for the Church to codify and organize its beliefs.

3. I have no doubt James was not a cousin because Jesus DID have a cousin... I guess it was a second cousin, but I am not sure how all that works in titles. Elizabeth was Mary's cousin and thus, Hohn the Baptist was Jesus's second cousin. There is very little information about Mary's family other than that. But the Bible knew how to identify a cousin, so I see no reason to believe that James and Jesus were cousins.

In Lk. 1:36 the word "cousin" (ᾰ̓νεψῐός [anepsios]) was not used, rather "kinsman" (συγγενίς [syngeneís]), which tells us Elizabeth was a female relative of Mary of Joseph, but not her exact relation, e.g., sibling, aunt, niece, cousin, etc., and thus contrary to what you may believe, the teaching that Elizabeth was Marys' cousin is not scripture-based. Or does your belief in this teaching stem from a specific oral tradition within Christianity?

4. Matthew 12. In that chapter Jesus is preaching and its mentioned that Mary and Jesus's brethren (remember, that can mean kinsmen OR siblings OR fellow believers) stood without and wanted to talk to him.

I am having a real hard time believing that the Apostle James was hanging out with Mary while Jesus was teaching.

Mt. 12:46/Mk. 3:31/ Lk. 8:19 does not say "...his mother and brothers Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) stood without, seeking to speak to him," rather "...his mother and brothers stood without, seeking to speak to him." Therefore, at least two brothers were present in this verse, and, considering the context, they were Jesus' kinsmen, but their exact relation, e.g., siblings, uncles, nephews, cousins, etc., much less their names, cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]).

The scriptural verses and testimonials of prominent early Christians in the OP illustrate Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically, cousins, as well as that of the four only James and Jude (Judas) were two of His twelve apostles. If you accepted this as truth, could you reasonably dispute it is a possibility some of those brothers, specifically Simon and Joseph, were the unnamed ones in Mt. 12:46?

6. Lets examine Matthew 13:55. They ask if this is Joseph's son and Mary's son. They were correct. Yes, we as believers know Joseph was his step father, but they didn't. However, they established a line of thinking: they were talking in terms of a nuclear family: mother, father and children. Jesus was just an ordinary guy like us! His daddy is Joseph, mom is Mary and his brothers and sisters we know. It just seems odd that his critics would add a disciple to a list of immediate family members.

The inquisitive Nazarenes using the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ) [adelphoi]) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and your interpretation of how they meant it at the time does not negate the other scriptural verses that illustrate those brothers were not Jesus' siblings.

7. The James in Acts 15 and 21 was a believer in following the Law. Does this sound like an apostle of Jesus?

Which laws do you believe Apostle James of Alphaeus failed to follow and in which beliefs did he lack?

 

[Soul]

There is no question that one of the half-brothers of Jesus was "James" (as noted in these two passages).

Considering the context, in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," but their exact relation — e.g., siblings, uncles, nephews, cousins, etc., cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]).

3. "James the less", the brother of Joses, was the same as James the half-brother of Jesus (or the Lord's brother). His mother is identified as Mary. This is the James who was the leading elder in the church at Jerusalem, and who wrote the epistle in the NT. His brother is called "Judas" in the Gospels, and he is also the one called "Jude" (in the epistle) since he identifies himself as the brother of James.

The scriptural verses and testimonials of prominent early Christians in the OP illustrate "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "Apostle James of Alphaeus," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James were the same, and that he, Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were sons of Josephs' brother [sibling], Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), and Mary of Josephs' sister-in-law, Mary of Cleophas/Clopas, and thus Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically, cousins.

 

[Enoch111]

...and thus Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically, cousins.

Sorry, but you are putting a spin on Scripture. "James, the Lord's brother" means exactly what it says. He was the son of Mary and Joseph. And that connects him to all the others mentioned in those two passages you quoted.

 

[Soul]

Sorry, but you are putting a spin on Scripture.

How so?

 

[Enoch111]

How so?

Here's why. In Galatians 1:19 Paul refers to "James, the Lord's brother" and that means exactly that. Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives that meaning and rejects all the other spins:

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός (adelphos)

ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas)...

 

[FHII]

I already covered that in the OP.



