[jo kus]

Incredible, Paul calls James, Jesus' brother, but that's not good enough since he's referred to as Jesus' brother and not referred to as "Mary's son" but now Jude can't be Jesus' brother since he is referred to as James' brother, not and not referred to as Jesus' brother.

Yes, common sense is quite incredible...

As I told Blogger, if I have two blood brothers, one the President of the US, and the other a garbage truck driver named Fred, does it not strike you as odd that I would only mention Fred as my brother in a letter that is supposed to preach the Word of God to the entire Church??? That sounds like a grand omission - or quite simply, James was NOT Jesus' blood brother...

We have no evidence that Mary had other kids. This is clearly a Protestant tradition of late based on presumption. Scripture alone does not speak definitively on the subject.

Regards

[Blogger]

Firstborn is evidence. You have nothing Scripturally to say she didn't.

[blue-duncan]

"We have no evidence that Mary had other kids."

"Scripture alone does not speak definitively on the subject."

"James was NOT Jesus' blood brother..."

Let's see if there is a problem with the conclusion from the two proposotions.

Ah, it must be that tradition thing again. Tell you what, I'll stick with the common sense understanding of brother as used by Mark, Luke, John and Paul and tangentially by Jude. You use whatever you want.