Who is "James?"

[Soul]

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.

Initially, you said, "Your entire argument is based on the names being the same -- nothing more-- and thats all your early Christian writers are going on as well." It is only after you inadvertently proved your own accusation to be wrong and me explaining why, that you changed your accusation against my argument to be it is "pretty much based on "what if" scenarios," which is also wrong because my argument is not based in part on the one hypothetical question I asked you as made clear in the OP.

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!

The statements of mine you quoted were not contradictory, because one was about how I used the words "some of" and the other about how I did not use the words "some of."

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.

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

I do not need to edit a post and insert the hypothetical question because I already asked it in post #11. How could you have not seen it when you replied to it? I said, "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?"

The bold is the hypothetical question, not a statement, and instead of answering you replied to it with, "Verses like John 7:5 do not say "some of his brethren..." as if I quoted this verse and others and inserted words that were not there, which I did not.

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.

So when you say the primary meaning of the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) is "sibling" you mean it is listed first in James Strongs' dictionary. Thank you for finally answering this question.

Mark 6:3 says that Jesus had 4 brothers: James, Joses, Juda and Simon,...

Correct, and, considering the context of the verse, they were Jesus' brothers as in "kinsmen," e.g., siblings, uncles, nephews, cousins, etc. You state that they were siblings merely because that meaning is listed first, under the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) in James Strongs' dictionary. So for thousands of years, people did not know, nor could know, Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were Jesus' siblings until James Strong, in the 1800's, since you say, "Unless the Bible clarifies itself, when the Bible says "brother," you should stick with the primary meaning," and every unclarified use of the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) or "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]) means to whomever it applies they were Jesus' siblings. I would laugh if I was not feeling embarrassed for you.

"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.

So you do believe the "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the "James" in Ga. 1:19 were the same. Thank you for finally answering this question. You say you "believe the Bible as the Bible says it," but Scripture does not say that "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James" in Ga. 1:19, "James" in Ac. 12:17, "James" in Ac. 21:18, "James" the author of the Epistle of James, were the same. This does not mean they were not, but merely stating that they were does not make it so. You need to explain how you concluded that "James" in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James" in Ga. 1:19, "James" in Ac. 12:17, "James" in Ac. 21:18, the author of the Epistle of James were the same and not an apostle.

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.

You say you "believe the Bible as the Bible says it," but Scripture does not say that James the Less is Apostle James of Alphaeus, much less call him an apostle, nor that his brother [sibling] was Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus). This does not mean they were not, but merely stating they were does not make it so. You need to explain how you concluded that James the Less (Mt. 27:55–56, Mk. 15:40–41) and Apostle James of Alphaeus (Mt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18, Lk. 6:15–16, Ac. 1:13), and Mary the mother of James the Less (Mt. 27:55–56, Mk. 15:40–41) and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas (Jn. 19:25) were the same.

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.

There is one verse in Scripture — not many verses — that says Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him, and that is Jn. 7:5. There are three verses in Scripture — not many verses — that say Jesus' Mother and brothers arrived looking to speak to Him and they are Mt. 12:46/Mk. 3:31/Lk. 8:19. You say you "believe the Bible as the Bible says it," but Scripture does not say that those brothers were Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas). This does not mean they were not, but merely stating they were does not make it so. You need to explain how you concluded that the brothers in Jn. 7:5 and Mt. 12:46/Mk. 3:31/Lk. 8:19 were Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas).

I am done with it...

Soul... Do whatever the hell you want to do with it. I really don't care.

You are done because if you could do what you need to do you would have done it already.

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

I know Jesus did not have siblings because 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. I can live with this conclusion if I was the only person on Earth who did not conclude otherwise.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

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?

The problem here is that you assume the 12 original apostles were the only apostles. The Bible mentions or imply Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, and Jesus' younger brothers James and Jude were ordained as apostles under different circumstances than the ones who were among the original 120 followers at the Pentecost in Acts 2.

 

[Illuminator]

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.