It is not reasonable to assume the brotherly relationship between "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Jesus were that of siblings because there are scriptural verses that illustrate they were not, which is confirmed by multiple prominent early Christians.



You said, "early Christian writers," as a blanket statement, thus it is fair by me to say, in general, if all early Christian writers wanted to protect Mary of Josephs' perpetual virginity, then why did Helvidius [c. 340–390 AD], for example, say She was the mother of Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3?

Now, referring to an age-old occurrence, such as disagreement, as a reason to disregard the testimonials of the early Christians quoted in the OP — some of whom existed during the time of the apostles, or shortly thereafter, etc., is asinine and lazy.

Additionally, you are either ignorant of or omitted that enough early Christians understood Mary of Joseph only gave birth to Jesus for it to be considered part of the Christian Canon, even before Emperor Constantine gave the order for the Church to codify and organize its beliefs.



In Lk. 1:36 the word "cousin" (ᾰ̓νεψῐός [anepsios]) was not used, rather "kinsman" (συγγενίς [syngeneís]), which tells us Elizabeth was a female relative of Mary of Joseph, but not her exact relation, e.g., sibling, aunt, niece, cousin, etc., and thus contrary to what you may believe, the teaching Elizabeth was Marys' cousin is not scripture-based. Or does your belief in this teaching stem from a specific oral tradition within Christianity?



Mt. 12:46 does not say "...his mother and all his brethren," rather "...his mother and brethren." Therefore, at least two unnamed brothers were present in this verse, and, considering the context, they were Jesus' kinsmen, but their exact relation, e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc., cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]).

The scriptural verses and testimonials of prominent early Christians in the OP illustrate Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically, cousins, as well as that of the four only James and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were two of His twelve apostles. If you accepted this as truth, could you reasonably dispute it is possible some of those kinsmen, specifically Simon and Joseph, were the unnamed kinsmen in Mt. 12:46–47?



The Nazarenes using the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and your interpretation of how they meant it at the time does not negate the other scriptural verses that illustrate those brothers were not Jesus' siblings.



Which laws do you believe Apostle James of Alphaeus failed to follow and in which beliefs did he lack?

You are going through quite a bit to try to prove Jesus didnt have siblings than it takes to just believe what the Bible says. You seem to be saying that the Apostles James and Thaddeus were actually related to Jesus, but not his his siblings. Why? Well because they had the same name. Thats it!

I can show verses that show Jesus's brothers didn't believe him, that they were with Mary at certain times when James and Thaddeus were elsewhere and have shown that the adversaries were talking about a nuclear or immediate family, so it makes no sense to believe they would include and extended family.

It won't make a bit of difference. I will let you carry one then... This is just another episode of "let me tell you why the Bible doesn't mean what it says!"

 

[Soul]

Here's why. In Galatians 1:19 Paul refers to "James, the Lord's brother" and that means exactly that. Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives that meaning and rejects all the other spins:

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός (adelphos)

ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas)...

The "James" in Ga. 1:19, whom you claim was a biological son of Joseph and Mary of Joseph, is not only called "the brother of the Lord" but an "apostle" as well. If you believe he was one of the twelve apostles, only two were named "James:" James of Zebedee and James of Alphaeus, and neither were born of Joseph and Mary of Joseph. Or do you believe "James the brother of the Lord" was an apostle but not one of the initial twelve?

 

[Soul]

You are going through quite a bit to try to prove Jesus didnt have siblings than it takes to just believe what the Bible says. You seem to be saying that the Apostles James and Thaddeus were actually related to Jesus, but not his his siblings. Why? Well because they had the same name. Thats it!

If you read the entire OP — and at this point I have no reason to think you did not — then you know that is not it. Therefore, I have to ask, are you deliberately misrepresenting me?

I can show verses that show Jesus's brothers didn't believe him, that they were with Mary at certain times when James and Thaddeus were elsewhere and have shown that the adversaries were talking about a nuclear or immediate family, so it makes no sense to believe they would include and extended family.

It won't make a bit of difference.

