• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

James, the Lord's brother

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Well, it's kind of a biggy. How do the readers of a community that Luke/Acts is reaching going to assume who this James is? You claim they assume it's the brother of Jesus. Based on what?

Quite possibly because the gospel writers -- or at least the writers of the synoptics -- were writing within a Pauline tradition that was at odds with the Judaism of James and the original Jesus community.

Or perhaps it was James, son of Zebedee that eventually falls out of favour. Perhaps a much later tradition developed (2nd or third century)that made Jesus' brother a Christian leader in the minds of its new followers.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Well, it's kind of a biggy. How do the readers of a community that Luke/Acts is reaching going to assume who this James is? You claim they assume it's the brother of Jesus. Based on what?
The reader of Acts won't know that James is Jesus' brother unless he has some other source of information.

Or perhaps it was James, son of Zebedee that eventually falls out of favour.
That seems much less likely. You want to claim that James of Acts 15 was not the brother of Jesus because Acts doesn't specifically say he was the brother of Jesus. Then you want to say he was the xon of Zebedee even though Acts does specifically say that James the son of Zebedee was dead by then. It makes no sense.

Perhaps a much later tradition developed (2nd or third century)that made Jesus' brother a Christian leader in the minds of its new followers.
Except that it wasn't much later; it appears already in Galatians, which is one of the earliest extant Christian writings.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
The reader of Acts won't know that James is Jesus' brother unless he has some other source of information.

That seems much less likely. You want to claim that James of Acts 15 was not the brother of Jesus because Acts doesn't specifically say he was the brother of Jesus.

Precisely. I don't practice faith, I need a reason to believe.

Then you want to say he was the xon of Zebedee even though Acts does specifically say that James the son of Zebedee was dead by then. It makes no sense.
It makes sense if Acts 12.2 is an interpolation which is probable.

Except that it wasn't much later; it appears already in Galatians, which is one of the earliest extant Christian writings.
Based on what, the assumption that Paul is identifying James as the literal brother of Jesus? He also says plenty that contradicts this which we can go into.

Church leaders have been interpreting these writings for centuries and these baseless traditions appear to be just that now that we can read these texts for ourselves.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Precisely. I don't practice faith, I need a reason to believe.
Nobody, least of all me, is asking you to practice faith. A reasonable person takes a look at the available data, and we have data available other than Acts.

It makes sense if Acts 12.2 is an interpolation which is probable.
I don't think it is probable. I don't think you've even made a good case that it's even worth considering.

Based on what, the assumption that Paul is identifying James as the literal brother of Jesus? He also says plenty that contradicts this which we can go into.
What does he say that contradicts James being the brother of Jesus?

Church leaders have been interpreting these writings for centuries and these baseless traditions appear to be just that now that we can read these texts for ourselves.
Well, despite my lack of sympathy for church leaders, I have to say that this is an instance where their interpretation makes a hell of a lot more sense than yours.

I think you first have show that it's really probable that the account of James the son of Zebedee's death is an interpolation before your argument can proceed at all. And even if you can show that, it doesn't establish your theory, it just brings it up to the level of possibility.

To be frank about it, I think the problem here is that you're proceeding like a creationist. You aren't weighing the evidence and coming to a conclusion; you've got a conclusion and you're trying to make the evidence fit that conclusion.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
I thought simply reading the chapter with the line in [Acts 12.2] and again with the line out might provide reason enough to consider that Acts 12.2 is an interpolation. However, the following provides in detail some possibilities:

"From Paul's letters it shows that he met with Peter and James at some early point, and then he went back to Jerusalem 14 years later and met with the apostles again. Nowhere in Paul's letters does Paul indicate that the James he met the first time is different from the James that he met the second time, and at any rate, he mentions that the apostle James was "the Lord's brother" when discussing the first meeting. Paul also never says anything about James dying. Acts says that Paul first met the disciples in Damascus, which contradicts what the letters of Paul say. It's certain that Acts is not totally accurate, and that the author of Acts made a few things up or based some story elements on traditions that were made up. The book of Acts is where the Gospel story was merged with the apostolistic reality, and as can be expected when blending fact with fiction, inconsistencies arose. This is all the more interesting in Acts because there is a clear differentiation between Acts 1-12 and the later chapters, which contain a more historical story line.

