The LORD JESUS CHRIST appeared to His 500 brothers. Are they children of Joseph and Mary?
The LORD JESUS CHRIST appeared to His 500 brothers. Are they children of Joseph and Mary? 
BADBANANA62, ALIAS RACHEL BUENAVISTA, spoofed my article “JAMES THE LORD’S KIN.”
Check out our exchanges HERE.
1. I said, “Did Paul say James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus?  Nah!”  What I meant was “Paul did not say James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said, “Did Paul say James was NOT the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus? Nah!”  What she meant was “Paul did not say James was NOT the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus,” which is tantamount to “Paul did say James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
Paul said it plainly, “James the brother of the Lord (cf Gal 1:19).”  The word “brother” in Galatians 1:19 was never used exclusively to refer to uterine brother or blood brother or half brother only, but it was also used to refer to relatives, kins, clansmen, comrades, countrymen, etc.  If the sacred authors of the New Testament meant that James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus, they should have supported it with concrete statements towards that end such as, “James, the brother of the Lord by the same mother.”  But since there weren’t any such clarifying expressions or circumlocutions, then James was not the uterine brother or blood brother or half brother of the Lord, but a common brother like relatives, kins, clansmen, comrades, countrymen, etc.
…
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Definition of terms used:
• Brother: 1: a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another
2: one related to another by common ties or interests
3: a fellow member — used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations
4: one of a type similar to another
5 a: KINSMAN b: one who shares with another a common national or racial origin; especially: SOUL BROTHER
6 a: capitalized: a member of a congregation of men not in holy orders and usually in hospital or school work b: a member of a men’s religious order who is not preparing for or is not ready for holy orders (a lay brother).
• Kinsman: RELATIVE; specifically: a male relative.
• Relative: 3a: a person connected with another by blood or affinity b: an animal or plant related to another by common descent
• Uterine brother: born of the same mother but by a different father.
• Blood brother: a brother by birth.
• Half brother: a brother related through one parent only.
• Circumlocution: the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea.
…
James the brother of the Lord (cf Gal 1:19).  In the Semitic usage, the terms ‘brother,’ ‘sister’ are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters.  Here are just a few examples:
• Lot was a nephew of Abram but the Bible described him as Abram’s brother’s son and Abram’s brother:
And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.  (Gen 12:5, KJV)
And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.  (Gen 14:16, KJV)
• Jacob was a nephew of Laban but the Bible described him as Laban’s sister’s son and Laban’s brother:
And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things.  (Gen 29:13, KJV)
And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?  (Gen 29:15, KJV)
• Nadab and Abihu were the nephews of Mishael and Elzaphan but the Bible described them as brethrens:
And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.  And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.  (Lev 10:1-2, KJV)
And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.  (Lev 10:4)
Therefore, I was right in saying, “Paul did not say James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus.”
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “Paul did say James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus.”
2. I said, “Did Paul say Joseph was the father of James? Nah!”  What I meant was “Paul did not say Joseph was the father of James.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said, “Did Paul say Joseph was NOT the father of James? Nah!”  What she meant was “Paul did not say Joseph was NOT the father of James,” which is tantamount to “Paul did say Joseph was the father of James.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
I scanned all the 14 books attributed to Paul in the Bible and searched for these words or combination of these words: Joseph and father of James; Joseph; father of James; father and James; Joseph and James; and the result was “No matching text could be found” except for the word Joseph of the Old Testament (cf Heb 11:21-22).
Therefore, I was right in saying, Paul did not say Joseph was the father of James.”
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “Paul did say Joseph was the father of James.”
3. I said: “Did Paul say Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James?  Nah!”  What I meant was “Paul did not say Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said: “Did Paul say Jesus’ mother Mary was NOT the mother of James? Nah!”  What she meant was “Paul did not say Jesus’ mother Mary was NOT the mother of James,” which is tantamount to “Paul did say Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
In his fourteen books in the New Testament (Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Col, 1&2 Thes, 1&2 Tm, Ti, Phlm, and Heb), Paul mentioned the name of James, the apostle and brother of the Lord, four times only, as follows:
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  (1Cor 15:7)
But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.  (Gal 1:19)
And when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.  (Gal 2:9)
For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.  (Gal 2:12)
In the same fourteen books, Paul mentioned the name of Mary only once:
Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you.  (Rom 16:6)
As clear as the sky is blue, Paul never say Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.
Therefore, I was right in saying, “Paul did not say Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.” 
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “Paul did say Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.”