Jn. 7:5 does not say "For neither did his brothers Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) believe in him," rather "For neither did his brothers believe in him." Therefore, at least two brothers were present in this verse, and, considering the context, they were Jesus' kinsmen, but their exact relation, e.g., siblings, uncles, nephews, cousins, etc., much less their names, cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]).

Mt. 12:46/Mk. 3:31/Lk. 8:19 does not say "...his mother and brothers Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) stood without, seeking to speak to him," rather "...his mother and brothers stood without, seeking to speak to him." Therefore, at least two brothers were present in this verse, and, considering the context, they were Jesus' kinsmen, but their exact relation, e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc., much less their names, cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]).

Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 does not say "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his siblings James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude," rather "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude (Judas)." The word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) has a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc. Context tells us the aforementioned four brothers of Jesus were His kinsmen, but their exact relation, e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc., cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]). Now, if Jesus did not have siblings, then it would make sense for the inquisitive Nazarenes to have been referring to His next of kin.
The scriptural verses and testimonials of prominent early Christians in the OP illustrate "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "Apostle James of Alphaeus," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James were the same, and that he, Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were sons of Josephs' brother [sibling], Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), and Mary of Josephs' sister-in-law, Mary of Cleophas/Clopas, and thus Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically, cousins. If you accepted this as truth, could you reasonably dispute that it is a possibility Jesus' unbelieving brothers in Jn. 7:5 and His brothers who stood with His Mother in Mt. 12:46 were some of His brothers mentioned in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, specifically Simon and Joseph, since James and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were apostles, and thus believed, and often with Him?

By the by, did you forget to answer or do you refuse to answer my questions in post #4?

This is just another episode of "let me tell you why the Bible doesn't mean what it says!"

Oh, so, Scripture says Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were Jesus' siblings merely because it is written they were called His brothers? What happened to you repeating my point about the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) having a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc.?

 

[FHII]

If you read the entire OP — and at this point I have no reason to think you did not — then you know that is not it. Therefore, I have to ask, are you deliberately misrepresenting me?



Jn. 7:5 does not say "For neither did his brethren Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) believe in him," rather "For neither did his brethren believe in him." Therefore, at least two brothers were present in this verse, and, considering the context, they were Jesus' kinsmen, but their exact relation, e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc., much less their names, cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]).

Mt. 12:46 does not say "...his mother and brethren Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) stood without, seeking to speak to him," rather "...his mother and brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him." Therefore, at least two brothers were present in this verse, and, considering the context, they were Jesus' kinsmen, but their exact relation, e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc., much less their names, cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]).

Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 does not say "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his siblings James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude," rather "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude." The word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) has a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc. Context tells us the aforementioned four brothers of Jesus were His kinsmen, but their exact relation, e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc., cannot be determined from the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]). Now, if Jesus did not have siblings, then it would make sense for the inquisitive Nazarenes to have been referring to His next of kin.

The scriptural verses and testimonials of prominent early Christians in the OP illustrate "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "Apostle James of Alphaeus," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James were the same, and that he, Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were sons of Josephs' brother [sibling], Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), and Mary of Josephs' sister-in-law, Mary of Cleophas/Clopas, and thus Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically, cousins. If you accepted this as truth, could you reasonably dispute that it is a possibility Jesus' unbelieving brothers in Jn. 7:5 and His brothers who stood with His Mother in Mt. 12:46 were some of His brothers mentioned in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, specifically Simon and Joseph, since James and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were apostles, and thus believed, and often with Him?

By the by, did you forget to answer or do you refuse to answer my questions in post #4?



Oh, so, Scripture says Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were Jesus' siblings merely because it is written they were called His brothers? What happened to you repeating my point about the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) having a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc.?

That IS it! Your entire arguement is based on the names being the same -- nothing more-- and thats all your early Christian writers are going on as well.

Verses like John 7:5 do not say "some of his brethren" either, so that point works both ways. In light of that, I will believe the Bible as the Bible says it.

James in Acts 21 believed in mixing the Law with faith. The Apostle James sat under Jesus, had his understanding of the scriptures opened and while at first he may have stayed in error for a short time (as Peter did), he wouldn't have stayed in error.