We know one thing for sure though, which is that as far as the author of Acts was concerned, "James" was not a literal brother of Jesus, because a brother of Jesus named James is never mentioned by the author of Acts in either of his works. He wouldn't just introduce an unknown character out of the blue that is supposed to be the real life brother of Jesus without even stating that the person was the brother of Jesus. In Christian tradition, and in most Bibles that have footnotes, the mentions of James after the supposed killing of James son of Zebedee are referenced as the brother of Jesus via footnotes that tie this James to the passage from Paul in Galatians that says "the Lord's brother". Clearly, though, this is not legitimate as nothing within Acts itself makes this association. So, what are the possible answers to who this James is?

There are several possibilities. The first possibility is that the James mentioned after the supposed death of James son of Zebedee is James son of Alphaeus who was also listed as an apostle who was among them during this incident. This would mean that Paul possibly met with James son of Zebedee in Galatians 1 and James son of Alphaeus in Galatians 2.

The second possibility is that the author of Acts somehow got his sources confused and he accidentally recorded the killing of the wrong James, or he put this incident at the wrong place in the time line and in fact Peter and James were not put in prison until later. This could be the case, in which case the killing of "James" in other accounts, such as the accounts of Hegesippus and Josephus, which we looked at in Part I, could be describing the same incident that is described in Acts 12, though Acts 12 is out of order.

This is not unlikely actually, because Acts is considered to exist in two distinct parts, chapters 1 through 12 and chapters 13-28, which are thought to be derived from two different sources that were combined together. In fact there could be overlap with these sections, and thus what is described in Acts 21 could actually have occurred at the same time as what is in Acts 9. These could well be two different descriptions, from two different sources, of the same events, in which case both of the meetings of Paul with James as described in Acts would be talking about James son of Zebedee, and the killing of James son of Zebedee in Acts 12 would likely have occurred in the 60s CE.

If that is the case then the other mentions of the the killing of James, possibly by Josephus and Hegesippus, are really talking about the killing of James son of Zebedee, who was called "James the Just" and "the brother of the Lord". James son of Zebedee would perhaps have had those titles because he was some outstanding community leader.

A third option is that Acts 12:2 is a later interpolation, inserted into the text in order to blot James son of Zebedee out of the history.

In both the writings of Paul and in the Gospels conflict between James son of Zebedee and the others is shown. There was some kind of tension between the brothers of Zebedee and the rest of the apostles. It appears, according to the writings of Paul, that James and John Zebedee held to a more Jewish version of the faith and did not embrace the Gentile apostleship.

In the 1st century, however, James son of Zebedee was considered a pillar of the Christian community, but perhaps later Christians sought to exclude him from the tradition and sever ties to his sect.

There is support for Acts 12:2 being an interpolation within the text itself, because there is no discussion of the death of James, and the narrative goes on as if nothing happened. Indeed if you take that one sentence out no one would ever suspect that the James being talked about in later chapters was no longer James son of Zebedee. [this is what I was alluding to]

If this James really were killed at this point in the Acts narrative, and this narrative were true, then there would have been no reason for the Gospels to have played up the role of James son of Zebedee in the first place. The playing up of his role in the Gospels was presumably done because of this person's later leadership. This was a means of establishing who the leaders were, by tying them into important roles in the narrative. So much effort was put into establishing the trio of Peter, James, and John in the Gospels, while the brothers of Jesus had one line written about them in each Gospel, which only stated that Jesus rejected them, yet we are to then believe that the James mentioned among the Peter, James, and John of later importance refers to a different James than the one referred to in the Gospels and Acts? This clearly makes no sense.

There is even further support for the idea that James the pillar whom Paul met was not a literal brother of Jesus and was perhaps James son of Zebedee.

One of the few other early mentions of James comes from theGospel of Thomas, which does not mention any literal brothers of Jesus, nor does it ascribe a brotherly status to James.
12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
- Gospel of Thomas
This seems like an odd thing to have Jesus say if "James the Just" is the brother of Jesus, as this would have been the perfect place to have Jesus say "Turn to my brother James the Just," etc. Not only would it be odd not to call James his brother here, but it's also odd to give the reason, "for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." This is quite a strange thing to say in any account, ascribing the entire creation of the universe to the grandeur of this one man.