Reducing Jesus' mother to a re-usable incubator does wonders for the uniqueness if the Incarnation, doesn't it? This is why, IMO, Jesus having siblings is a doctrine of demons. It diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation.
Jesus having biological brothers contradicts the teachings of all the reformers, even Calvin, no friend of the CC. It's a mid 18th century invention that has infected segments of Protestantism like a virus.

 

[Soul]

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

In Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 Mary of Joseph is not called the mother of Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas), rather only Jesus is called Her Son, and in Ac. 1:14 She is only called "the mother of Jesus."

Lk. 2:41–51 describes Joseph and Mary of Joseph taking Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve for the required observance of Passover. We agree He was the first child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account?

Jn. 19:26-27 says, "When Jesus, therefore, had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. If Jesus had at least four siblings, why were none of them chosen to take in Mary of Joseph?

 

[Curtis]

In Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 Mary of Joseph is not called the mother of Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus), rather only Jesus is called Her Son, and in Ac. 1:14 She is only called "the mother of Jesus."

Lk. 2:41–51 describes Joseph and Mary of Joseph taking Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve for the required observance of Passover. Everyone agrees that He was the first child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account?

Jn. 19:26-27 says, "When Jesus, therefore, had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. If Jesus had at least four siblings, why were none of them chosen to take in Mary of Joseph?

Going to great lengths to try to prove Mary had no children after Jesus, is so very irrelevant, because even if she had no other children, she’s still an ex virgin - since scripture unequivocally states that Joseph had sex with Mary, his wife, after Jesus was born.

She’s the ex-virgin Mary, mother of Jesus.

Shalom.

 

[Soul]

Going to great lengths to try to prove Mary had no children after Jesus, is so very irrelevant, because even if she had no other children, she’s still an ex virgin - since scripture unequivocally states that Joseph had sex with Mary, his wife, after Jesus was born.

She’s the ex-virgin Mary, mother of Jesus.

Shalom.

You did not answer the questions and merely stating Mt. 1:25 "unequivocally states that Joseph had sex with Mary" does not make it so.

 

[Soul]

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.

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.

 

[Berserk]

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.

Nope! Your false equivalences may be summarily dispatched by 2 points:
(1) The NT repeatedly uses "adelphos" to designate Jesus' brothers; so if "cousins" were intended, then the perfectly good NT word for "cousin" ("Greek" "aneprios"--Colossians 4:10) would be expected.
(2) "Alphaeus" is a different name from Cleophas.
Second, "Clopas" (Joseph's brother) is a different name from "Cleopas," which, as scholars recognize, is a shorter version of "Cleopatris."
My posted levirate marriage theory is thus the only way to defend the claim that Jesus' brothers are also his cousins. They are cousins by birth and legally also become brothers by levirate marriage.

And I repeat: Acts 1:14 makes it clear that Jesus' brothers took care of Mary after Jesus' crucifixion.

 

[Soul]

Nope! Your false equivalences may be summarily dispatched by 2 points:

(1) The NT repeatedly uses "adelphos" to designate Jesus' brothers; so if "cousins" were intended, then the perfectly good NT word for "cousin" ("Greek" "aneprios"--Colossians 4:10) would be expected.

The word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) has a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc. The brothers [siblings] Eleazar and Kish were the sons of Moholi. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brothers," the sons of Kish, who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22). Therefore, using the word "ἀνεψιός" [anepsios] is not the only way to refer to a cousin.

(2) "Alphaeus" is a different name from Cleophas.
Second, "Clopas" (Joseph's brother) is a different name from "Cleopas," which, as scholars recognize, is a shorter version of "Cleopatris."

It is common in Scripture to find people called by an entirely different name.

And I repeat: Acts 1:14 makes it clear that Jesus' brothers took care of Mary after Jesus' crucifixion.

It does not, but it does refer to Mary of Joseph as only the Mother of Jesus:

"All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Ac. 1:14)

 

[Berserk]

Soul: "The word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) has a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc. The brothers [siblings] Eleazar and Kish were the sons of Moholi. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brothers," the sons of Kish, who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
Can it be you don't know the OT was written in Hebrew? The point of issue is Greek usage and there is no evidence that "brothers" ("adelphoi") can mean "cousins.

