James, the brother of Jesus?

[ChristianMomma]

I like to read debates, especially ones between Catholics and Protestants. As a mother I often feel pulled to continually check what I am teaching my children. Luke 17:2

I came across this today and I must admit I am stuck. I have always held the belief that Christ had brothers and sisters through his mother Mary and her husband Joseph. Not so sure after reading this:
------------------------------------------------------

Based on a Protestant reading of Matt. 13:55, Jesus had blood brothers.

Well, in light of a comparative study of the Scriptures themselves this assertion is completely false.

1) Thanks to the letter of the apostle Paul to the Galatians and to the Letter of the apostle Jude, we know that 2 out of 4 of these "so called brothers" are apostles: James and Judas Thaddeus (or Jude).

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19).
"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" (Jude 1:1).

2) Thanks to the lists of the names (and "last" names) of the apostles in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, we know with Scriptural certainty that there are no James son of "Joseph" or son of the "carpenter". James and Jude are sons of "Alpheus" and the other James is the son of "Zebedee".

SCRIPTURAL CONCLUSION: "James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas (Matt.13:55)" are not the children of Joseph the Carpenter. Consequently they are not the children of Mary. Period. Even a child can prove this point!!!

Matt 10:2, 4 "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: the first Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus (Judas Thaddeus);
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him."

Luke 6:13, 16 "Simon (whom he also named Peter), and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon called Zelotes,
And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor."

Can you see why the most knowledgeable Protestants in the country are becoming Catholics?
--------------------------------------------------------------

What would be a Biblical response to this claim? Like I said, I am stuck! Help would be very much appreciated!

[king'sbloomingrose]

Jesus had brothers in Christ and the apostles would have been his brothers in Christ. Also, when I'm talking about my family do I usually say when referring to either my own sister or my own brother, "E_____ the daughter of Robert? Or do I even say, "my brother, Samuel (not my brother's real name) LastName, caught a fish today." Of course not!!!! Everyone would think I'm crazy if I did. I usually just refer to them as, Samuel my brother, or "my sister E_____" and everyone knows exactly who I'm talking about. Well, I think it's the same way here as well. When it says that James is the half brother of Jesus, then that means exactly what it says. So this really makes logical sense, despite how the Catholics try to word things and pull them out of context. Hope that helps! And bear in mind that Joseph's last name was Alphaues if memory serves me correctly.

[GlennO]

ChristianMomma

I tread gently here......

ADVICE -
Rom 14:1
(1) Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2Ti 2:16
(16) But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

1Ti 1:4
(4) Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith.

OPINION - I believe this to be Catholic dogma. According to Catholic belief, Mary was "ever virgin" — she got married and conceived and bore a child, yet somehow remained a virgin her entire life. At any rate, that's why Catholics are obliged to conclude Jesus had no brothers or sisters, despite the seemingly plain meaning of the text. IMO it is silly. Hope someone gives you a better answer!

[GlennO]

Ahh, I see KBR got you a proper answer as my index fingers were pecking away.

[arapahoepark]

Matthew 1:24-25

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Therefore, they did have other children and mary was never a virgin for life.

There is also this: but the catholic has such a mind set in their own ways, and such syncretism it's disgusting

http://www.remnantofgod.org/Virgin.htm

http://www.bible.ca/cath-mary-had-many-children.htm

oh and number 1. Just because they are mentioned doesn't mean they were THE APOSTLES, i am sure his real brothers came to believe as well.
Nevertheless it does not matter, the only thing is why the heck do they worship Mary? Even a lot of catholics want Mary to be part of the Trinity!!!!!!! That period is idolatry and disgusting and far from Christendom and what it stands for.

[ChristianMomma]

And bear in mind that Joseph's last name was Alphaues if memory serves me correctly.

Oh, that would match up then! The way it was being presented was that Alpheus was a FIRST name, thus making James the son of someone else. I will have to look into that.