This leads to other questions. In the synoptic Gospels we have James son of Zebedee, along with his brother John, portrayed as one the the three most important disciples and the one perhaps closest to Jesus. In the Gospel of Thomas we have Jesus saying that "James the Just" is the one "for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
What, then, do we have in the Gospel of John?" [now this part gets really interesting] read on at Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion about 4 fifths of the way down the page.
 
Last edited:

Smoke

Done here.
"From Paul's letters it shows that he met with Peter and James at some early point, and then he went back to Jerusalem 14 years later and met with the apostles again. Nowhere in Paul's letters does Paul indicate that the James he met the first time is different from the James that he met the second time, and at any rate, he mentions that the apostle James was "the Lord's brother" when discussing the first meeting. Paul also never says anything about James dying.
The reasonable conclusion is that when Paul says James, he means James the Lord's brother. He doesn't indicate at any point that he ever met James the son of Zebedee, and neither does Acts. He does make it clear that he met James the Lord's brother, so if he only met one James, then Jesus' brother is the one, not the son of Zebedee.

We know one thing for sure though, which is that as far as the author of Acts was concerned, "James" was not a literal brother of Jesus, because a brother of Jesus named James is never mentioned by the author of Acts in either of his works. He wouldn't just introduce an unknown character out of the blue that is supposed to be the real life brother of Jesus without even stating that the person was the brother of Jesus.

This is not unlikely actually, because Acts is considered to exist in two distinct parts, chapters 1 through 12 and chapters 13-28, which are thought to be derived from two different sources that were combined together.
Do you see the obvious problem with this argument?

There are several possibilities. The first possibility is that the James mentioned after the supposed death of James son of Zebedee is James son of Alphaeus who was also listed as an apostle who was among them during this incident. This would mean that Paul possibly met with James son of Zebedee in Galatians 1 and James son of Alphaeus in Galatians 2.
If James can't be the brother of Jesus because the author of Acts doesn't specifically say so, then he can't be the son of Alphaeus because the author of Acts doesn't specifically say so. Your treatment of the evidence is prejudicial.

However, the Roman Catholic interpretation is that James the son of Alphaeus is actually the same person as James the Lord's brother, and that "brother" was used in the broad sense of "kinsman" or "cousin." Of course, the basis for this interpretation is the Catholic belief that both Mary and Joseph were lifelong virgins, and that James could therefore not have been either the brother or step-brother of Jesus. I'm not convinced by that line of argument, either.

The second possibility is that the author of Acts somehow got his sources confused and he accidentally recorded the killing of the wrong James, or he put this incident at the wrong place in the time line and in fact Peter and James were not put in prison until later. This could be the case, in which case the killing of "James" in other accounts, such as the accounts of Hegesippus and Josephus, which we looked at in Part I, could be describing the same incident that is described in Acts 12, though Acts 12 is out of order.
Except that Paul makes it clear that he met James the Lord's brother.

I was going to address some of your other points, but really, all you've got is idle speculation with nothing substantial to back it up. I'm getting bored with this discussion.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
The reasonable conclusion is that when Paul says James, he means James the Lord's brother. He doesn't indicate at any point that he ever met James the son of Zebedee, and neither does Acts. He does make it clear that he met James the Lord's brother, so if he only met one James, then Jesus' brother is the one, not the son of Zebedee.




Do you see the obvious problem with this argument?

If James can't be the brother of Jesus because the author of Acts doesn't specifically say so, then he can't be the son of Alphaeus because the author of Acts doesn't specifically say so. Your treatment of the evidence is prejudicial.

However, the Roman Catholic interpretation is that James the son of Alphaeus is actually the same person as James the Lord's brother, and that "brother" was used in the broad sense of "kinsman" or "cousin." Of course, the basis for this interpretation is the Catholic belief that both Mary and Joseph were lifelong virgins, and that James could therefore not have been either the brother or step-brother of Jesus. I'm not convinced by that line of argument, either.

Except that Paul makes it clear that he met James the Lord's brother.

I was going to address some of your other points, but really, all you've got is idle speculation with nothing substantial to back it up. I'm getting bored with this discussion.