Soul: "Therefore, using the word "ἀνεψιός" [anepsios] is not the only way to refer to a cousin."

Given the standard Greek usage of "anepsios" for "cousin" (e. g. Col. 4:10), you bear the burden of proof for translating "adelphoi" as "cousins."



Soul: "It is common in Scripture to find people called by an entirely different name."

I challenge you to identify even one clear NT example! Contradictory lists of "the 12" merely mean that different men among the greater number of disicples are including in a list: e.g. there is no reason to identify Thaddeus as "Judas of Jacob."



Soul" It does not, but it does refer to Mary of Joseph as only the Mother of Jesus:
"All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brethren." (Ac. 1:14)."

All academic commentaries on Acts take the juxtaposition of Mary and "His brothers" as warrant for translating "adelphoi" as family "brothers."
The mere fact that Mary is with family members should preclude any claim that Mary instead lives with a non-family member!

 

[Soul]

Can it be you don't know the OT was written in Hebrew? The point of issue is Greek usage and there is no evidence that "brothers" ("adelphoi") can mean "cousins. Given the standard Greek usage of "anepsios" for "cousin" (e. g. Col. 4:10), you bear the burden of proof for translating "adelphoi" as "cousins."

Obviously, the OT was written in Hebrew. However, in the NT different authors wrote in their own style and many of them wrote Koine Greek with a Hebrew background and sentiment. Scholars can often tell the difference between a Hebrew writing in Koine Greek and a Greek writing in Koine Greek. This is because the Jew writes in Koine Greek as if they were writing in Hebrew in many ways using the same conventions they would in Hebrew. Now, because there is no word for "cousin" in Hebrew or Aramaic, it is less likely for a Jew writing in Koine Greek to use the Koine Greek word "ἀνεψιός" [anepsios] for cousin.

The word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) has a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc.

In the OT, the brothers [siblings] Eleazar and Kish were the sons of Moholi. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brothers," as in "kinsmen," because they married sons of Kish, and thus were their cousins. (1 Chr. 23:21–22)

"υἱοὶ Μεραρι· Μοολι καὶ Μουσι. υἱοὶ Μοολι· Ελεαζαρ καὶ Κις. καὶ ἀπέθανεν Ελεαζαρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦσαν αὐτῷ υἱοὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ θυγατέρες, καὶ ἔλαβον αὐτὰς υἱοὶ Κις ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν." (1 Chr. 23:21–22)

This is an example of the word "ἀδελφοὶ" (adelphoi [brothers]) being used to refer to kinsmen — specifically cousins, as the lineage shows, when translating this verse from Hebrew to Koine Greek.

Therefore, to argue Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were not Jesus' brothers as in "kinsmen," specifically cousins — merely because a Koine Greek word for cousins was not used in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is weak, at best.

I challenge you to identify even one clear NT example!

• Apostle Saul was also called "Paul" (Ac. 13:9)
• Apostle Simon was also called "Peter" (Jn. 1:42)
• Apostle Thomas was also called "Didymus" (Jn. 11:16;20:24)
• Apostle Matthew was also called "Levi" (Mt. 9:9, Mk. 2:14, Lk. 5:27)
• Apostle Jude/Judas of Alphaeus was also called "Thaddeus" (Mt. 10:3-4, Mk. 3:18-19, Lk. 6:15-16)

Therefore, it is not surprising Alphaeus was also called by a different name such as Cleophas/Clopas.

All academic commentaries on Acts take the juxtaposition of Mary and "His brothers" as warrant for translating "adelphoi" as family "brothers."

The mere fact that Mary is with family members should preclude any claim that Mary instead lives with a non-family member!

Ac. 1:14 does not say Mary of Joseph is with kinsmen, rather that She is among Jesus's "brothers," and the words "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) or "brothers" (ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi]) have a range of meanings, e.g., "fellow believer," fellow countryman," "kinsman," e.g., sibling, uncle, nephew, cousin, etc. Ac. 1:14 does refer to Mary of Joseph as only the "Mother of Jesus."