4. I said, “Did Paul say Mary was no longer a virgin? Nah!”  What I meant was “Paul did not say Mary was no longer a virgin.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said: “Did Paul say Mary was STILL a virgin? Nah!”  What she meant was “Paul did not say Mary was STILL a virgin,” which is tantamount to “Paul did say Mary was NO LONGER a virgin.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
In the entire Bible, there is only one righteous person who has a virgin: Joseph.  These verses refer to the virgin of Joseph:
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.  (Lk 1:26-27)
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus, But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”  (Lk 1:31, 34)
Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.  Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.  She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”  (Mt 1:19-23)
Thus, it was Joseph and his virgin, Mary, who were in the mind of Paul when he wrote:
If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.  The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.  So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.  (1 Cor 7:36-38)
In the context of Paul’s teaching above, marry means the consummation of marriage.  Remember what Peter said about Paul’s writings?  Peter aptly warned:
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.  (2 Pt 3:15-16)
Here are incontrovertible proofs that Joseph kept his virgin, that is, he did not deflower Mary:
• Matthew, an educated tax collector called Joseph a just or righteous man (cf Mt 1:19).  If Joseph molested his virgin, surely, no one among the disciples of Christ will call him just or righteous.  It is unthinkable that Joseph, a righteous man, will profane the sacred ark, that was Mary, of the New Covenant, that was the Holy Child Jesus (cf Lev 21:23; Rev 11:19; Heb 8:8; Lk 1:35).
• Joseph understood and accepted that God has chosen him as the putative father of the promised Savior:
Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit.  Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.  Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.  She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”  (Mt 1:18-23)
From the foregoing, Joseph came to know that Mary was the prophesied virgin who will conceive and deliver the Son of God.  To the Jews, the Son of God is equal to God (cf Jn 5:18, 10:30; Phil 2:6).  Thus, to Joseph, Mary is the prophesied Mother of God.  When the angel told him to take Mary his wife into his home, Joseph understood that he should proceed marrying Mary after their betrothal, without consummating their marriage, to provide a human father figure to the Son of God so that people might think that Jesus was born under normal circumstances and under the law (cf Gal 4:4), that is why the Jews then assumed Joseph was the father of Jesus (cf Lk 3:23).
• From the angelic impartation to him, Joseph understood and accepted that he and Mary were the prophesied eunuch and virgin chosen by God:
Yes, blessed is she who, childless and undefiled, knew not transgression of the marriage bed; she shall bear fruit at the visitation of souls.  So also the eunuch whose hand wrought no misdeed, who held no wicked thoughts against the LORD- For he shall be given fidelity’s choice reward and a more gratifying heritage in the LORD’S temple.  (Wis 3:13-14)
[Note: Before conceiving the Son of God, Mary was childless and undefiled, and knew not the transgression of the marriage bed.  After delivering the Son of God, Mary remained undefiled and knew not the transgression of the marriage bed, as it was the long planning of God to allow her to conceive with a closed womb, that is, a perpetual virgin like a barren woman:
Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God.  (Is 66:9)]
And true enough, Mary bore fruit at the visitation of the souls (cf Mt 27:51-54; Jn 19:25-27; Rev 12:17), and Joseph was given fidelity’s choice reward and a more gratifying heritage in the LORD’S temple (cf Rev 14:1-5).
• From all the miracles that God wrought on Mary (cf Lk 1:35, 49) and the angelic communications to him, Joseph understood and accepted that Mary was the chosen virgin of the Triune God:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.  (Is 7:14)
For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.  (Is 9:5)
But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah too small to be among the clans of Judah, From you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.  (Therefore the Lord will give them up, until the time when she who is to give birth has borne, And the rest of his brethren shall return to the children of Israel.)  (Mic 5:1-2)
• As an Israelite, Joseph knew very well that sexual intercourse is sacrilegious in the midst of the LORD, as it was then with his ancestors long time ago when they met God in Mount Sinai:
The LORD also told him, “I am coming to you in a dense cloud, so that when the people hear me speaking with you, they may always have faith in you also.” When Moses, then, had reported to the LORD the response of the people, the LORD added, “Go to the people and have them sanctify themselves today and tomorrow. Make them wash their garments and be ready for the third day; for on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai before the eyes of all the people.  Set limits for the people all around the mountain, and tell them: Take care not to go up the mountain, or even to touch its base. If anyone touches the mountain, he must be put to death.  No hand shall touch him; he must be stoned to death or killed with arrows. Such a one, man or beast, must not be allowed to live. Only when the ram’s horn resounds may they go up to the mountain.”  Then Moses came down from the mountain to the people and had them sanctify themselves and wash their garments.  He warned them, “Be ready for the third day. Have no intercourse with any woman.”  (Ex 19:9-15)
According to the revelation given to Jude, the brother of James and the Lord’s kin, Jesus was the LORD who came to the Israelites in Mount Sinai.  Jude testified:
For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ.   I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not.  (Jude 1:4-5)
IF YOU WERE IN THE SANDALS OF JOSEPH, WOULD YOU DEFILE AND DEFLOWER THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD?
