Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

[IggyAntiochus]

This passage is translated as “brethren” in many Bible translations. So, I’m not sure it “explicitly” states his “brothers” did not believe in him. Brethren does not necessarily refer to a blood relative.

What else could it be referring to? It cannot be using the word brothers to mean His spiritual brothers, because they didn’t believe in Him, so they weren’t his spiritual brothers.

However, we do know, from Galations1:19; James the “Lord’s brother” was an Apostle. The issue then would be whether or not he was one of the twelve Apostles.

Galatians 1:
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

So, you are saying the James in Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 2:12 is not the same person?

Yes, the James in Galatians would be the same person. The term apostle, as you hinted at, is a term applied to more than just the twelve (Paul and Barnabas, for example). He just wasn’t one of the twelve apostles, which rules him out from being James son of Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve.

 

[grandfather]

How do you know that?

We don’t. It is speculation.

 

[grandfather]

There is a lot of confusion posted in this thread. There is a Catholic saying things that are opposed to the Catohlic faith and a lot of specualtion being posted as known fact.

As simply put as possible, using scripture alone:

Paul speaks of the Apostle James and calls him, “James, brother of the Lord”

There were two Apostles named James according to scripture.

Paul says "brother of the Lord so that the reader knows which James he is naming.

There are three places in scripture that give a listing of all the apostles. When the two James are named they are further identified by naming their fahther’s. None of the other apostles father’s are named in these lists. It is so that we can know one James from the other.

JOSEPH IS NOT THE FATHER OF EITHER JAMES.

Mary was NOT the mother of either James.

Therefore:
NEITHER JAMES COULD BE THE BROTHER OF JESUS.

Nevertheless Saint Paul says He met James the brother of the Lord? But neither one of them can be His sibling brother, because neither one has Mary or Joseph for a parent.

This is really very simple.

The word brother means, “close kinsman”. James is the cousin of Jesus. To prove it read the accounts of the women at the cross. Some are named and identified with their husbands by name. There are Marys and her sister (close kinswoman) was there.

The wives of the fathers of the Apostles James were there. Now you know who their mothers were as well as their fathers.

When you read in Matthew and Mark about brothers of Jesus, there is James again, with others. We have already seen that James the brother of the Lord can not possibly be the sibling brother of Jesus. Neither are the rest.

There is it in the Bible.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by 1voice
All Christians are the new Ark of the Covenant.

“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you”
1 Corinthians 3:16

You can accept the opinion of anyone you choose.
I accept this opinion as written and from a very reliable source… long before the authors that you reference were born…
The word of God in the book of Psalms clearly and simply states…
…" you have exalted your Word above all your name."
Psalm 138:2

Well I hate to rain on your parade,but yours is also an opinion formulated centuries later. The verse you provided has nothing to do with the Ark.

 

[1voice]

Well I hate to rain on your parade,but yours is also an opinion formulated centuries later. The verse you provided has nothing to do with the Ark.

“Christ in you”
Col 1:27

“God lives in us”
1 John 4:12

2 Corinthians 1:22 "Who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts

God’s presence was in the Ark. When Solomon finished building the temple God’s presence dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple.

When Jesus died for the salvation of man God rent the curtain on the temple and on Pentecost God’s presence entered into his people.

It was God’s plan to reestablish the intimate relationship that had been severed by Adam.

Each Christian, who is willing to receive the HS as the Disciples did on Pentecost, carries the same presence that once dwelt in the Ark.

As Jesus told the Apostles at Passover:
“The Holy Spirit is with you and he will be in you.”

“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you”
1 Corinthians 3:16

 

[Wandile]

“Christ in you”
Col 1:27

“God lives in us”
1 John 4:12

2 Corinthians 1:22 "Who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts

God’s presence was in the Ark. When Solomon finished building the temple God’s presence dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple.

When Jesus died for the salvation of man God rent the curtain on the temple and on Pentecost God’s presence entered into his people.

It was God’s plan to reestablish the intimate relationship that had been severed by Adam.

Each Christian, who is willing to receive the HS as the Disciples did on Pentecost, carries the same presence that once dwelt in the Ark.

As Jesus told the Apostles at Passover:
“The Holy Spirit is with you and he will be in you.”

