These are good questions, and they have been debated by scholars and theologians for centuries. The answers vary greatly. Some people basically believe that yes, Jesus did have brothers. If so, then he was probably an uncle, shared some DNA, etc. etc. How important would that be to history? Probably not very. The brothers were not that signficant, and the religious powers of Jesus were spiritual, so they would not have been passed on. It is no more relevant than whether or not Napolean had brothers, which he did. So aside of being an interesting question to think about, it doesn't really matter much.
There is another theory on this, too. That theory is based on linguistic interpretations of the original texts that suggest that when the Bible says that Jesus had brothers, it only meant figuratively. There are different words for "brother" that have similar, but slightly different meanings. Some of the words are used interchangeably, and some are not.
That said, James was a very common name in those days. Most scholars and theologians do not believe that James the brother of Jesus is the same as James the apostle. It is possible, but no real connection is made, so it is merely speculation on that point.
Aside of the Bible, there are really no sources that go into a lot of detail about Jesus' early life or his family. The Gnostic Gospels have some information, if you believe in their validity (some do, some don't), but not anything conclusive. So it is virtually impossible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not Jesus had brothers or not.
2007-06-15 09:15:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mr. Taco 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
1 corinthians 4:5 - "We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ce′phas, do we not?" Indicating that at least some of Jesus' brothers were married.
Jesus’ brother James, who was singled out prominently among the older men of the governing body in Jerusalem, wrote the letter bearing his name. (Ac 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Ga 1:19; Jas 1:1) Jesus’ brother Jude penned the book bearing his name. (Jude 1, 17)
Even Nazarene neighbors recognized and identified Jesus as “the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon,” adding, “And his sisters are here with us, are they not?”—Mark 6:3. So Jesus also had sisters too.
2007-06-15 09:16:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by SisterCF 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure about the brothers, but they would still only have Mary's DNA, the human DNA that Jesus needed to earn back our authority and our freedom. I think that the Bible does not mention them because we would be looking for His lineage through them. I am a Christian and I am his lineage, just like all other Christian are His heirs. Most of the world is only interested in the history that discredits Jesus.
2007-06-15 09:30:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rhonda M 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Why would it matter if Jesus had nieces and nephews?
The verse your refering to was specifically stating that blood relation wasn't the important thing in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus responded by pointing to His disciples and saying that they were his brothers.
(As a side note, where does the 'ever virgin Mary' doctrine come from? It isn't in the bible. Why would Joseph and Mary not consummate their marriage after Jesus was born? The angel only told Joseph not to lie with her until the baby was born.)
2007-06-15 09:08:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by David 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Jesus had neither brothers nor sisters. Middle Eastern peoples and many other peoples are very, very clannish....everyone is "brother" or "sister". A friend of mine from Africa recently found daycare for her son. The woman is from their same country -- Ghana. When I asked my friend the name of the woman she replied, "I don't know....we just call her sister".
This is how the author of the lettter of James starts his letter: 1"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ...." Don't you suppose that the letter would have far more credibility if he wrote, "...a brother of the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Further, in the gospels Jesus is referred to as THE son of Mary....not A son of Mary.....signifying that he was the only son of hers.
Also, Jesus HAS to be the only child of Mary -- to symbolize that he is the Alpha and the Omega....the beginning and the end.....NO-ONE is to come after him....no-one came before him. No-one can compare to him....either in the flesh or in his divinity.
2007-06-15 09:18:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by The Carmelite 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his BRETHREN, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his SISTERS, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56
"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH HIS BRETHREN." Acts 1:13-14
"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James THE LORD'S BROTHER." Galatians 1:19
2007-06-15 09:11:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, they wouldn't be divine or share in Christ's divinity. So it really doesn't matter either way; it's not like there's some "sacred bloodline." They were His brothers, not His kids.
Besides, there was that episode in the Bible where the disciples told Jesus that His mother and brothers were there to see Him, and Jesus said that His mother and His brothers were those who obeyed God. (Paraphrase)
2007-06-15 09:11:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by hoff_mom 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
And two sisters, Mary and Salome.
If you ever have 1:45 minutes, watch this documentary from Britain's Channel 4 called "Who Wrote the Bible"
2007-06-15 09:11:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
LOL
I knew he had brothers. But the words Uncle Jesus are pretty funny. I think they were all killed though for the same reasons Jesus was. I don't know if they had kids or not.
2007-06-15 09:08:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Very interesting questions and points. Thanks for bringing them up.
As for whether James, the brother of Christ, was the same James of the book of James, it looks very likely.
2007-06-15 09:09:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by TWWK 5
·
1⤊
0⤋