[Mrs. Don-o]

What that "has to do with" is that you are claiming precisely that James was the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the Gospels are silent on that point..

Surely they would have identified James the same way they identified Jesus --- as "Mary's son"--- if this were so, considering the distinction of being Jesus' actual biological brother.

[rjsimmon]

What that "has to do with" is that you are claiming precisely that James was the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

Yes. And James is the brother of Jesus.

The problem is that the Gospels are silent on that point..

No, it is not.

Matthew 27:56 "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children."

Surely they would have identified James the same way they identified Jesus --- as "Mary's son"--- if this were so, considering the distinction of being Jesus' actual biological brother.

Only if the Gospels were about James. The writers obviously did not care if the reader knew that James was a blood relative, neither should you. They probably went off of the presumption that the audience knew Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, as was listed in the Gospel of Mark. Pretty definitive.