AS FOR JOSEPH, HE KEPT MARY, HIS VIRGIN AND THE VIRGIN OF GOD, INTACT PERPETUALLY.
Therefore, I was right in saying, “Paul did not say Mary was no longer a virgin.”
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “Paul did say Mary was NO LONGER a virgin.”
5. I said, “Did the Bible say elsewhere that James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus? Nah!”  What I meant was “The Bible did not say elsewhere that James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said: “Did the Bible say elsewhere that James was NOT the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus? Nah!”  What she meant was “The Bible did not say elsewhere that James was NOT the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus,” which is tantamount to “The Bible did say elsewhere that James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
If James was indeed the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus, Matthew and Mark should have emphasized it like this: “Is he not the carpenter’s son and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?  Is not their mother named Mary?” Or, “Is he not the carpenter, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, the sons of Mary? And are not his sisters here with us?”
But because the alleged brothers and sisters of Jesus were not really His uterine siblings, Matthew and Mark reported it in their own style:
Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?  (Mt 13:55)
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.  (Mk 6:3)
If James was indeed the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus, Matthew and Mark should have emphasized it like this: Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of JESUS, James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Or, There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of JESUS, the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.
But because the alleged brothers of Jesus were not really His uterine siblings, Matthew and Mark reported it as it should be reported, that is, the truth that JESUS was never the uterine brother of James and they don’t share the same mother called Mary:
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.  (Mt 27:56)
There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.  (Mk 15:40)
Therefore, I was right in saying, “The Bible did not say elsewhere that James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus.”
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “The Bible did say elsewhere that James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus.”
6. I said, “Did the Bible say elsewhere that Joseph was the father of James? Nah!”  What I meant was “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Joseph was the father of James.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said: “Did the Bible say elsewhere that Joseph was NOT the father of James? Nah!”  What she meant was “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Joseph was NOT the father of James” which is tantamount to “The Bible did say elsewhere that Joseph was the father of James.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
As per Galatians 1:19, James the brother of the Lord was an apostle:
But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.  (Gal 1:19)
In the lists of apostles, there were two James and none of them were fathered by Joseph, but by Zebedee and Alphaeus:
The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; JAMES, THE SON OF ZEBEDEE, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; JAMES, THE SON OF ALPHAEUS, and Thaddeus;  (Mt 10:2-3)
 (He appointed the twelve:) Simon, whom he named Peter; JAMES, SON OF ZEBEDEE, and John the brother of James, whom he named Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder; Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, JAMES SON OF ALPHAEUS; Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean,  (Mk 3:16-18)
Therefore, I was right in saying, “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Joseph was the father of James.”
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “The Bible did say elsewhere that Joseph was the father of James.”
7. I said, “Did the Bible say elsewhere that Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James? Nah!”  What I meant was “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said: “Did the Bible say elsewhere that Jesus’ mother Mary was NOT the mother of James? Nah!”  What she meant was “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Jesus’ mother Mary was NOT the mother of James” which is tantamount to “The Bible did say elsewhere that Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
The Bible is very explicit that the mother of James was also called Mary, but not Mary the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, otherwise, why should the three Evangelists of the Synoptic Gospel connect that Mary to James instead of identifying said Mary with Jesus, Who was first and foremost, the primary and supreme character of the entire Bible.
• THE MOTHER OF JAMES WAS ALSO CALLED MARY BUT SHE IS NOT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS:
Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.  (Mt 27:56) 
There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF THE YOUNGER JAMES AND OF JOSES, and Salome.  (Mk 15:40) 
When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him.  (Mk 16:1) 
The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES; the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles.  (Lk 24:10) 
NOTE FOR THE FOUR VERSES ABOVE: THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES, WAS NOT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS; OTHERWISE JESUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ALSO!
• MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES WAS ORDINARILY CALLED THE OTHER MARY, MEANING SHE IS NOT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS:
If it was Mary, the mother of Jesus, who was with the Magdalene, Matthew should have given importance and precedence to the mother of the Lord like in these manners:
But MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS and Mary Magdalene remained sitting there, facing the tomb. 