If only Paul had referred to James as the brother of Jesus, but he didn't. And if this bores you we can leave it at that.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Okay, I've read some of your other posts, so now I understand what this is about. You don't believe Jesus really existed, so therefore he couldn't have had a brother. Sorry, but that's right on the same level as Catholics saying he couldn't have had a brother because Mary and Joseph were lifelong virgins. Dogmatic pronouncements make poor history. They make poor skepticism, too, by the way.
 

Charity

Let's go racing boys !
According to some Bible scholars (not Charity of course) James is mentioned as the son of Zebedee and one of the twelve apostles...James and John were brothers. James was the first of the apostles to be put to death somewhere around A.D. 42-44. He was put to death by Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great. Jesus referred to James and John as the Sons of Thunder.
James, the son of Alphaeus was also one of the twelve apostles.
James, the brother of Jesus, was first mentioned as the oldest of Jesus' four younger brothers (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3) Further study of some scholars indicate that Jesus' brothers adopted a skeptical attitude toward His ministry...After the crucifixion James became a believer. Paul indicated this and that James was a witness to the resurrection of Jesus. Paul also referred to James as an apostle but not one of the original twelve. This is the James that is believed to be the author of the Epistle of James in the NT....Judas the brother of Jesus is believed to be the author of the book of Jude. Not the same Judas as the apostle who betrayed Christ....
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Okay, I've read some of your other posts, so now I understand what this is about. You don't believe Jesus really existed, so therefore he couldn't have had a brother. Sorry, but that's right on the same level as Catholics saying he couldn't have had a brother because Mary and Joseph were lifelong virgins. Dogmatic pronouncements make poor history. They make poor skepticism, too, by the way.

According to the gospel story line, Jesus had a brother named James. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the notion that Paul met with Jesus' brother, and I'm disputing the notion that Jesus' brother became a leader of a Christian community. I think the Peter, James and John that Paul wrote of were real people, real and actual leaders of a Christian community. Whether Jesus is historical or mythical is another subject of debate, one that is not under consideration here.
 
Last edited:

Charity

Let's go racing boys !
According to the gospel story line, Jesus had a brother named Jesus. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the notion that Paul met with Jesus' brother, and I'm disputing the notion that Jesus' brother became a leader of a Christian community. I think the Peter, James and John that Paul wrote of were real people, real and actual leaders of a Christian community. Whether Jesus is historical or mythical is another subject of debate, one that is not under consideration here.
In the book of Acts James becomes the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. His brothers also became believers and did missionary travels.(ICor 15:5-7) James thought it was his calling to oversee the church in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9)
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
In the book of Acts James becomes the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. His brothers also became believers and did missionary travels.(ICor 15:5-7) James thought it was his calling to oversee the church in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9)

This has been discussed. Acts does not name any of Jesus' siblings.
 

Smoke

Done here.
What I'm disputing is the notion that Paul met with Jesus' brother, and I'm disputing the notion that Jesus' brother became a leader of a Christian community.
You're not disputing it very well, though. It's not just a "notion"; Paul quite clearly claimed to have met with Jesus' brother, and while I'm more than prepared to disregard Paul's claim if you can give any plausible reason for doing so, you haven't done that at all.

If anything, considering Paul's adversarial relationship with James, he lacks any motivation to call James "the Lord's brother" unless that is, in fact, who James was. The fact that Paul, of all people, calls him "the Lord's brother" makes it practically a dead certainty that that's exactly who James was.
 

Charity

Let's go racing boys !
This has been discussed. Acts does not name any of Jesus' siblings.
I gave other scriptures......Sorry if I have repeated anything already posted, but I read the op and a few of the posts.....
Jesus' siblings are listed in Mat and Mark.
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
You're not disputing it very well, though. It's not just a "notion"; Paul quite clearly claimed to have met with Jesus' brother, and while I'm more than prepared to disregard Paul's claim if you can give any plausible reason for doing so, you haven't done that at all.

If anything, considering Paul's adversarial relationship with James, he lacks any motivation to call James "the Lord's brother" unless that is, in fact, who James was. The fact that Paul, of all people, calls him "the Lord's brother" makes it practically a dead certainty that that's exactly who James was.


How many brothers did Jesus have? Are we to assume these all to be literal brothers?