“Don’t you know that you yourselves are** God’s temple** and that God’s Spirit lives in you”
1 Corinthians 3:16

Look… It doesn’t say, “Don’t you know that you yourselves are the Ark of the Covenant…”, but it says “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple…”

Jesus Body and blood are the New Covenant :

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many for the forgiveness of
sins.” - Matthew 26:28

And his crucifixion is the sign of the Covenant. But the covenant is supposed to be housed in the Ark… However, Jesus was housed in Mary. Mary’s womb is the Ark of the Covenant.

See remember we are all God’s temple because the Holy Spirit of God dwells within us. However the Covenant does not dwell within all us, but in one ark, Mary’s womb. Mary is the new living Ark which housed the new living covenant.

We can participate in the new covenant, embrace in it, believe it, live it, accept the gifts of the new covenant ( Salvation and the presence of the Holy Spirit ), But the covenant has one dwelling place, the Ark, which is the womb of Mary

 

[grandfather]

Look… It doesn’t say, “Don’t you know that you yourselves are the Ark of the Covenant…”, but it says “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple…”

Jesus Body and blood are the New Covenant :

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many for the forgiveness of
sins.” - Matthew 26:28

And his crucifixion is the sign of the Covenant. But the covenant is supposed to be housed in the Ark… However, Jesus was housed in Mary. Mary’s womb is the Ark of the Covenant.

See remember we are all God’s temple because the Holy Spirit of God dwells within us. However the Covenant does not dwell within all us, but in one ark, Mary’s womb. Mary is the new living Ark which housed the new living covenant.

We can participate in the new covenant, embrace in it, believe it, live it, accept the gifts of the new covenant ( Salvation and the presence of the Holy Spirit ), But the covenant has one dwelling place, the Ark, which is the womb of Mary

That is very clear and interesting. Since the new and eternal covenant is the body and blood of Christ, as His words clearly declare, and He says that we should eat His flesh and drink His blood if we are to have life within us, then we consume the covenant by eating and drinking.

The ark carries the covenant, as a mother carries her baby. She gives the Covenant (Jesus Body and Blood) life, as all mother’s do.

We do not give life to Jesus who is the covenant. We receive life from Him in the way He declares, by eating and drinking His Body and Blood. He comes to us and for us, but He (the covenant) comes from Mary. We receive Him from her (the ark) who carried and bore Him.

We too are givers. We give what we receive, but in a very different way. Hers is unique.

It is a puzzle why Protestants can’t she her, or refuse to do so. We have very few of her words in scripture. Protestants who claim scripture is their only rule of faith, and in it while pregnant with Jesus she says, God has blessed her and all generations shall call me blessed, yet Protestants obstinately refuse to do that. They will stand before Jesus and declare we refuse to acknowledge that your mother, favored by the Holy Trinity, is anything more than a common ordinary woman.

Here on this day we remember His crucifixion, with His holy mother’s heart pierced at the foot of the Cross as prophesied, they still turn away from her and despise the prayers and love of the Mother of God for them.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hi Grandfather, this reminds me of the Covenant Signs of Adam, Noah, Abram, Moses, David and Jesus respectively: Sabbath, Rainbow, Circumcision, Passover, Throne and** Eucharist**

MJ

 

[grandfather]

Hi Grandfather, this reminds me of the Covenant Signs of Adam, Noah, Abram, Moses, David and Jesus respectively: Sabbath, Rainbow, Circumcision, Passover, Throne and** Eucharist**

MJ

Martin,

On this holy day of Jesus dying, I hope your heart and those of all Christians, is pierced with hers.

gf

 

[Anna_Scott]

What else could it be referring to? It cannot be using the word brothers to mean His spiritual brothers, because they didn’t believe in Him, so they weren’t his spiritual brothers.

Yes, the James in Galatians would be the same person. The term apostle, as you hinted at, is a term applied to more than just the twelve (Paul and Barnabas, for example). He just wasn’t one of the twelve apostles, which rules him out from being James son of Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve.

**IggyAntiochus,

The issue is really not that simple, as I am finding searching articles regarding the identity of James the Lord’s “brother.”

It is not only Catholic writers making the claim that the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus is the same person as James, the brother of the Lord, the well-known Bishop of Jerusalem of the Acts.

There is an interesting essay by Anglican Rev. Samuel Seabury D.D. published in the CHURCH JOURNAL of February 2d, 1859.

Best to read the complete essay (it’s not very long,) but here is a quote:
**
Project Canterbury
MARY THE VIRGIN;
AS COMMEMORATED IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
BY THE REV. SAMUEL SEABURY, D. D.,
Rector of the Church of the Annunciation, New-York, and Professor of Biblical Learning, &c., in the General Theological Seminary.