After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS and Mary Magdalene came to see the tomb.
But since the other Mary was not really Mary, the mother of Jesus, Matthew wrote it in its proper order:
But Mary Magdalene and the OTHER MARY remained sitting there, facing the tomb.  (Mt 27:61)
After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the OTHER MARY came to see the tomb.  (Mt 28:1)
• MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS WAS THE SISTER OF THE OTHER MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES:
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.  (Jn 19:25)
Therefore, I was right in saying, “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.”
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “The Bible did say elsewhere that Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James.”
8. I said, “Did the Bible say elsewhere that Mary was no longer a virgin? Nah!”  What I meant was “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Mary was no longer a virgin.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said: “Did the Bible say elsewhere that Mary was STILL a virgin? Nah!”  What she meant was “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Mary was STILL a virgin” which is tantamount to “The Bible did say elsewhere that Mary was NO LONGER a virgin.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
See similar explanations in Section 4 above.
Therefore, I was right in saying, “The Bible did not say elsewhere that Mary was no longer a virgin.”
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “The Bible did say elsewhere that Mary was NO LONGER a virgin.”
9. I said, “WAS JAMES THE UTERINE BROTHER OF THE LORD JESUS? NAH!”  What I meant was “JAMES WAS NOT THE UTERINE BROTHER OF THE LORD JESUS.”  It is biblical and it does not contradict the Bible.
Rachel Buenavista said: “WAS JAMES NOT THE UTERINE BROTHER OF THE LORD JESUS? NAH!”  What she meant was “JAMES WAS NOT NOT THE UTERINE BROTHER OF THE LORD JESUS” which is tantamount to “JAMES WAS THE UTERINE BROTHER OF THE LORD JESUS.”  It is unbiblical and it contradicts the Bible.
See similar explanations in Section 1 to 8 above.
Therefore, I was right in saying, “JAMES WAS NOT THE UTERINE BROTHER OF THE LORD JESUS.”
And Rachel Buenavista was dead wrong in saying, “JAMES WAS THE UTERINE BROTHER OF THE LORD JESUS.”
*******
Rachel Buenavista said:
See what I did there? LOL
Adding NOT and STILL made it so easy to counter your assumptions. You know why? Because you have no proof of what you are claiming. So your NAH responses have NAH weight whatsoever.
I said:
Your adding NOT and STILL made it all the more clear that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was supported by the Bible any which way you look at it.  The infallible word of God in the Bible is our ultimate proof in bringing to light the truthfulness and faithfulness of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.  So your NAH addenda only supported and highlighted my NAH responses.  Your doses backfired and fall flat to your face.
*******
Rachel Buenavista said:
Let’s get serious now…
“But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” (Gal 1:19, KJV)
Q & A:
1. Did Paul say James was the uterine brother of the Lord Jesus?
A : You read what Paul said,,, “the Lord’s brother”.
If you are looking for Paul to say “uterine” at the time when the word was not yet even known, what does that make you? What does it make your question to become? In a word… ASININE.
I said:
If you are ignorant how clever the Jews are, let me educate you a little bit.
While it is true that the Hebraic vocabulary was not as extensive as the Greek or the modern English are, they resorted to circumlocution to express their ideas.  Here are some eyepoppers for you in the hope that it will reduce your asininities and nincompooperies:
• The circumlocution for COUSIN was UNCLE’S SON:
Either his uncle, or his UNCLE’S SON, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.  (Lev 25:49, KJV)
• The circumlocution for NEPHEW was BROTHER’S SON OR SISTER’S SON:
Abram took his wife Sarai, his BROTHER’S SON Lot, all the possessions that they had accumulated, and the persons they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan.  (Gen 12:5)
And when Paul’s SISTER’S SON heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.  (Act 23:16, KJV)
• The circumlocution for “UNCLES” or “AUNTS”was FATHER’S BRETHREN or MOTHER’S BRETHREN:
Recall how he dealt with Abraham, and how he tried Isaac, and all that happened to Jacob in Syrian Mesopotamia while he was tending the flocks of Laban, his MOTHER’S BROTHER.  (Jdth 8:26)
And his MOTHER’S BRETHREN spake of him in the ears of all the men of Shechem all these words: and their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech; for they said, He is our brother.  (Jdgs 9:3, KJV)
• The circumlocution for “UTERINE” was “BY THE SAME MOTHER”:
Yet his father never rebuked him or asked why he was doing this. Adonijah was also very handsome, and next in age to Absalom BY THE SAME MOTHER.  (1Kgs 1:6)
Son of man, there were two women, daughters of BY THE SAME MOTHER.  (Ezek 23:2)
Since Galatians 1:19 was very emphatic and explicit in saying, “James the brother of the Lord” and not “James the brother of the Lord BY THE SAME MOTHER,” therefore, James was never the uterine brother of the Lord, but rather a cousin or relative.