I am not concerned about Mary remaining a virgin all of her life.(I do not believe that she did, she was married afterall. But, that is between her, Joseph, and God) Personally I do not think that that information is really any of my business nor should it be a requirement for someone's faith in Jesus. I was more looking into this claim because it goes against what I was taught, that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Thanks folks!

[jesuschangesall]

The Roman Catholic Church has a DOGMA that Mary REMAINED a VIRGIN AFTER the birth of JESUS.
This DOGMA is a very pernicious one,in fact is a PAGAN and ANCIENT dogma of THE VIRGIN with CHILD that we find in the majority of WORLD RELIGION that all spring from the BABYLONIAN RELIGION, see:

Mystery Babylon and the rise of modern paganism

.....Just a few pagan practices in the Roman Catholic Church:

The rituals and practices of a priesthood to intercede and rule over the laity
A infallible vicar of Christ
Rote prayer
The Rosary (rote prayer to Mary for intercession)
Scapulars
Indulgences
Worship of Mary (in reality this pagan demon god with child pre-existed Mary and was known as the Queen of Heaven)
Holy Rituals
Sacraments
Holy water
The mission, practices, and methods of the Jesuits
Eucharistic Christ (The bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ whenever conjured up by a priest).........


If we start a conversation with some RCC believers about the issue that MARY of THE BIBLE is NOT the "MADONNA" they worship,we will often end up in a bitter fight because the RCC faithful have been truly duped by their clergy in believing Satanic doctrines and creeds and practices and the normal RCC believer hasn't got a clue that he or she has been DECEIVED by their perverted priests.......

My auntie Rose was a staunch RCC MADONNA worshiper and when I was converted to Christ she used to FIGHT ME and it took a healing miracle that THE LORD JESUS performed on one her sons after I prayed to the LIVING GOD to destroy her faith in MADONNAS and RCC and thanks be to GOD auntie Rose became a born again believer in JESUS and NEVER went back to that APOSTATE religious System....that was in 1973.....
She got saved and filled with the Holy Spirit....

YES,of course JESUS (the man) had half brothers and sisters which were born to Mary and Joseph AFTER JESUS VIRGIN BIRTH.....
but again,it is tough to explain to a RCC believer,it takes THE POWER of THE HOLY GHOST to deliver them from ROME SATANIC DECEPTION....

there are some good books that might help....but prayer and patience may work better...

Testimonies from ex-Roman Catholic Priests | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

[ChristianMomma]

Thank you for your help =D I have done a lot of research myself about the Catholic faith and I am not by any means thinking of conversion. This was just a simple question about James.

I hear ya jesuschangesall, Catholics don't even seem to see all of the similarities between their faith and ancient pagan religions.

[ChristianMomma]

And bear in mind that Joseph's last name was Alphaues if memory serves me correctly.

I just read that at the time people did not have last names. They went by the name of their father,.i.e, Joseph was Joseph ben (son of) Heli.

Soooooo, that would put James as the son of someone else and not Joseph and Mary's. Hmmmmmms

[mattfivefour]

The problem is that James (Yaakov), John (Yôḥanan), Jude (Judah), Simon (Shimon), even Jesus (Yeshua) were extremely common names. It seems there were thousands of people with those same names. Therefore they were differentiated by the name of their father or by some further characteristic such as their trade. The fact that there were disciples by those names does not mean there were not brothers by those names.

Jude introduces himself as the "brother of James" (Jude 1:1 ... which means the James he is referring to is not the apostle James son of Zebedee for his brother was John son of Zebedee. Both were nicknamed "Sons of Thunder" by Jesus for their fiery manner.

There are many good explanations as to why the RCC is wrong, but a good little one is at the 1way2God site:

"James the brother of Jesus is named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, along with three other brothers (Joseph [or "Joses"], Simon and Judas [Jude]) and at least three sisters unnamed (the most explicit reference to these sisters in the canon being found in Matthew 13:56, "Aren't all his sisters with us?").