“. . . . .Thus every fact, every probability, and even every presumption, that we were able to glean from St. Luke, St. Paul and St. Jude, the three by whom alone our James is certainly mentioned, has been fully confirmed by the other authorities, excepting only one doubtful interpretation, which we qualified with a “perhaps,” and which, indeed, was so involved in contradictions, that it may be said to have died before it was born. **If James be the same as the son of Alphaeus, then, as we have shown, he had a brother named Jude, one of the original Twelve, and a mother named Mary, the same who accompanied Magdalene to the sepulchre; he was himself an Apostle, one of the Twelve—“a pillar” in the same sense as Cephas and John; he was, also, according to the Scriptural sense, a “brother” of our Lord. **To attain this result, no text has been handled otherwise than is warranted by the ordinary common sense rules of sound interpretation; no hypothesis has been framed, that is not natural and easy; nothing has been assumed that has not an equal, and, so far as we can honestly judge, a superior, reason in its favor. . . . .”

**Also, the essay shows that the mother of James was named Mary, but not Mary the mother of Jesus.

I’d love to hear your opinion of the essay, if you have time to read it. As I said, it isn’t very long.

Peace,
Anna**

 

[Anna_Scott]

There is a lot of confusion posted in this thread. There is a Catholic saying things that are opposed to the Catohlic faith and a lot of specualtion being posted as known fact.

As simply put as possible, using scripture alone:

Paul speaks of the Apostle James and calls him, “James, brother of the Lord”

There were two Apostles named James according to scripture.

Paul says "brother of the Lord so that the reader knows which James he is naming.

There are three places in scripture that give a listing of all the apostles. When the two James are named they are further identified by naming their fahther’s. None of the other apostles father’s are named in these lists. It is so that we can know one James from the other.

JOSEPH IS NOT THE FATHER OF EITHER JAMES.

Mary was NOT the mother of either James.

Therefore:
NEITHER JAMES COULD BE THE BROTHER OF JESUS.

Nevertheless Saint Paul says He met James the brother of the Lord? But neither one of them can be His sibling brother, because neither one has Mary or Joseph for a parent.

This is really very simple.

The word brother means, “close kinsman”. James is the cousin of Jesus. To prove it read the accounts of the women at the cross. Some are named and identified with their husbands by name. There are Marys and her sister (close kinswoman) was there.

The wives of the fathers of the Apostles James were there. Now you know who their mothers were as well as their fathers.

When you read in Matthew and Mark about brothers of Jesus, there is James again, with others. We have already seen that James the brother of the Lord can not possibly be the sibling brother of Jesus. Neither are the rest.

There is it in the Bible.

grandfather,

Indeed, it is a confusing thread. You are one of the few people actually addressing the question I posed for this thread.

Earlier I posted a link to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm. This is another quote from the same:

"The name “James” in the New Testament is borne by several:

1. James, the son of Zebedee — Apostle, brother of John, Apostle; also called “James the Greater”.
2. James, the son of Alpheus, Apostle — Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.
3. James, the brother of the Lord — Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19. Without a shadow of doubt, he must be identified with the James of Galatians 2:2 and 2:9; Acts 12:17, 15:13 sqq. and 21:18; and 1 Corinthians 15:7.
4. James, the son of Mary, brother of Joseph (or Joses) — Mark 15:40 (where he is called ò mikros “the little”, not the “less”, as in the D.V., nor the “lesser”); Matthew 27:56. Probably the son of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25) where “Maria Cleophæ” is generally translated “Mary the wife of Cleophas”, as married women are commonly distinguished by the addition of their husband’s name.
5. James, the brother of Jude — Jude 1:1. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the “Judas Jacobi”, the “brother of James” (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13), called thus because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church. . . . . ."

The article proposes the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus is the same person as James, the brother of the Lord, the well-known Bishop of Jerusalem of the Acts.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Remember the Original Post?

**Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

Recently, I found myself in a discussion with some fellow Anglicans, at my Parish who insisted Jesus had brothers and sisters, because of Bible translations that speak of brothers and sisters of Jesus. For some reason, these few people are completely disregarding Tradition.

I know the Semitic languages do not have a specific word for brother or sister. Even the Greek word for brother, adelphos**, is used for relatives other than brother.

James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are called the “brothers” of Jesus.
. . . . . .

. . . . .Is there another James mentioned in the N.T. besides James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus?

Also, I haven’t found anyone called the son of Joseph, except Jesus.