 

[Soul]

The problem here is that you assume the 12 original apostles were the only apostles. The Bible mentions or imply Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, and Jesus' younger brothers James and Jude were ordained as apostles under different circumstances than the ones who were among the original 120 followers at the Pentecost in Acts 2.

No assumptions were made in the post of mine you quoted. And merely stating there is a verse that states or implies James and Jude (Judas) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were apostles but not of the twelve does not make it so. You need to cite the verse and show how it implies James and Jude (Judas) in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were ordained apostles but not of the twelve.

 

[Soul]

YOu misdefine adelphos as kinsmen (uncle cousin nephew etc.) it does not mean that. Phillips, Strongs, Vines , wuset, Zodhiates all agree the BLB definition of adelphos

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
   
   
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
   
   
3. any fellow or man
   
   
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
   
   
5. an associate in employment or office
   
   
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
      
      
   2. all men
      
      
   3. apostles
      
      
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

As you can see in your own post, @Ronald Nolette, I was not wrong when I said one of the meanings of the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) is "kinsman," as kinsmen are blood relations, e.g., uncles, nephews, cousins, etc.

Now this definition further fails as this was Jewish Pharisees speaking, so they would not have specifically named four men as fellow Jews, or simply just people, fellow workers (not at all th econtext) nor Christians.

Scripture does not say it was the Pharisees speaking in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3. This does not mean it was not, but merely stating does not make it so. You need to explain how you concluded that it was the Pharisees speaking in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3. Then, explain why whoever was speaking could not have been specifically naming some of Jesus' next of kin if He did not have siblings.

Now in the OT times when the septuigant was being written adelphos was used of fellow Jews and of relations.

But in NT times when one spoke of a cousin, uncle, nephew etc. the word synenges was used.

The OT was written in Hebrew. In the NT, different authors wrote in their own style and many of them wrote Koine Greek with a Hebrew background and sentiment. Scholars can often tell the difference between a Hebrew writing in Koine Greek and a Greek writing in Koine Greek. This is because the Jew writes in Koine Greek as if they were writing in Hebrew in many ways using the same conventions they would in Hebrew. Now, because there is no word for "cousin" in Hebrew or Aramaic, it is less likely for a Jew writing in Koine Greek to use the Koine Greek word "ἀνεψιός" [anepsios] for cousin.

In the OT, the brothers [siblings] Eleazar and Kish were the sons of Moholi. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brothers," as in "kinsmen," because they married sons of Kish, and thus were their cousins. (1 Chr. 23:21–22)

"υἱοὶ Μεραρι· Μοολι καὶ Μουσι. υἱοὶ Μοολι· Ελεαζαρ καὶ Κις. καὶ ἀπέθανεν Ελεαζαρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦσαν αὐτῷ υἱοὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ θυγατέρες, καὶ ἔλαβον αὐτὰς υἱοὶ Κις ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν." (1 Chr. 23:21–22)

This is an example of the word "ἀδελφοὶ" [adelphoi] (brothers) being used to refer to kinsmen — specifically cousins, as the lineage shows, when translating this verse from Hebrew to Koine Greek.

Therefore, to argue that Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were not Jesus' brothers as in "kinsmen," specifically cousins — merely because a Koine Greek word meaning "cousins" only was not used in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is weak at best.

This argument also fails because they use the female form of brother, adelphe:

1. a full, own sister
   
   
2. one connected by the tie of the Christian religion

Also they would not have used adelphe is speaking of just fellow Jews. Given the context and location and specificity of the talk- we can only conclude thatr James, Joses, Simon and Judah was Jesus half brothers and he had at least 2 half sisters. This is the normal read of this passage. to get an alternative reading, the rule of grammar is the text itself requires an alternative reading and simple relative is not an option linguistically here.

Merely stating we can only conclude Simon, Joseph, James, Jude (Judas) were Jesus' siblings does not make it so. You need to show why we can only conclude Simon, Joseph, James, Jude (Judas) were Jesus' siblings.

