I've read somewhere that Jesus had a brother named James. Also, in Jude, the second last book of the NT it describes Jude as "brother of James", a description that would not have been necessary if it were just any James.

Does anyone know for sure what the Bible says on this topic?

Hello Dax,

Mat 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.



Mat 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.


Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.


I know he had brothers I just am not sure how many ?
And if He had more then one sister ?

Gram, surely you last quote means that the word brothers or sister is wider than the Biological concept. If anyone who did the will of My Father is a brother or sister than he had millions of brothers and sisters.

Hi aus22,

Yes you are correct in that statement.

I thought there was some place it mentioned a sister and just
took that as the one.
Maybe He did not ? I am not sure now.

I may have taken that same one ?
Some times I try to go to quick and miss the whole thing.

Hi Dax:

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Thanks DC, I knew it was in there somewhere.

According to my imperfect understanding, Catholics deny that Jesus had blood brothers because it is counter to the "perfect virgin" or "eternal virgin" status of Mary as held by Catholics. But I'm ready to listen.

The Catholics believe that Mary was an eternal virgin because it was taught to us by the Apostles. She did not have any other children other than Jesus. Joseph, however, had children from a previous marriage. The following weblink below explains it better.

Did Jesus have brothers?

Hi Selene:

Good to hear from you. Seems you are still quite busy with your most recent duty assignment. I'm sure there are many who are benefiting greatly from your dedication.

Thanks for the link, Selene. It explains well how this doctrine was established; information that I was not aware of that has a very reasonable logic behind it.

We have Ugandan friends who refer to relatives, close and distant, in a way that is very much closer to the Hebraic way than to our western way so this concept is alive and well to this day.

I would like to look further into the Hebraic sense of words, both Greek and Hebrew, that are rendered 'brethren' and the like but time does not permit me to do this now. However there is a couple other aspects that can be taken into consideration with regard to this link.

As with many explanations we humans try to apply to the scriptures where it doesn't seem like they have all the details we would like, the author of your link's explanation did not cover all the aspects of this subject, but then it wasn't expected to do so either. It did its job in the scope in which it was intended I suspect.

One aspect is ...The Greek word rendered 'the' can also be rendered 'one', among other options. Translator's discretion. Using 'one' puts another slant on the possible intent of this verse.

Another aspect to consider is ...I am wondering why this would make any difference? If that were the case then shouldn't the person having that womb also be sinless? If Mary was sinless, then she wouldn't have needed the sacrifice of the messiah contrary to the scriptures that ALL have sinned, except for messiah, and fall short of the glory of yhwh.

Also, I am wondering, what difference would it make if 'Jesus' inhabited a sinful womb or shared a womb with a sinful person. His entire purpose was to be manifested as a person, exactly like the rest of us, to come into a sinful existence to experience it just like us so that he could be made complete (made 'perfect' through suffering) by totally overcoming the temptations of sin so to become the Deliverer of ALL mankind. He was immersed into a sinful world, beginning with being immersed into a sinful womb.

In fact, circumstances surrounding the conception of the messiah seems to have been purposely set to make it to look like the messiah was indeed immersed in a most sinful situation as he would be considered a bastard, conceived out of wedlock, to the point where Joseph wanted to protect Mary and the child from that stigma by 'putting her away'.

The Bible doesn't confirm one way or the other that Mary had other children after the messiah, so apparently it doesn't really matter all that much or something would have been specifically said. Suppositions on matters of scripture where details are not stated cause us to come up with doctrines which may be missing the glory of yhwh. That may not be the case with this doctrine but it seems to me it is a doctrine that should be approached with caution until concrete evidence about it can be firmly established.

My personal understanding of this doesn't really matter here but I suspect Mary had other children afterwards in keeping with how Mark 6:3 reads. But we really can't know for sure one way or another. Perhaps if a copy of the original letter of Mark is found, and I suspect, if found, it will have been written in Hebrew, perhaps some of those questions could be answered, but then again maybe more questions will arise.

After messiah arrives those things will be better brought to light.

Shalom

If God had really cared about it, he would have rendered Mary childless after Jesus birth, and solved a great many problems for everyone.

Jesus is God's only begotten son, but was not Adam also a son of God?

And in some ways, aren't we all children of God and therefore brothers and sisters?

Hi Dax:

The problems of misunderstanding the scriptures today would not have come up in the first place had mankind not rejected yhwh and instead believed his teachings as they stood unaltered in the original writings.

But no, the teachings of yhwh were not good enough for mankind who thought he had a better idea about life.

Instead of heeding those teachings and living life as yhwh lives it, mankind took the word of yhwh, stretched it, added to it, took away from it and put it into the abomination that is the English translations of the Bible we have today, contrary to the teaching that not even a jot or a tittle of the torah should be changed.

The gods formed mankind and blessed mankind by declaring that they should go forth, multiple and be fruitful. Why would the gods, or yhwh, then proceed to make Mary barren?

Of all mothers, one 'good enough' to mother the son of yhwh, wouldn't Mary be the best of the bunch to be the mother of as many children as possible, having one of the siblings, the oldest, being the perfect example to set for the rest?

yhshua was the only human being whose conception was a result of the direct intervention of yhwh through the holy spirit.

'Technically adam was formed by the elohim (gods) from the soil of the land and eve was formed by the elohim as a copy of the amid of adam. So instead, adam and eve are better referred to as the children of the gods (actually better said as 'children of the elohim'). If you are interested at all in confirming that, look up that section your Bible and read it using the substitutions I recommend below and see how it plays out.

I would say that is a fair statement depending upon what "ways" you have in mind and what you mean by "God".

In light of my replies to you with regarding God/elohim in this thread and others, have you tried out the understanding I've presented and instead of reading "the LORD" when it appears in the English, instead substitute "yhwh" and where it says "God" in the English substitute ' the gods' (or better 'the might ones')? If not try that and see how the meaning changes.

Also , if the rules of Hebrew would be followed consistently without exception, "LORD God" would at least be rendered "LORD of the gods" and if the deceptive doctrines of translation where removed, would be rendered 'yhwh of the elohim'. That's how the Hebrew actually reads.

Consider, as an example ...
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ...
Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. (KJV)
... compared to ...
Gen 1:27 So Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them. ...
Gen 2:15 And YHWH Elohim took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. (RNKJV)