"The Gospels indicate that neither James nor his brothers were followers of their elder brother before his crucifixion, but after the resurrection they are mentioned among the group at prayer before Pentecost (Acts 1:14). Paul mentions that the risen Jesus appeared personally to James, which may explain the change in heart (1 Cor. 15:7).

"It seems that James quickly took the lead of the Church in Jerusalem, officiating at the Council of Jerusalem, thus he is viewed as one who did not oppose the lack of Jewish restrictions of Gentile believers.

"In his letter to the Galatians, Paul mentions James along with John son of Zebedee, and Peter as the Pillars of the Church (2:9).

"James was well enough known that in the New Testament epistle carrying his name, he refers to himself simply as "James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1). To further evidence that James was well-known, Jude (the youngest of Jesus' brothers) simply identifies himself as James' brother, and a servant of the Lord in his letter (Jude 1). (See "author" section in Jude for why the brothers didn't identify themselves as the brothers of Jesus.)

"There was a Jude among the apostles, but the possibility of that Jude being the author is negated by his introduction, seeking recognition by his brother James. If the author were an apostle, that would have been recognition enough for the letter to be viewed as authoritative in itself. Also, verse 17 seems to be written from the perspective of someone who is not an apostle."

Clearly. since the bible tells us that the brothers of Jesus did not become believers till after the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the James and Jude, etc, mentioned as being his brothers in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are not the apostles ... but are the half-brothers of Jesus.

(BTW, everyone has given such good answers above.)

[DanLW]

I'll just add a couple things.

Reading the verse not ripped out of context, i.e. Matt 13:54-58, how can anybody conclude that they were referring to his disciples when they said "brothers"? And who are these unrecorded female discipled "sisters"? (the first nuns perhaps?)

Also see Matt 12:46-50. If in verses 46 and 47, they were referring to fellow believers, what was the point of Jesus in effect saying "yeah, people out there believe in me, and people in here do also!" The passage loses meaning and becomes incoherent if read from a Catholic point of view.

Check Matt 1:24,25. It says that Joseph did not "know" his wife, Mary, until after Christ was born. Nowhere does it say that Joseph never knew her. In fact, I would make the case that a couple is not even truly married until they have sexual relations. God says in Genesis that the two shall become one flesh. In OT law, if a man "lies with" a woman whom he was not married to, he had to pay the bride price and become her husband. (Exodus 22:16) (This is also how you respond to people who claim it's not adultery if you're not married - in God's eyes the first person you have sex with becomes your mate)

It's utterly ridiculous to think that Joseph never went into Mary. Nowhere was Joseph ever told not to become one flesh with his wife.

Edit: I love how the Catholics always try to frame all other Christians as Protestants, like we all came from the Catholic church. They state that like it's a foregone conclusion that the Catholic church was the first church, and that all other Christian denominations were born from the Catholic church. The first church was in the book of Acts, long before the Catholics hijacked Christianity.

[mattfivefour]

I'll just add a couple things.

Reading the verse not ripped out of context, i.e. Matt 13:54-58, how can anybody conclude that they were referring to his disciples when they said "brothers"? And who are these unrecorded female discipled "sisters"? (the first nuns perhaps?)

Also see Matt 12:46-50. If in verses 46 and 47, they were referring to fellow believers, what was the point of Jesus in effect saying "yeah, people out there believe in me, and people in here do also!" The passage loses meaning and becomes incoherent if read from a Catholic point of view.

Check Matt 1:24,25. It says that Joseph did not "know" his wife, Mary, until after Christ was born. Nowhere does it say that Joseph never knew her. In fact, I would make the case that a couple is not even truly married until they have sexual relations. God says in Genesis that the two shall become one flesh. In OT law, if a man "lies with" a woman whom he was not married to, he had to pay the bride price and become her husband. (Exodus 22:16) (This is also how you respond to people who claim it's not adultery if you're not married - in God's eyes the first person you have sex with becomes your mate)

It's utterly ridiculous to think that Joseph never went into Mary. Nowhere was Joseph ever told not to become one flesh with his wife.