In the OP, I have shown "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. Thus far, you have not attempted to tackle any of my evidence, only accused me of misdefining the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) and I showed you I did not.

Additionally, Jn. 19:25 says, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." In this verse, only Mary of Cleophas/Clopas was called Mary of Joseph's sister (ἀδελφή [adelphe]). Do you believe John called Mary of Joseph and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas sisters, as in siblings? Or do you believe John called Mary of Joseph and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas sisters as in fellow believers and thus excluded disciple Mary Magdalene?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

As you can see in your own post, @Ronald Nolette, I was not wrong when I said one of the meanings of the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) is "kinsman," as kinsmen are blood relations, e.g., uncle, nephew, cousin, etc.

yes you are wrong: Here is cousin or any other non immediate family:

• 
  Lexicon :: Strong's G4773 - syngenēs
  
  
  
  συγγενής
  Transliteration
  syngenēs σύν (G4862) and γένος (G1085)
  Greek Inflections of συγγενής [?]
  mGNT
  12x in 6 unique form(s) TR
  12x in 6 unique form(s) LXX
  5x in 4 unique form(s)
  συγγενεῖς — 5x
  συγγενέσιν — 2x
  συγγενῆ — 1x
  συγγενὴς — 1x
  συγγενής — 1x
  συγγενῶν — 2x
  Dictionary Aids
  Vine's Expository Dictionary: kinsman (7x), cousin (2x), kinsfolk (2x), kin (1x).
  Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
  1. of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
     
     
  2. in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman
     
• While adelphos is defined:

ἀδελφός
Transliteration
adelphos ἄλφα (G1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)
Greek Inflections of ἀδελφός ἀδελφέ — 5x
Ἀδελφέ — 1x
ἀδελφοὶ — 30x
ἀδελφοί — 111x
Ἀδελφοί — 8x
ἀδελφοῖς — 17x
ἀδελφὸν — 33x
ἀδελφόν — 9x
ἀδελφὸς — 28x
ἀδελφός — 15x
ἀδελφοῦ — 17x
ἀδελφοὺς — 28x
ἀδελφούς — 11x
ἀδελφῷ — 13x
ἀδελφῶν — 20x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: brethren (226x), brother (113x), brother's (6x), brother's way (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
   
   
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
   
   
3. any fellow or man
   
   
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
   

Don't let teh word kin in syngenes confuse you to think it can mean brother or sister- no greek would think that. There are also two other words used to describe cousins unlces etc. that are not immdeiate family- you simply fail here.

And all those verse I showed to BOL why Romanism is wrong linguistically, grammatically, historically and biblically.

They do nto provide any evidence that Nary remained ever virgin or had no sex with Joseph. You break all known rules of grammar to promote a falsehood.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The OT was written in Hebrew. In the NT, different authors wrote in their own style and many of them wrote Koine Greek with a Hebrew background and sentiment. Scholars can often tell the difference between a Hebrew writing in Koine Greek and a Greek writing in Koine Greek. This is because the Jew writes in Koine Greek as if they were writing in Hebrew in many ways using the same conventions they would in Hebrew. Now, because there is no word for "cousin" in Hebrew or Aramaic, it is less likely for a Jew writing in Koine Greek to use the Koine Greek word "ἀνεψιός" [anepsios] for cousin.

Are you saying you are a scholar! The NT is consistent in its greek.

Teh septigant is another matter altogether

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In the OT, the brothers [siblings] Eleazar and Kish were the sons of Moholi. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brothers," as in "kinsmen," because they married sons of Kish, and thus were their cousins. (1 Chr. 23:21–22)

"υἱοὶ Μεραρι· Μοολι καὶ Μουσι. υἱοὶ Μοολι· Ελεαζαρ καὶ Κις. καὶ ἀπέθανεν Ελεαζαρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦσαν αὐτῷ υἱοὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ θυγατέρες, καὶ ἔλαβον αὐτὰς υἱοὶ Κις ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν." (1 Chr. 23:21–22)

This is an example of the word "ἀδελφοὶ" [adelphoi] (brothers) being used to refer to kinsmen — specifically cousins, as the lineage shows, rather than the Koine Greek word for cousins when translating this verse from Hebrew to Koine Greek.