As for the part about "brother" sometimes meaning kinsmen or other relative, you are still making the same mistake: you are forgetting that the primary meaning means sibling, and a male one at that. Given the fact that the detractors were talking about his immediate family AND that sisters were mentioned, it makes sense first to go with the primary meaning. It makes no sense to start with mother and father and then switch over to another family (which is NEVER proven to be related to Jesus to begin with other than some of them have the same names).

 

[Curtis]

Who is "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3? Some teach that he, Simon, Joseph, and Jude were Jesus' step/half-brothers, based on the assumption "sibling" applies to the word "brethren" or "brothers" in the following verse:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude" (Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3)

Now, the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) has a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc. Considering the context of the aforementioned verse, these four brothers of Jesus were His kinsmen. Is there actual evidence to support they were kinsmen, as in "siblings," specifically, step/half-brothers? The answer lies in comparing "James" with the identity of the only other "James," an apostle, called Jesus' brother, as in "kinsman:"

"...other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord" (Ga. 1:19)

Summary​

The scriptural verses and testimonials of prominent early Christians above illustrate "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "Apostle James of Alphaeus," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James were the same, and that he, Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were sons of Josephs' brother [sibling], Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), and Mary of Josephs' sister-in-law, Mary of Cleophas/Clopas, and thus Jesus' brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically, cousins. This disproves the teaching that states they were Jesus' step-brothers and undermines the teaching that states they were half-brothers.

Except the first verse you cited does not allow for separating Mary His mother from

This is an old debate on this forum and without doubt one that has been a debate that is centuries old. I believe the underlying reason for the debate is because the perpetual virginity of Mary is at stake.

My belief is that yes, they are the half brothers of Jesus. This debate isn't going to be settled here, but at least hear my reasoning:

1. The first thing people who believe they were not siblings is that "brethren" sometimes means "kinsmen", "cousins" or simply, "fellow believers". While that is true, it ALSO can mean a sibling. Whether it be a half brother, a full brother or even a step brother.

We know that in Bible terms a kinsmen can be called a brother or brethren. Why? Well because somewhere the Bible will explain that. An example is Abraham and Lot. Lot was his nephew, but in on verse he is called abram's brother. Furthermore, if you compare linages between the books of Kings, Samuel and Chronicles, you will learn that sometimes brothers were actually cousins or other relatives.

However, like I said, the Bible clarifies those cases. The Bible never directly--if at all-- the relationship between "James" and Jesus. Thus, its only reasonable to take the word "brother" as it's primary meaning, which is a sibling.

2. "Early Christian writers" (who weren't even around at the time) are not un agrreance as to whom James was. Some say a cousin, some say it was the apostle James, and some say James was the son of Joseph from a different marriage (thus making James a step brother). Well, because they can't agree... It sends up a red flag to me. Their only similarity seems to be to protect Mary's perpetual virginity.
3. I have no doubt James was not a cousin because Jesus DID have a cousin... I guess it was a second cousin, but I am not sure how all that works in titles. Elizabeth was Mary's cousin and thus, Hohn the Baptist was Jesus's second cousin. There is very little information about Mary's family other than that. But the Bible knew how to identify a cousin, so I see no reason to believe that James and Jesus were cousins.

4. Matthew 12. In that chapter Jesus is preaching and its mentioned that Mary and Jesus's brethren (remember, that can mean kinsmen OR siblings OR fellow believers) stood without and wanted to talk to him.

I am having a real hard time believing that the Apostle James was hanging out with Mary while Jesus was teaching.

5. Jesus also had sisters. Never named... Butt Mark 6:3. Says he had some. Yes, sisters can mean sisters in the Lord but while brother and brethren can mean something wider than siblings, sister is rarely used in that way.

6. Lets examine Matthew 13:55. They ask if this is Joseph's son and Mary's son. They were correct. Yes, we as believers know Joseph was his step father, but they didn't. However, they established a line of thinking: they were talking in terms of a nuclear family: mother, father and children. Jesus was just an ordinary guy like us! His daddy is Joseph, mom is Mary and his brothers and sisters we know. It just seems odd that his critics would add a disciple to a list of immediate family members.

