Talk:Brothers of Jesus

Jesus' brothers. Jose.was NOT the father of Jesus, but yet he is mentioned as his father, meaning that they didn't have to be his "flesh" brothers..

Jesus' brothers. Joseph was not Jesus' father, but he is mentioned as such, meaning his "brothers" didn't have to be his "flesh" brothers. 2605:BA00:3208:924:6CF5:9C85:F216:7D88 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. "Jesus son of Joseph" - John 1:45. The 'virgin birth' is a myth and a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. However, Y'shua bar Yosef was the Reincarnated God. 2600:1700:3DC4:8220:809E:FBC2:479:C5A8 (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relative to Jesus' brothers, which some say were his "blood" brothers; in the New Testament, Joseph is called "Jesus' father" even though he wasn't which could mean they weren't his "blood brothers. 2605:BA00:3208:924:6CF5:9C85:F216:7D88 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Adelphopoiesis

Is there not also the simple possibility of brother-making ceremonies (adelphopoiesis, much like adoption) being responsible for these adelphoi? Under which they would be Jesus's siblings but wouldn't have been actual relatives. GlobalPeas (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

According to our article, that's a kind of medieval Christian thing, probably not known in 1st century AD Galilee and Judea. AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Rabbi Jesus son of Joseph had 7 Siblings: 4 Brothers - GOD=GOOD=7_4

GOD=GOOD=7_4 Theory (Seal #2) appeared in the 7 Siblings of Y'shua: 4 brothers - James (Yakov), Jose (Joseph), Simon, Judas (Jude). The Reincarnating God also had three sisters. "Jesus son of Joseph." - John 1:45. The 'virgin birth' is a myth. 2600:1700:3DC4:8220:809E:FBC2:479:C5A8 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Reason why the article must be rewritten: The historical Jesus and the Jesus of scriptures had biological brothers, and the article should say so.

The “brothers of Jesus” can mean three things:

1. The biological brothers of the fully human, not incarnated person, who most likely existed according to the consensus of non‑religious history writing, which should be presented as the truth in an objective text such as Wikipedia. Of the brothers, James the Just is most likely a historical figure. (We should not entertain the minority view that Jesus did not exist in this article.)
2. The four brothers according to scriptures. They are biological (half‑)brothers according to the texts.
3. The invention by churches that the brothers are not biological (half‑)brothers of Jesus. This is not true in the real world (where proven secular understandings are the truth) and is not true according to scriptures.

The three meanings must be kept separate. The third meaning must be explained, but it must be kept separate. I shall rewrite the article so that it reflects what is ”reality” in the sense that counts in Wikipedia. The third meaning should be explained at length and should not be argued against, just kept separate. The fact that I and many of you are members of churches that believe in the third meaning is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not religious. It is an objective truth that churches are wrong about the word adelphoi in an unscholarly fashion. My (and perhaps your) appreciation of church tradition should not express itself in Wikipedia. The third meaning isn’t a minority position within the domain of historical scholarship; it’s outside the domain, because it’s a theological claim that does not engage with historical method.

A sentence such as the following sentence is rubbish: “They may have been: (1) sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Joseph; (2) sons of Joseph by a former marriage; or (3) sons of Mary of Clopas, named in Mark 15:40 as the "mother of James and Joses", who has been identified as either the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, or a sister-in-law to Joseph.” We are not allowed to present the ideas of churches as equal alternatives to the truth, which is that the historical Jesus very likely had at least one biological brother, and the Jesus of scriptures had biological (half‑)brothers.

Please do not participate in this discussion with your religious belief as the starting point of your argument. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes off of what reliable sources say, not what any editor perceives as truth. And no editor is prohibited from any discussion on any talk page. I would suggest following what the sources say and of course keeping relevant points from all voices on the matter. Encyclopedias collect viewpoints, not necessarily determines WP:TRUTH. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

"And no editor is prohibited from any discussion on any talk page." Year right, and Wikipedia is all about free speech. Are you forgetting that many editors are topic-banned?: "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather" Dimadick (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ramos1990@Dimadick: Thank you for answering. You have not refuted my main point: the three meanings of “brothers of Jesus” must be kept separate. The current wording, “They may have been…” is unacceptable, because those words read as if the three meanings are equal hypotheses about the real world.

My introductory post in this discussion was blunt, and I used the word “truth”. The article text should not be written like that. But I was blunt for a reason. In this discussion, I want to make clear that religious opinions will not be allowed to influence the text of the article. Not because I say so, but because there will be consensus against it. I have experience of this kind of problem from the article Ram Mandir, which is a Hindu and Muslim site in India. People who have religious and political ideas have objected to the use of the word “mythical”, and other secular expressions. These people have been stopped in the correct way: consensus.

In closing, I see no objections to my plan for editing the article: we should keep separate firstly, that the historical Jesus had biological siblings, of which James the Just is a historical person, and other names are less certain; secondly, that Jesus has biological half‑siblings according to scripture; and thirdly, that many churches have a theological position that Jesus has no siblings, and that the churches and Christian authors in various ways have explained how they reconcile this position with the words of scriptures.

You seem to have mainly responded to the concluding sentence of my introductory post. I didn’t want to prohibit any editor from talking. I asked people not to allow religious beliefs to influence their suggestions for the article, and I informed all readers that article text that reflect religious beliefs will be rejected through consensus. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Recent editing has revealed a systemic problem.

Recent editing has revealed a systemic problem. I make a suugestion for a policy change here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policies_need_to_state_explicitly_that_texts_about_early_Christianity_(and_other_religions)_must_be_NPOV_and_that_the_unproven_beliefs_of_Christians_(and_other_believers)_must_not_be_presented_as_fact. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)