/r/Christianity is a subreddit to discuss Christianity and aspects of Christian life. All are welcome to participate.
Literal brother? cousin? half-brother? Completely unrelated but called brother?
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
If his parents are Joseph and Mary, then he’d be Jesus’ half brother(assuming Joseph was not the father). If he has different parents, then that’s a different kettle of fish
You mean different mothers. Mary was virgin when she got Jesus
No, they definitely meant different fathers.
He*
James could just be the younger brother
No, Mary’s virginity doesn’t matter here. What matters is how the egg was fertilized(or more accurately, who was the sperm donor)
Why you downvoted?
Comment removed by moderator
Sorry what?!
The bible didn't mention anything about Mary sleeping with a neighbor
After Mary was Born her parents had sent her to Solomon's Temple and she got out of the temple after becoming 12 years, then Joseph was chosen to take care of her, after that the Angle told her about she'll be the Messiah mother and then Jesus was born
Where is this story about being sent to Solomon's Temple from? ... And wasn't Solomon's Temple destroyed long before this period -- often referred to as the SECOND Temple Period?
Removed for 2.1.
You got a source for that?
I have it on good authority from a blob of tentacles in Skyrim that in Genesis, it wasn’t Adam and Eve, but Adam and Steve…..
Adam and Steve is right.
No, it isn’t.
Identical with James the son of Alphaeus/Cleophas (Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19) his wife Mary (who was a cousin of Mary the Theotokos, John 19:25, Mark 15:40, and Matthew 27:55-56). He was a brother of Judas Thaddaeus, Simon (who would follow him as Bishop of Jerusalem), and Joseph (about whom we know only his name). He was also known as James the Just, and was the leader of the "Circumcision Party" before the Council of Jerusalem. He may also be the other disciple with his father Cleophas on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24, cf. the fragment from the Gospel of the Hebrews preserved by Jerome in De Viris Illustribus, 3).
Edit forgot to add: was likely called "James the Less" because he was shorter than James the son of Zebedee.
If people followed James instead of Saul Christianity would be much different today
Wait how so?
They thought different things. Paul was not trusted by James and others
What why? What was the issue they had? I needa know
I am actually working on an MA thesis about this for this Spring. Essentially: if you date Acts and the Synoptics to before the death of Paul, they can be contextualized in the Gentile Question. Mark is put together from the sermon notes of Peter some time in the early to mid-40s. It has some arguments about how Gentiles should be included/the role of the Kosher Laws, but it is mainly focused on being an account of how Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Late 40s and early 50s the Gentile Controversy ramps up. The disciples who were part of the extended family of Jesus (James, Judas Thaddaeus, Simon, etc) believe that the Gentiles ought to fully convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus. The disciples allied with Peter and Paul argue that the Gentiles ought not be bound by the ceremonial laws. Matthew is written to edit and expand Mark, in order to: 1. Show Jesus as more authentically Jewish and that His commissioning of the Church to the Gentiles is a part of His authentically Jewish Messianic movement, 2. That Peter (who initially got the ball rolling on baptizing the Gentiles) was worth listening to, 3. Strengthening Mark's arguments in the Gospel. Also around this time, there are potentially other rival Gospel accounts circulating--like an early version of the Gospel of the Hebrews (which, as it would come from this apostolic time period/from actual disciples, would explain why the early Church loved it/held it as authoritative while not canonical). But, around 50 you have the Council of Jerusalem, where Peter, James, and Paul all get "on the same page." The leaders of the Church agree on the basics (some disagreement on the fringes: we agree that the Gentile followers of Jesus don't need to follow the ceremonial laws, but what about the Jewish ones? But on a whole Peter, James, and Paul agree). But, as the decade rolls on, because of the divergent Gospel accounts and some of the leftover controversies (especially, for example, why should we read these letters by this Paul guy anyway? He used to persecute us, he wasn't a disciple of Jesus during His ministry, he says a lot of extreme things in his letters, and to top it off he was a prisoner of the Romans/a criminal), it became necessary for Luke to write a Gospel and the Acts. He writes Luke while Paul is imprisoned in Caesarea (57-59) in order to reconcile the πολλοί (the MANY [which is generally more than two]) Gospel accounts that were available to the ancient Church (that is: Mark, Matthew, Hebrews [?], and any others he was able to talk to while he was in Palestine while Paul was imprisoned there. He writes Acts as a summary of Who is Paul/Why you should listen to him (and emphasizing the reconciliation with James and Peter), and he ends it in 62, as Paul is left in prison in the account (with no account of his death). Then as history continued: the Church held on to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and another account John. Some Christians continued to use the account from the James Party (the Gospel of the Hebrews, whom St. Didymus the Blind attributed to Matthias), but as it had a weaker Christology and came from the loosing side of the ancient debate, it was eventually lost. (But parts of it survive in Luke [like his retelling of Jesus's resurrection appearance to James and his father Cleophas] and John [the added story of the woman caught in adultery, John 7:53-8:11])
It would be interesting to have letters of those people Paul wrote about. He even said some of them denied crucifixion. We only have one side od the story. Is it possible that the Jewish Christians didn't believe what Paul preached since we have only one sided story? The letter of James is pseudo Jams. Pretty confusing.