7. The James in Acts 15 and 21 was a believer in following the Law. Does this sound like an apostle of Jesus?

So there you have my talking points. I think tjey are reasonable to consider. In the end, it doesn't matter to me. If the truth is that Jesus had nlt siblings, my faith isn't changed.

They go to great lengths to try to prove the mythical perpetual virginity of Mary - which is irrelevant anyway, because it’s only important that she was a virgin before Jesus was born - not after - and that mythology is disproved by one verse, which says Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary after Jesus was born.

That nullifies needing to claim Jesus had no brothers or sisters, since even if He didn’t, His mom was still an ex virgin, not perpetually a virgin.

Mat 1:20 While he was thinking about this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary to be your wife. For it is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived.

Mat 1:21 She will have a son, and you will name him Jesus—because he will save his people from their sins."

Mat 1:22 Now all this happened in order to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet,

Mat 1:23 "A virgin will become pregnant and have a son, and he will be called Immanuel" (which means, "God is with us").

Mat 1:24 So when Joseph woke up, he married Mary, as the angel of the Lord had told him to.

Mat 1:25 But he had no sexual relations with her until she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.

He had no sex with her until Jesus was born.

Case closed.

 

[FHII]

Mat 1:25 But he had no sexual relations with her until she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.

He had no sex with her until Jesus was born.

Case closed.

Well yea... It would seem so. But if they will go as far as they do to try to prove that James, Joses, Jude, Simon and the sisters weren't siblings, wait to you see with how they butcher this verse!

 

[Berserk]

THE CASE FOR MARY'S LEVIRATE MARRIAGE TO JOSEPH'S BROTHER, CLOPAS

(1) In his Commentary on John John Chrysostom, bishop of Antioch, accepts a Jewish Christian tradition that, after Joseph' death, Mary marries Joseph's brother Clopas to fulfill the obligation of levirate marriage (see Deuteronomy 25:5ff.): that is, Joseph died without biological children. So Mary married Clopas and their children were considered Joseph's sons. Such a marriage would be incestuous if Joseph were Jesus' biological father; so such a marriage, if true, would prove that Jesus' family did not view Jesus as Joseph's natural son! Why would Jewish Christian tradition concoct such a wild tradition, if it were not true? So its very implausibility gives it logical merit.

Joseph figures in no story of the adult Jesus' ministry and at the cross Jesus entrusts His mother's care to the Beloved Disciple, something He would never do if Joseph were still alive to care for Mary. By the same logic, Mary's 2nd husband Clopas must also now be dead because he too figures in no Gospel story. The last time we see Joseph alive is in Luke 2:41-52, when Jesus is just 12 years old.

(2) Only this tradition adequately explains the 2nd century Jewish Christian tradition that Jesus' brothers were also his cousins. They were biological cousins, who legally also became brothers by levirate marriage.
This levirate marriage can explain the early Jewish tradition that Jesus is the son of a Roman soldier named Panthera. In Greek "pentherides" means "the husband's brother." When Greek is transliterated into Hebrew, the suffix "ides" is dropped, leaving"penther." The noun then became confused as the name of a Roman soldier Panthera. Remember, in rabbinic Hebrew the vowels are dropped; so "Penther" is easily taken as "Panther." Thus, the original Jewish tradition identifies Jesus as the legal son of a levir [i.e. of a husband's brother)

(3) This interpretation makes sense of an alternative understanding of John 19:25:
"Standing near the cross of Jesus were His mother and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas [His mother!) and His mother's sister [Mary Magdalene, Jesus' aunt].
Of course, this interpretation faces 2 objections:
(i) The Gospels never identify Mary Magdalene as Jesus' aunt.
(ii) It is unlikely that 2 sisters would both be named Mary.
Objection (i) can be answered by noting that Luke never even bothers to tell us that James is Jesus' brother. The Gospels show no interest in identifying Jesus' female relatives, including His own sisters.
Objection (ii) can be answered by noting that 2 Jewish siblings occasionally have the same name in a compound name; so 2 sisters named Mary and Mary Magdalene have historical precedent.

 

[Soul]

That IS it! Your entire arguement is based on the names being the same -- nothing more-- and thats all your early Christian writers are going on as well.