I welcome your help. I do believe that Mary is the Ever Virgin.

I really want to focus first on Scripture (traditional views welcome) to determine the identity of those who were called the brothers (and sisters) of Jesus, starting with James.

We have all sorts of discussions going on, all good and interesting information; but very few people are actually answering the question of the thread. I realize other issues enter into such discussions; but for the moment, I really need a little more focus on the thread topic.

I posted 2 links to articles/essays on the identity of those called James in the NT:

1. Catholic Encyclopedia, The identity of James: Link: newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm
2. By Anglican Samuel Seabury D.D., Who was James, the Lord’s Brother?: Link: anglicanhistory.org/usa/mahan/james.html

Comments?

More commentaries?

Thanks to all,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .Yes, the James in Galatians would be the same person. The term apostle, as you hinted at, is a term applied to more than just the twelve (Paul and Barnabas, for example). He just wasn’t one of the twelve apostles, which rules him out from being James son of Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve.

IggyAntiochus,

I just found this written for the Festival of St. James of Jerusalem: Brother of Our Lord (Copyright © 2005-2012 CyberBrethren – A Lutheran Blog, Link: cyberbrethren.com/2011/10/23/festival-of-st-james-of-jerusalem-brother-of-our-lord/). The writer states, "James “the brother of the Lord” is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. (From the Catholic Cyclopedia of the Church)."

Of course, there is a comment posted in disagreement.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

There has been speculation the Joseph had children prior to marrying Mary. One of those was an older son named James. He is often referred to as the brother of Jesus, but, would, in fact, have been a half brother.

Of course Jesus had brothers and sisters! They were Joseph’s children from his previous marriage!

mwok & TexanKnight,
I have read that in a number of commentaries as a possible explanation. Thanks so much for posting on topic.

Peace,
Anna

 

[randirhoades]

Dear Friend,

I was taught in those times, “Cousin” was not known in the language that Christ spoke so “brother” or Son of my Father took the place of it. St. Jerome also popularized the cousin theory.

In the Gospel of James, Mary had been pledged to the temple by her parents. When she came of age she had to have a Guardian so Joseph was appointed that Guardian who wasn’t interested in living a normal husband and wife life. And with that being said, Joseph did not have relations with Mary.

Yet it’s interesting to know that stories are circulating that St. Joseph had married a woman named Melcha before Mary and had children. Those children would have been the step-brothers and sisters of Jesus. But, there is no concrete evidence to this.

Understand after an Angel appeared to Joseph that Mary was going to have the “Son of God”, her womb had to be sacred and purified and not be defiled for lack of a better word.

A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

The questions I ask also; if Mary had other children, wouldn’t they have been at the cross and Jesus made provisions for Mary instead of asking John to take care of his Mom who was no relation? Wouldn’t they have been followers of Christ? I know not necessarily but I would like to think so.

So, my answer to this is no, Jesus did not have blood brothers or sisters. And my firm belief is that they would have been mentioned.

Learned this from Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin and some from Cathecism.

Love ya’ll,
Sheila

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear Friend,

I was taught in those times, “Cousin” was not known in the language that Christ spoke so “brother” or Son of my Father took the place of it. St. Jerome also popularized the cousin theory.

In the Gospel of James, Mary had been pledged to the temple by her parents. When she came of age she had to have a Guardian so Joseph was appointed that Guardian who wasn’t interested in living a normal husband and wife life. And with that being said, Joseph did not have relations with Mary.

Yet it’s interesting to know that stories are circulating that St. Joseph had married a woman named Melcha before Mary and had children. Those children would have been the step-brothers and sisters of Jesus. But, there is no concrete evidence to this.

Understand after an Angel appeared to Joseph that Mary was going to have the “Son of God”, her womb had to be sacred and purified and not be defiled for lack of a better word.

A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

The questions I ask also; if Mary had other children, wouldn’t they have been at the cross and Jesus made provisions for Mary instead of asking John to take care of his Mom who was no relation? Wouldn’t they have been followers of Christ? I know not necessarily but I would like to think so.

So, my answer to this is no, Jesus did not have blood brothers or sisters. And my firm belief is that they would have been mentioned.

Learned this from Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin and some from Cathecism.

Love ya’ll,
Sheila

Sheila,
Thank you so much for your comments.

As I said before, I know the Semitic languages do not have a specific word for brother or sister. Even the Greek word for brother, adelphos, is used for relatives other than brother.