The four brothers of Jesus designated by their names in Mk 6,2 (Mt 13,55) are sons of a different mother than Jesus. The first two James and Joseph appear in the narrative of the death of Jesus as children of another Mary, different from the mother of Jesus (Mt 27,56; Mk 15,40), their father was Alphaeus (Mt 10,3) .
It also follows from these facts that the other two (Simon and Judas) are not brothers of Jesus either, especially since Mt 27,56 and Mk 15,40 do not mention them. It should also be emphasized that in the NT it is never said that they are children of Mary or Joseph. Furthermore, in the Gospel of John (19:25-27), before Jesus died, he entrusted his Mother to John, something that would not be understood if he had other brothers.
On the other hand, in the infancy narratives, Jesus appears as the only son of Mary and Joseph. When Luke in 2,7 speaks of Jesus as the firstborn, he wants to tell us that being the first, the law is applied to him in his relationship with God and the temple (Lk 2,22-24). When the family goes up to Jerusalem to fulfill the rite called son of the commandment, as it corresponded to Jesus when he was 12 years old, there is no mention of any more son (Lk 2,41-50).
There is not a single person in the bible who is said to be the daughter of the parents of Jesus, nor that one of them ever had plural children. It is mentioned that he was an apostle and we know the affiliation of both apostles James one was the son of Zebedee and Salome and the other son of Alphaeus / Cleopas and a "sister" of the mother of Jesus called Mary.
Nor is there a verse that says "And neither Mary nor Joseph had more children" and of course james was a frequent name at that time and place, in the New Testament up to seven different people appear with some of the variants of the same name.
To claim that Jesus had brothers in a modern sense requires assuming that logically over the years they were born but the scriptures do not support such an assumption as fact.
The fact of speaking of brothers in a semiotic cultural context does not clarify anything, Abraham/Lot as soon as they say they are brothers like uncle and nephew and between cousins and other relatives they are also called brothers.
David also gathered the sons of Aaron... and his brothers, a hundred and twenty... Of the sons of Merari... and his brothers, two hundred and twenty (1 Chr 15, 4-6 See following verses and 2 Kg 10, 13- 14 too). Rebekah's mother calls her sister (Gn 24, 55-60). Moses calls the sons of Aaron's uncle brothers (Lev 10, 1-6).
In one verse it is even written that Jesus met with 500 brothers.
What evidence do you have to suggest that the James and Joseph in Matthew 27:56 are two of the four brothers mentioned in Mark 6:3? The fact that it only lists two sons, rather than four, suggests that they may be completely different people (which also seems to line up with the verses saying that four were Jesus's brothers but then the two had different parents than Him).
"I did not see any other Apostle, but only James, the brother of the Lord" (Galatians 1, 19).
From this passage we can deduce that this James was one of the 12 Apostles. Here the first problem arises since among the apostles there were only two Santiagos: "James, son of Zebedee...James, son of Alphaeus" (Matthew 10, 2-3).
Neither of them was the son of Joseph the carpenter, so James is ruled out as a blood brother of Jesus.
Joseph
In the Jewish culture of the time it was not customary for parents to name their children after them. That makes it unlikely that Joseph, the putative father of Jesus, had a son also named Joseph. In fact, there are no instances of parents naming their children after themselves in the entire Bible.
Judas
“Judas, servant of Jesus Christ, brother of James…” (Judas 1, 1).
Here we have a Judas brother of James, from which we can deduce that it is almost certainly the same Judas and James, brothers and apostles, of Jesus. Interestingly, the text does not say brother of Jesus, only of James.
There were only two Judas among the apostles: the traitor and the son of James (Acts 1, 13). Neither of them was the son of Joseph the carpenter, so he too is ruled out as a blood brother of Jesus.
Simon
Very little is known about him, but many historians agree that he is the apostle Simon since in all the lists of the apostles (Matthew 10, 2-4; Mark 3, 16-19; Luke 6, 13-16; Acts 1, 13) appears together with James and Judas (also called "brothers" of Jesus) and therefore had some kind of connection between the three. This Simon was a Canaanite, therefore he could not be a blood brother of Jesus either.
It happens that in any Jewish locality these names are repeated to say, and how do you know that there were no other men with that name and they were brothers of Jesus? "There is no verse that says they never had more children"...both things being true.
It implies that you consider as a DOGMA OF FAITH that Mary and Joseph had more children although the Bible does not say so, the texts of the first centuries are not canonical either and the semiotic culture applied to the text does not support it.
To explain specific relationships they use son of, son of my father/mother, son of my father's/mother's brother, brother of my mother/father...
That a text does not deny something does not mean that it says it; applying that, a lot of things that the biblical text does not collect could be considered as true, they seem logical to one and are not expressly denied.