If my argument was solely based on names being the same then why did I reach the conclusion of Apostle James of Alphaeus, not Apostle James of Zebedee, and Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus, not Apostle Judas Iscariot, as being the brothers of Jesus spoken of in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3?

Also, for you to claim, without evidence, that all the testimonials from the prominent early Christians quoted in the OP are also solely based on matching names is arrogant, negligent, and lazy.

Verses like John 7:5 do not say "some of his brethren" either, so that point works both ways.

It does not, because I did not say or imply Jn. 7:5 says "For neither did some of his brothers...," rather I said it says "...his mother and brothers stood without, seeking to speak to him," nor did I paraphrase this verse using the words "some of."

I did not say or imply Mt. 12:46/Mk. 3:31/Lk. 8:19 says "...his mother and some of His brothers stood without, seeking to speak to him," rather I said it says "...his mother and brothers stood without, seeking to speak to him," nor did I paraphrase this verse using the words "some of."

I did not say or imply Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 says "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and some of his brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude (Judas)," rather I said it says "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude (Judas)," nor did I paraphrase this verse using the word "some of."

I used the words "some of" in a hypothetical question that asks if you could reasonably dispute what would be a possibility in a certain scenario, which you have to answer.

To the word "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]) in Jn. 7:5 and Mt. 12:46/Mk. 3:31/Lk. 8:19 you apply the names of Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas), despite the identities of the "brothers," and the exact number of them being referred to cannot be determined from the word itself. This does not mean that all or some of the four are not the brothers spoken of, but an assumption is not a fact.

As for the part about "brother" sometimes meaning kinsmen or other relative, you are still making the same mistake: you are forgetting that the primary meaning means sibling, and a male one at that. Given the fact that the detractors were talking about his immediate family AND that sisters were mentioned, it makes sense first to go with the primary meaning.

How could I have made the mistake of forgetting the primary meaning of the word "brother" is "sibling" when you have not shown that is indeed the case, much less explained how you are using "primary meaning?"

...I will believe the Bible as the Bible says it.

Scripture says what? That "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3/Ga. 1:19 and Jesus were brothers, as in "siblings?"

 

[FHII]

If my argument was solely based on names being the same then why did I reach the conclusion of Apostle James of Alphaeus, not Apostle James of Zebedee, and Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus, not Apostle Judas Iscariot, as being the brothers of Jesus spoken of in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3? Think before you speak, please.

That's a rediculous question. Must I really spell it out for you? Its because James the Less DID have a brother who was surnamed Jude while James of Zebedee did not. And Judas Iscariot was NOT his brother.

So once again, just because 3 brothers of one family have the same name as 3 brothers from another family, it DOES NOT mean they are the same.

Also, for you to claim, without evidence, that all the testimonials from the prominent early Christians quoted in the OP are also solely based on names being the same is arrogant, negligent, and lazy.

Oh really? Did they have some Bible verse that shows they were the same or that they weren't siblings, or are they just using the same logic as you?

No, they don't. They are using the same logic.

It does not, because I did not say or imply Jn. 7:5 says "For neither did some of his brethren...,"

I used the words "some of His brothers" in a hypothetical question that asks if you could reasonably dispute what would be a possibility in a certain scenario, which you have to answer.

Ok, which is it? Did you or didn't you?

Once again, your theory is based solely that James, Joseph and Jude had the same names as 3 of the 4 brothers of Jesus.

 

[Soul]

That's a rediculous question. Must I really spell it out for you? Its because James the Less DID have a brother who was surnamed Jude while James of Zebedee did not. And Judas Iscariot was NOT his brother.

Precisely. If my reasoning was based solely on any two people having matching names, I would not have included pointing out Apostle James of Alphaeus had a brother [sibling] named "Jude" (Judas) and Apostle James of Zebedee only a brother [sibling] named "John," etc. And it is just one example of the different pieces of information I used to reach my conclusion as made clear in the OP. Your own use of this example can be taken as inadvertently admitting that I have more reason than you claim.

Regarding the prominent early Christians I mentioned in the OP, you accuse their arguments of being flawed for the same reasons you say mine are. It goes without saying you being wrong about my argument invalidates your accusation against them since they are the same argument. And, like my own arguments, you have to ignore anything they have said on the subject to decide that they reached their conclusions based solely on matching names.