Therefore, to argue Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were not Jesus' brothers as in "kinsmen," specifically cousins — merely because the Koine Greek word for cousins was not used in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is weak, at best.

Sorry but it is cast iron strong. Remember that the Septuagint was written by Hebrews who were not greek scholars. We do not even know the depth of greek they knew. We do not know if they kknew the word "syngenes". But the Hebrew word they translated "ah" has varied meanings and kinsmen is one . Brethren in the Jewish sense could also mean fellow Israelities. But to use this example by using a translation to defeat a non translation is foolish.

You need to prove that Matt. 1: 25 : 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus., means Joseph and Mary never had sex. and you need to prove that brothers in the NT can mean cousins as used in the OT. Just because there are a few exceptions in a transdlation from Hebrew does not make James, Joses, Simon and Judah cousins of Jesus. YOu have to show the excdeption applies for adelphos in the NT times means borther , period. Whether by blood or by nationality.

 

[Soul]

...you are wrong:

You said, "Phillips, Strongs, Vines , wuset, Zodhiates all agree the BLB definition of adelphos

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
   
   
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
   
   
3. any fellow or man
   
   
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
   
   
5. an associate in employment or office
   
   
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
      
      
   2. all men
      
      
   3. apostles
      
      
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place"

One of the meanings for the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) is "brother by blood" [see bold above], or, in other words, "blood relation." Therefore, again, as you can see in your own post, I was not wrong when I said one of the meanings of the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) is "kinsman," as a kinsman is a blood relation, e.g., uncle, nephew, cousin, etc.

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) 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. Thus far, you have not attempted to tackle any of my evidence, only accused me of misdefining the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) and for the second time I have shown you I did not.

You merely stating it was the Pharisees speaking in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and that we can only conclude Simon, Joseph, James, Jude (Judas) were Jesus' brothers as in "kinsmen," specifically, siblings, does not make it so. You need to explain (i) how you concluded that it was the Pharisees speaking in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, (ii) why whoever was speaking in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 could not have been specifically naming some of Jesus' next of kin if He did not have siblings, and (iii) why we can only conclude Simon, Joseph, James, Jude (Judas) were Jesus' siblings.

Additionally, you need to address this: "...Jn. 19:25 says, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." In this verse, only Mary of Cleophas/Clopas was called Mary of Joseph's sister (ἀδελφή [adelphe]). Do you believe John called Mary of Joseph and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas sisters, as in siblings? Or do you believe John called Mary of Joseph and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas sisters as in fellow believers and thus excluded disciple Mary Magdalene?"

The NT is consistent in its greek.

How is it consistent? Are you saying that each author writes Koine Greek in the exact same way?

Sorry but it is cast iron strong. Remember that the Septuagint was written by Hebrews who were not greek scholars. We do not even know the depth of greek they knew. We do not know if they kknew the word "syngenes". But the Hebrew word they translated "ah" has varied meanings and kinsmen is one . Brethren in the Jewish sense could also mean fellow Israelities. But to use this example by using a translation to defeat a non translation is foolish.

...

Just because there are a few exceptions in a transdlation from Hebrew does not make James, Joses, Simon and Judah cousins of Jesus.

I am not saying that because the word "ἀδελφοὶ" (adelphoi [brothers]) was used to refer to cousins when translating 1 Chr. 23:21–22 that this word being used in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 automatically means Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were Jesus' cousins.