Edit: I love how the Catholics always try to frame all other Christians as Protestants, like we all came from the Catholic church. They state that like it's a foregone conclusion that the Catholic church was the first church, and that all other Christian denominations were born from the Catholic church. The first church was in the book of Acts, long before the Catholics hijacked Christianity.

[tjplaw]

A friend of mine made a statement I've never forgotten.

If the Catholic Church has one thing going for it, it produces a mass exodus of born again Christians.

[ChristianMomma]

The problem is that James (Yaakov), John (Yôḥanan), Jude (Judah), Simon (Shimon), even Jesus (Yeshua) were extremely common names. It seems there were thousands of people with those same names. Therefore they were differentiated by the name of their father or by some further characteristic such as their trade. The fact that there were disciples by those names does not mean there were not brothers by those names.

The part that I am confused about is that Galations 1:19 says:

"I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (New American Standard Bible)

So, we are told that he did not see any apostles except James, the Lord's brother. This is referring to THIS James (an apostle) as Jesus' brother, right? This is particularly what I am confused about because the James listed within the list of apostles is the son of Alpheus, not Joseph.

So, would it mean that "brother" here in Galations 1:19 does NOT mean actual brother?

[mattfivefour]

Christian Momma, perhaps the following will help. It's the introduction to the Book of James, created in 1958 as part of a Bible studyby Dr. Paul Southern, at that time the Head of the Department of Bible, Abilene Christian College, Abilene, Texas ... and used by the College in freshman Bible Classes.

THE TITLE
This book bears the name of the writer, James (1:1).

THE PERSONS NAMED JAMES
Most scholars conclude there are three persons called James in the New Testament.

1. James the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve, elder brother of John, and sometimes called James the Elder or Great (Mt 4:21).
2. James the son of Alphaeus, also one of the twelve, and referred to as James the Less (Mt 10:3).
3. James, brother of the Lord, who was not one of the twelve apostles (Mt 13:55).[/SIZE]

THE WRITER
Although a moot point, it is believed by many that James the brother of the Lord wrote this book called James. That he was not one of the twelve apostles is indicated by the fact that he did not believe on the Lord until after the resurrection (Jn 7:2-9; Mk 3:21; Acts 1:13,14). He was a pillar in the early church, being associated largely with the saints at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; Gal 1:19; 2:9-12). Josephus declared that James was brought before the Sanhedrin by Sadducees, charged of departing from the Jewish Law, and then stoned to death. Clement of Alexander claimed that James was flung down from the gable of the temple, stoned, and beaten to death with a club for speaking to Jews about Christ.

THE ONES ADDRESSED
The letter was addressed primarily to the Jews scattered abroad, "twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" (1:1). Evidently they were Christian Jews, for James called them "My brethren" with respect to the "faith of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1). Some were rich and some poor (2:1-10; 5:1-6). Lust, greed and pride were evidenced among them (4:1-12). They were severely persecuted (1:2-4, 12-18). The general state of the ones addressed is not such as a gospel teacher could look on with satisfaction. The poor were oppressed and dragged before the judgment seats by the rich. These trials were not endured with the patience and humility which might have been expected of them as Christians. Instead of seeking wisdom from God they regarded Him as their tempter. Worldliness of spirit created strifes and dissentions among them. They seemed to believe that their nominal Christian faith would save them, without a holy life.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING
Jerusalem, where James did most of his work, is believed to be the place of writing. The date is uncertain. Some place it as early as A.D. 40; others as late as A.D. 62. Many conservative scholars believe that it was written around A.D. 48. Their argument is based on several factors. Since the issues of Romans 4 and Galatians 3 are absent, it is thought that the book was written before the Jerusalem conference. Evidently it was not written after the dreadful calamity of A.D. 70. The circumstances described and sins condemned are characteristic of early Jewish Christians. Furthermore, there is no reference to Gentile Christians, which allusions would have been natural after A.D. 50. It is probably safe to say that the Epistle of James is one of the earliest of the New Testament books.