Oh really? Did they have some Bible verse that shows they were the same or that they weren't siblings, or are they just using the same logic as you?

No, they don't. They are using the same logic.

Your homework is to show me how everything in the OP can be reduced to my argument being based solely on matching names and explain what you mean when you say the primary meaning of the word "brother" is "sibling." Answer all my unanswered questions for extra credit. Thus far, all you have done is repeat this broad accusation that my conclusion in the OP is based solely on matching names, make assumptions, and ignore most of what I have said in the OP and our discussion.

Ok, which is it? Did you or didn't you?

You accuse me of inserting the words "some of" into certain scriptural verses and I showed you I did not. Can you not understand the difference between a person asking a hypothetical question regarding particular scenes in Scripture and a person doing what you have done, which is to claim to "believe the Bible as the Bible says," and then misrepresent it by inserting words into verses that are not there? There is such an obvious difference that I cannot tell if you truly believe we are doing the same thing or are just grasping at any asinine excuse to avoid answering my hypothetical question.

Once again, your theory is based solely that James, Joseph and Jude had the same names as 3 of the 4 brothers of Jesus.

Already addressed. You claim your conclusion is based on what Scripture says. So, Scripture says Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus' siblings? Regarding James specifically you believe he and the "James" in Ga. 1:19 were the same, yes?

 

[FHII]

Precisely. If my reasoning was based solely on any two people having matching names, I would not have included pointing out Apostle James of Alphaeus had a brother named "Jude" (Judas/Thaddeus) and Apostle James of Zebedee only a brother named "John," etc. And it is just one example of the different pieces of information I used to reach my conclusion as made clear in the OP. Your own use of this example can be taken as inadvertently admitting that I have more reason than you claim.

Regarding the prominent early Christians I mentioned in the OP, you accuse their arguments of being flawed for the same reasons you say mine are. It goes without saying you being wrong about my argument invalidates your accusation against them since they are the same argument. And, like my own arguments, you have to ignore anything they have said on the subject to decide that they reached their conclusions based solely on matching names.



Your homework is to show me how everything in the OP can be reduced to my argument being based solely on matching names and explain what you mean when you say the primary meaning of the word "brother" is "sibling." Answer all my unanswered questions for extra credit. Thus far, all you have done is repeat this broad accusation that my conclusion in the OP is based solely on matching names, make assumptions, and ignore most of what I have said in the OP and our discussion.



You accused me of inserting the words "some of" into certain scriptural verses and I showed you I did not. Can you not understand the difference between a person asking a hypothetical question regarding particular scenes in Scripture and a person doing what you have done which is to claim to "believe the Bible as the Bible says," and then misrepresent it by inserting words into verses that are not there? There is such an obvious difference that I cannot tell if you truly believe we are doing the same thing or are just grasping at any asinine excuse to avoid answering my hypothetical question.



Already addressed. You claim your conclusion is based on what Scripture says. Therefore, Scripture says Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus' siblings? Regarding James, specifically, you believe he and the "James" in Ga. 1:19 were the same, yes?

This is rediculous and going nowhere. I've detailed all the problems with your theory and all your answers are pretty much based on "what if" scenarios to explain why the Bible doesn't mean what it says. This however, beats all:

You accused me of inserting the words "some of" into certain scriptural verses and I showed you I did not.

I showed you otherwise. For Pete's sake I even showed you contradicting statements you made! You claim that it was just a "hypothetical question... Heck, I never saw you asking a question in those sections. You weren't asking a question: you were making a statement. That statement was hypothetical though, I will give you that. HIGHLY hypothetical!

Maybe later on you can edit your posts and insert one.

Can you not understand the difference between a person asking a hypothetical question regarding particular scenes in Scripture and a person doing what you have done which is to claim to "believe the Bible as the Bible says," and then misrepresent it by inserting words into verses that are not there?

That must be a hypothetical question. Yes, I believe the Bible as the Bible says. Imagine that concept! Did I insert words into verses? No... I didn't.