I do believe that Mary remained a virgin. And as you said, if Jesus had brothers they would have stepped in to take care of Mary according to custom.

I have not heard the name Melcha as a possible first wife of Joseph, at least not to my recollection.

So, do you think the James referred to as the brother of the Lord is the Apostle James (one of the 12), the son of Alpheus, and Bishop of Jerusalem?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Nicea325]

“Christ in you”
Col 1:27

“God lives in us”
1 John 4:12

2 Corinthians 1:22 "Who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts

God’s presence was in the Ark. When Solomon finished building the temple God’s presence dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple.

When Jesus died for the salvation of man God rent the curtain on the temple and on Pentecost God’s presence entered into his people.

It was God’s plan to reestablish the intimate relationship that had been severed by Adam.

Each Christian, who is willing to receive the HS as the Disciples did on Pentecost, carries the same presence that once dwelt in the Ark.

As Jesus told the Apostles at Passover:
“The Holy Spirit is with you and he will be in you.”

“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you”
1 Corinthians 3:16

None of those verses refer to the Ark as you believe. It says God’s temple,not the Ark as you believe. You are misinterpretating those verses.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

IggyAntiochus,

I just found this written for the Festival of St. James of Jerusalem: Brother of Our Lord (Copyright © 2005-2012 CyberBrethren – A Lutheran Blog, Link: cyberbrethren.com/2011/10/23/festival-of-st-james-of-jerusalem-brother-of-our-lord/). The writer states, "James “the brother of the Lord” is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. (From the Catholic Cyclopedia of the Church)."

Of course, there is a comment posted in disagreement.

Anna

I think there is just too much that conflicts with the idea that the son of Alphaeus and the brother of the Lord is the same person. At the very least, enough that conflicts with it, such as the son of Alphaeus being identified with the twelve and James not being numbered among them… note that the text never calls the brother of the Lord one of the twelve. Then there’s the question of why the title changes? If they are the same person, why do their titles, son of Alphaeus, brother of the Lord, continually get switched around? It seems to me as if the authors wanted to differentiate them somehow? I think its most definitely open to debate. The author of the blog concedes it, but I don’t think it’s cut and dry enough to concede.

Ultimately, it probably doesn’t matter insofar as either view can be compatible to the idea that James, whoever he was, was not a blood brother of Jesus. If he was a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, then he only has legal relationship to Christ. In the other view, he would at best be a cousin.

I don’t quite buy the cousin argument much. It fits the Greek, that’s true (adelphus), but that still leaves the question of why a group of cousins is constantly trapesing around Galilee with their aunt, looking for Jesus.

Nor does the view that Jesus had no brothers make the perpetual virginity case cut and dry, either. It’s possible she did not remain a virgin but still had no children other than Christ.

I am inclined to the traditional view, however.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks JC,
That is very helpful. Very helpful, indeed.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think there is just too much that conflicts with the idea that the son of Alphaeus and the brother of the Lord is the same person. At the very least, enough that conflicts with it, such as the son of Alphaeus being identified with the twelve and James not being numbered among them… note that the text never calls the brother of the Lord one of the twelve. Then there’s the question of why the title changes? If they are the same person, why do their titles, son of Alphaeus, brother of the Lord, continually get switched around? It seems to me as if the authors wanted to differentiate them somehow? I think its most definitely open to debate. The author of the blog concedes it, but I don’t think it’s cut and dry enough to concede.

IggyAntiochus,

I agree there is certainly room to question.

**SAMUEL SEABURY **does address the issue of the different ways “James” is identified:

“. . . .In the Acts of St. Luke we find one passage (Acts i. 13) exactly paralleled by another in the Gospel of the same writer, (Luke vi. 15, 16,) that seems to bear on the question. One James is mentioned as the son of Alphaeus. This being the only James mentioned by this writer, with whom the James afterwards so often mentioned call possibly be identified, a presumption is created that the two names belong to one and the same person. This presumption rests on an ordinary practice of careful writers. When a historian, for example, recurs again and again to some particular name, he naturally expects to find that name once at least mentioned in full: and this “once,” moreover, we look for in the place where it is first mentioned. Finding, then, a James, son of Alphaeus, in the beginning of St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts, and a James undesignated frequently recurring afterwards, the presumption is, that the two refer to the same person. . . . .” Link: anglicanhistory.org/usa/mahan/james.html

Whether or not this is a convincing argument is certainly open to question.

Thanks for your comments.

Anna