  1. Philippians 1:14
    Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.
    Philippians 1:13-15 (in Context) Philippians 1 (Whole Chapter)


Galatians 1:2


  1. and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia:
    Galatians 1:1-3 (in Context) Galatians 1 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Galatians 1:11
    [ Paul Called by God ] I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
    Galatians 1:10-12 (in Context) Galatians 1 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Galatians 1:19
    I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
    Galatians 1:18-20 (in Context) Galatians 1 (Whole Chapter)
  4. Galatians 2:4
    This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
    Galatians 2:3-5 (in Context) Galatians 2 (Whole Chapter)
  5. Galatians 3:15
    [ The Law and the Promise ] Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
    Galatians 3:14-16 (in Context) Galatians 3 (Whole Chapter)
  6. Galatians 4:12
    I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong.
    Galatians 4:11-13 (in Context) Galatians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  7. Galatians 4:28
    Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
    Galatians 4:27-29 (in Context) Galatians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  8. Galatians 4:31
    Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
    Galatians 4:30-31 (in Context) Galatians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  9. Galatians 5:11
    Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.
    Galatians 5:10-12 (in Context) Galatians 5 (Whole Chapter)



  1. Acts 1:16
    and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—
    Acts 1:15-17 (in Context) Acts 1 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Acts 2:29
    "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
    Acts 2:28-30 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Acts 2:37
    When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
    Acts 2:36-38 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter)
  4. Acts 3:17
    "Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.
    Acts 3:16-18 (in Context) Acts 3 (Whole Chapter)
  5. Acts 6:3
    Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them
    Acts 6:2-4 (in Context) Acts 6 (Whole Chapter)
  6. Acts 7:2
    To this he replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.
    Acts 7:1-3 (in Context) Acts 7 (Whole Chapter)
  7. Acts 7:13
    On their second visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was, and Pharaoh learned about Joseph's family.
    Acts 7:12-14 (in Context) Acts 7 (Whole Chapter)
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
  1. Philippians 2:25
    But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs.
    Philippians 2:24-26 (in Context) Philippians 2 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Philippians 3:1
    [ No Confidence in the Flesh ] Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.
    Philippians 3:1-3 (in Context) Philippians 3 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Philippians 3:13
    Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,
    Philippians 3:12-14 (in Context) Philippians 3 (Whole Chapter)
  4. Philippians 3:17
    Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you.
    Philippians 3:16-18 (in Context) Philippians 3 (Whole Chapter)
  5. Philippians 4:1
    Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends!
    Philippians 4:1-3 (in Context) Philippians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  6. Philippians 4:8
    Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
    Philippians 4:7-9 (in Context) Philippians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  7. Philippians 4:21
    [ Final Greetings ] Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send greetings.
    Philippians 4:20-22 (in Context) Philippians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  8. Colossians 1:1
    Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
    Colossians 1:1-3 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter)
  9. Colossians 1:2
    To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.
    Colossians 1:1-3 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter)
  10. Colossians 4:7
    [ Final Greetings ] Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord.
    Colossians 4:6-8 (in Context) Colossians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  11. Colossians 4:9
    He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is happening here.
    Colossians 4:8-10 (in Context) Colossians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  12. Colossians 4:15
    Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
    Colossians 4:14-16 (in Context) Colossians 4 (Whole Chapter)
  13. 1 Thessalonians 1:4
    For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,
    1 Thessalonians 1:3-5 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 1 (Whole Chapter)
  14. 1 Thessalonians 2:1
    [ Paul's Ministry in Thessalonica ] You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure.
    1 Thessalonians 2:1-3 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter)
  15. 1 Thessalonians 2:9
    Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you.
    1 Thessalonians 2:8-10 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter)
  16. 1 Thessalonians 2:14
    For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews,
    1 Thessalonians 2:13-15 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter)
  17. 1 Thessalonians 2:17
    [ Paul's Longing to See the Thessalonians ] But, brothers, when we were torn away from you for a short time (in person, not in thought), out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you.
    1 Thessalonians 2:16-18 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter)
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
The above posts supply just a fraction of Jesus' brothers for those that take Brothers of the Lord to mean literal brothers, rather than members of a brotherhood of believers, or In James' case, a leader of a Christian brotherhood.
 

Charity

Let's go racing boys !
The above posts supply just a fraction of Jesus' brothers for those that take Brothers of the Lord to mean literal brothers, rather than members of a brotherhood of believers, or In James' case, a leader of a Christian brotherhood.
The brothers of Jesus were listed as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Top