Soul, this next section isn't specifically for you. You can respond, but its for anyone who may be following this thread. I am done with it because while I see it as a worthy topic, the reasoning (or lack thereof) is terrible:

Here are my conclusions on this subject and debate:

Mark 6:3 says that Jesus had 4 brothers: James, Joses, Juda and Simon, as well as sisters. Through several scriptures we can confirm that the Apostle James the less had 2 brothers named Juda (he was the Apostle Thaddeus) and Joses. It is never confirmed that he had one named Simon or had sisters. Their mother was also named Mary, and the Bible confirms that this Mary and Jesus's mother were sisters.

While this is intriguing, the is no evidence that 3 of the 4 brothers of Jesus were the same as that of James and his other two brothers. Furthermore, there is no mention of a 4th brother or sisters which would've made the case stronger, but not locked in.

A big point of those who believe Jesus didn't have siblings is that "brother" or "brethren" can have a wide variant of meanings: sibling, cousin, fellow believer, of the same bloodline or even associate. As a side note, using that reasoning, James the Less and his brothers may not have been anywhere near related to Jesus, and the two Mary's may not have been related at all! They could've been just associates or fellow Jews.

While those who believe the contrary do acknowledge that a brother can mean sibling, they never seem to realize that it is the primary meaning. Unless the Bible clarifies itself, when the Bible says "brother" you should stick with the primary meaning. I just believe this as common sense. But when you have a Strong's dictionary, I guess some people just seem to assume they can pick the meaning they want.

I have presented many scripture that say that Jesus's brothers or brethren didn't believe him an were elsewhere at a time that James the Less and Thaddeus were in another place. That's all excused with "well maybe..." Scenarios. That's not enough to convince me.

I am not one to shy away from difficult questions. "James" is called the Lord's brother. I haven't addressed that. I have no doubt that the Jemes Paul was speaking of was the Bishop of Jerusalem and the one in Acts 21 and the author of the Epistle of James.

It seems that he is called an Apostle, but he wasn't. It real tempting to use my detractors own methods to explain this away. But I won't. Seeing as how my detractor's don't even believe he was his sibling, why bother? By their logic, he could've just been a fellow Jew, which he certainly was since he believed even Christians should keep the law.

It doesn't matter to me either way whether Jesus had siblings, but all reasonable evidence points to the notion he did. Denying this evidence requires going against primary definitions when no clear cut evidence suggests otherwise. I am more upset at the "what if" games and the "let me tell you why the Bible doesn't mean what it says" games than I am act the actual theory.

The OP... And I mean the ORIGINAL POST (not the edited one) claimed that the evidence presented was indisputable. It is not only disputable, but highly doubtful.

If you want to believe that Jesus had no siblings, that is fine if you can live with me disagreeing.

That is my final statement. Its meant for those who are following this thread. Soul... Do whatever the hell you want to do with it. I really don't care.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is no question that one of the half-brothers of Jesus was "James" (as noted in these two passages). None of the brothers and sisters of Christ believed on Him until His resurrection. Therefore we must identify others who were also called James:

1. James the brother of John (sons of Zebedee), features prominently in the Gospels. Since this James is shown as being killed in Acts 12:2, the James mentioned in Acts 12:17 would have been the brother (or half-brother) of Jesus. He is in fact called "James, the Lord's brother".

2. James the son of Alphaeus, was a disciple and also apostle of Christ. His brother was Judas, but not Judas Iscariot.

3. "James the less", the brother of Joses, was the same as James the half-brother of Jesus (or the Lord's brother). His mother is identified as Mary. This is the James who was the leading elder in the church at Jerusalem, and who wrote the epistle in the NT. His brother is called "Judas" in the Gospels, and he is also the one called "Jude" (in the epistle) since he identifies himself as the brother of James.

It should be crystal clear that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had many children after her firstborn son, who was virgin born and conceived miraculously. All Catholic arguments are simply specious.

Uhhhh - wrong.

The mother of James the Less/Younger is identified as "Mary" - but NOT Mary, mother of Jesus. This "other" Mary is identified as her (Jesus's mother's ) "Adelphe", which means "sister". We KNOW that they aren't sisters because they are BOTH named "Mary":

What does the Bible have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.