What is known for sure from 2000 years of examination of the scriptures is that there is not a single person listed who was specified as the daughter of Mary, mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph, or of Joseph, husband of Mary and "father" of Jesus, who is the The only way to KNOW that there was any other child and it is not even mentioned that this marriage was raising CHILDREN in the plural.
During XVI centuries this was added to the examination of all the writings of the first centuries and it was concluded that there had not been any.
When the Protestant leaders (who denied that Jesus had any brothers in a western sense) arrived proclaiming free interpretation and economic bibles produced by the printing press many people applying their local culture to the text "suddenly discovered" that they had been deceived and Jesus had brothers .
In the Catholic, Orthodox, Syrian, Ethiopian churches... all Christian churches have read the Gospels aloud publicly, including the passages that name the brothers of Jesus in the local language for 20 centuries....
The one who discovered it by surprise when reading the Bible in his house or being preached by a Protestant is that he did not listen in church or directly did not attend the readings.
Do you mean SEMITIC rather than SEMIOTIC?
He’s the son of Alpheus and Clopas, so he’d be the cousin of Christ.
Technically he would be a half brother, due to the whole virgin birth thing. However from the text it seems like they saw each other as just plain brothers.
Or was just born after Jesus Mary didn’t stay a virgin following the birth
Oh certainly, maybe I wasn't clear, Mary is mom to both. She was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth, after she did have some kids through the normal fashion.
Ah I see it wasn’t entirely clear from what you said and there are a shocking number of people who claim Mary remained a virgin for life.
Yeah I apologize for that, I should have been more careful with that. I had one of the first posts on this thread so I didn't realize how bad it was with other beliefs, I should have made sure my wording was more clear and thought out. Glad to see someone preaching the truth though, thank you!
Half-brother.
Older brother same father different mother. Jesus loved him
Jesus is the only son of The Most Holy Mother, James and the others are likely cousins
That not what the Bible says.
It’s literally what the Bible says. Lots of people in Scripture are called “brothers” when in reality they were technically cousins or nephews etc. Lot and Abraham for one example.
Sure, after believing and following Christ. That wouldn't be the case in many references to James because he is called Jesus'brother before his conversion. Mathew 13:55 is also pretty clear, the people in his hometown are referring to him but his family. Not the church but his blood family.
It’s not cut and dry, if it were then we wouldn’t have conversations like this about Jesus’ siblings. It’s a conversation that comes up all the time… precisely because the scriptures don’t give an concise answer. So we have to look at history and what the church has always taught and believed. And the church teaches that Mary always remained a virgin, and never had any other children. Even some of the Protestant reformers held to that belief. It wasn’t until significantly later that it ever became a big issue for people.
A son of St Joseph, I assume. A very close relative of Jesus, at any rate.
I have no problem with the notion that he was a son of the BVM - I don’t think the NT is explicit on either side. I think the words of Jesus lose their force considerably, if His “brothers and sisters” were not very close kin to Him.
Jesus was an lonely child,. He didn't have any siblings and often in this period cousins were also called siblings
Jesus had at least 5 brothers and 2 sisters, Obviously they were not born of God but sisters and brothers from the same mother , different father Joseph , Jesus himself virgin born.
I grew up believing this, and never questioned it, and I shocked a lot of people because I don't think Mary remained a virgin. I don't really get why they are so hung up on Mary being a virgin as it's not like having sex inside marriage is sinful.
You must believe alot of things which aren't really Scriptural if you grow up catholic or Orthodox. Bishop is also required to have wife else he cannot rule house of God.
If you were never born again and never heared the true gospel of salvation.
Salvation is free gift of God not by works given to whoever believes on Son , that Jesus came as God in flesh , died for your sin , was burried and risen 3rd day.
Jesus paid for your sins , if you accept his payment you have all of your sins paid for and go to heaven when you die and thats the good news.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.
If you're interested about Bishops it's there :
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
They forbid to marry for Mary and for Deacons/ Bishops thats why she is seen as Virgin.
I grew up Presbyterian. The people I shocked were Catholic.
You seem to be preaching some false doctrines here.
Thank you. Enlghtening comment.
Only that he didnt write the Epistle of James.
I want to know if the catholics hail him as the brother of God.
The official statement of the Catholic Church is he is the cousin of Jesus not the brother, of course this doesn't mean that Catholics could have different opinions it's not a dogma to believe he is not the brother of Jesus. The Orthodox believe that he is the son of Joseph so half brother, but technically Jesus is not really related to Jesus because they also believe Mary is a virgin so that would mean that it's like step half brother.
My favourite letter writer..Just. Flesh brother.
Maybe I think it’s debated if the autor is the same James or not
What isn't debated, tho?
True enough
Fun fact...except in the introduction, James doesn't mention Jesus in his letter.
Half brother is my understanding
Half brother by blood full brother by adoption.
He would be half brother by blood since Jesus is gods only begotten son, but they would be full brothers by adoption since Joseph adopted Jesus.
Pretty cool
Paul went to Jerusalem to swear that he is not teaching anything different than Torah says and he did but he lied to them. They didn't trust each other. But the problem is we have nothing from them.