…
Rachel Buenavista said:
2. Did Paul say Joseph was the father of James?
A: If Jesus was James’s brother, then Mary would be his mom and Joseph would be his father. It may not be spoken, it may not be implied but any gradeschooler can figure that one out. It’s a wonder the Catholic Church finds it difficult. LOL
I said:
Beyond reasonable doubt, the Bible has proven that James was not the brother of the Lord by the same mother, ergo, Mary was not his mom and Joseph was not his father.  The Bible insists that the father of James was Alphaeus and not Joseph (cf Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Act 1:13).
It’s no wonder why Protestants as exemplified by BadBanana62, alias Rachel Buenavista, cannot comprehend the complex word of God in the Bible because she thinks as a grade-schooler thinks.  For a kindergartner thinker like Rachel Buenavista, she only knew the simple arithmetic of 1+1=2.
To Rachel Buenavista, if Paul said James is the brother of the Lord, then James is the brother of the Lord, Period.  To her, a brother means a real brother, that is, a uterine brother, a blood brother, a half brother.  If that was her perverted thinking, then she should also believe that Joseph and Mary produced more than five hundred brothers of the Lord Jesus according to this passage:
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.  After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  (1 Cor 15:3-6)
Obviously, Rachel Buenavista has a constricted understanding of the word “brother.”  Perhaps, Paul can help alleviate her being an ignoramus for life with his explanation of the word “brother,” in this wise:
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin according to the flesh.  (Rom 9:3)
So much for the asininities and nincompooperies of Rachel Buenavista!
For us true and faithful Catholics, who have the mind of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us, God has revealed to us even His depths (cf 1 Cor 2:9-10, 16; 2 Tm 1:14), that our comprehension of the word of God in the Bible are akin to the thinking of mathematicians adept in Calculus or even in Quantum Physics.  That is why the four Dogmas of the Blessed Virgin Mary as well as the rest of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church are beyond the grasp of Protestants whose wisdom is the wisdom of this world (cf 1 Cor 1:20-21, 3:19)
…
Rachel Buenavista said:
3. Did Paul say Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of James? Again as with the above… Mary is married to Joseph. So if Jesus was James’ brother (as Paul says), Mary would be his mom.
I said:
If Jesus was not James’ brother of the same mother, Mary wouldn’t be his mom.  Jesus’ mother and James’ mother share the same name but they were not one and the same Mary, but rather, they were sisters according to John:
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.  (Jn 19:25)
Clopas or Cleopas, the husband of Mary, and Alphaeus, the father of James (cf Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Act 1:13), were one and the same person.  Therefore, Jesus’ mother’s sister Mary, the wife of Clopas aka Alphaeus, was the mother of James (cf Mt 27:56; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:10).
…
Rachel Buenavista said:
4. Did Paul say Mary was no longer a virgin?
A: It would be stupid of Paul to say Jesus has a brother then say Mary is still a virgin. So again, the stupidity would be with the question presented.
I said:
Paul was no stupid like Rachel Buenavista.  Paul did not say, James the Lord’s brother of the same mother.  Therefore, it is as good as Paul not saying Mary was no longer a virgin.
…
Rachel Buenavista said:
I can go on if I had a stomach for asininity but forgive me, That’s enough I can take for one day.
I said:
Of course, It is understandable that Rachel Buenavista cannot stomach her own asininities.  She’d be like the proverbial dog swallowing its own vomit (cf 2 Pt 2:22).
…
Rachel Buenavista said:
Oh and by the way, Gutter Mouth Abe revoked my posting rights to this thread in fear of being found out as a banana lover. – BadBanana62
I said:
Your slip is showing BadBanana62, alias Ms. Rachel Buenavista.  It’s you who has the gutter mouth with your scurrilous charges and countercharges against the Blessed Virgin Mother of God.  You even have the audacity to accuse Father Abe as a banana lover when in fact it was your own pseudonym, which only reveals your insatiable cravings for bad banana as your dildo perhaps?
Source: splendorofthechurch.com.ph