The point is, in 1 Chr. 23:21–22 the word "אֲחֵיהֶם" [achi·em] (brothers) was used to refer to cousins, because one of its meanings is "kinsmen," e.g., uncles, nephews, cousins, etc., as there is no word for "cousin" in Hebrew or Aramaic. Whether or not the translator of this verse knew of a Koine Greek word meaning "cousins" only when translating it is irrelevant, because they used another word that applies, which is "ἀδελφοὶ" (adelphoi [brothers]), as one of its meanings is "kinsmen," e.g., uncles, nephews, cousins, etc. Therefore, there is more than one way to refer to cousins, and thus, again, to argue that Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were not Jesus' brothers as in "kinsmen," specifically cousins — merely because a Koine Greek word meaning "cousins" only was not used in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is weak at best.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

How is it consistent? Are you saying that each author writes Koine Greek in the exact same way?

Their styles may be different but they use the same koine Greek.

One of the meanings for the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) is "brothers by blood" [see bold above], or, in other words, "blood relations." Therefore, again, as you can see in your own post, I was not wrong when I said one of the meanings of the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) is "kinsman," as kinsmen are blood relations, e.g., uncles, nephews, cousins, etc.

Now you are adding ot he definition by saying blood relations to try to insert cousins nephews etc. That is not what is meant by brothers by blood- it means of the same parent. shame on you!

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) 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. Thus far, you have not attempted to tackle any of my evidence, only accused me of misdefining the word "brother" (ἀδελφός [adelphos]) and for the second time I have shown you I did not.

so cite those early Christians and we can see if you are accurate as far as what they say! Origen denied th edeity of Jesus for over a decade, shoulod we accept that as well?

All the rest you wrote about James is just hearsay and opinion of romanism to try to defend Mary violating the law!

You merely stating it was the Pharisees speaking in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and that we can only conclude Simon, Joseph, James, Jude (Judas) were Jesus' brothers as in "kinsmen,"

Let me correct you again! Adelphos does not mean kinsmen in the sense of uncles, cousins, nephews etc. It means a brother by blood! Not anything else. YOu are intentioanlly adding something that does not belong!

The point is, in 1 Chr. 23:21–22 the word "אֲחֵיהֶם" [achi·em] (brothers) was used to refer to cousins, because one of its meanings is "kinsmen," e.g., uncles, nephews, cousins, etc., as there is no word for "cousin" in Hebrew or Aramaic. Whether or not the translator of this verse knew of a Koine Greek word meaning "cousins" only when translating it is irrelevant, because they used another word that applies, which is "ἀδελφός" [adelphoi] (brothers), as one of its meanings is "kinsmen," e.g., uncles, nephews, cousins, etc. Therefore, there is more than one way to refer to cousins, and thus, again, to argue that Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas) were not Jesus' brothers as in "kinsmen," specifically cousins — merely because a Koine Greek word meaning "cousins" only was not used in Mt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is weak at best.

But adelphos does not mean kinsmen in the NT. Outside of the verses we are debating you will not find its use that way at all! Kinsmen would be
"syggenic". To try to squeeze adelphos to mean the same is being intentionally deceptive with the language.

 

[Taken]

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

Mark 6:
[2] And when the sabbath day was come, he (Jesus) began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished...
[3] Is not this (Jesus) the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not {B] his (Jesus) sisters here with us? [/B] And they were offended at him.

* Preaching IN the Inner room of the synagogue was at that time restricted to only men.
Out in the court (also part OF the synagogue), allowed women and children.

*Mary, called mother of Jesus;
* James, Joses, Juda, Simon, called brothers of Jesus;
*Females (not called by name), called sister of Jesus...

WHO was James; Mark 6:3
Jesus' LAWFUL (and at that time, Unbelieving) sibling.

WHAT did Jesus say...when "THEY'" (Jewish men, in a Jewish Synagogue, were OFFENDED at what this Jewish JESUS, was Preaching?

[B In his own country,
Among his own kin,
In his own house....
A Prophet IS WITHOUT HONOR. [/B]

Mark 6;
[4] But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Jesus Himself AT THAT TIME, made reference to His OWN KIN,
Mary, James, Joses, Juda, Simon, unnamed sister'S, dishonoring Jesus. (NOT believing him.)

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

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


Matt 13:55 James is the Same LAWFUL (unbelieving) sibling of Jesus, as mentioned in the Gospel according to Mark (Mk 6:3).

Glory to God.,
Taken