Here's what it says in Matthew, Mark, and Galatians: Mat 13:55-56 = 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? Mar 6:3 = Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Gal 1:19 = But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Some people say that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas were not his brothers. They say they were the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. However, there is no evidence to support such a contention.

There is a very useful book called a "concordance" which you can even find online--Strong's Concordance or Young's Concordance are the two oldest and are very useful. By looking up the word "brother" and "sister" in the concordance, you will find every time and place that the words are used in the Bible. You will not need to consult any experts. It will become apparent in only a few minutes that the word "brother" is sometimes used where we would use "half-brother," and "sister" is sometimes used where we would use "half-sister." So it would be best not to insist either that Jesus did or did not have what we would call brothers and sisters. That would be the logical fallacy of "begging the question." It may well be that the ancient tradition is the correct one, that Joseph was an older man with a family whose wife had died, and who then was engaged to the Virgin Mary before she conceived Jesus, and who honored her ever after his birth as the only virgin mother in history by remaining celibate. This is not difficult for an older man. There is also a second reason not to insist on your own opinion in an uncertain matter. Just before dying on the Cross, Jesus turned his mother over to his disciple John so he could carry out the duties of a son to her. If Mary had other sons, there would have been no reason to do this. Since they were still alive and of known whereabouts, the oldest explanation is the simplest--that she bore no other children. This would also explain why we never hear of Joseph after Jesus was 12. Being an older man, he would already have died. I don't know when the first Protestant began teaching that Mary bore other children, but in 1580 the Lutherans were still calling her "sempervirgine," "the ever-virgin," and many still do to this day. I don't know about other Protestants.

Let us take into cosideration what he said concerning this? when mary and joseph asked him what he was doing, and said we were worried about you after days of his disappearance as a child. he said "didn't you know I would be in my fathers house?". Later on in life they said to him "your mother and siblings or brothers are waiting to see you" or something along those lines and he replied "everyone in here is my mother father brother and sister". I don't really see why it matters that much! as long as The good lord saw it fit to adopt us all! Jews and gentiles into his heavenly family we should all count ourselves highly privileged and thank God! Every other notion is absolutely pointless!

There are definitely mentions in the Bible of Jesus' brothers and sisters, and it is possible that those mentioned might have been Joseph's children from a previous marriage, or might simply have been his kinsmen, described as brothers and sisters by an ambiguous turn of translation. But I think the simplest way to an answer is just to consider what is most logical from the evidence provided. The first chapter of Matthew describes how Joseph finds out Mary, his fiance, is pregnant, and considers halting the marriage plans (assuming she has slept with some other man). An angel visits him and explains that he shouldn't be afraid to marry Mary, because she hasn't been immoral, but is carrying the son of God. Matthew 1:24-25 states: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." The word "till" here is crucial. He did not "know" (have sex with) Mary TILL she had given birth. The implication (and only logical conclusion) here is that he DID have sex with Mary (and why not, as she was his lawful wife?!) AFTER she had Jesus. Otherwise there would be no reason for Matthew to qualify the remark by clearly identifying a time limit on this period of abstinence. Apparently Mary and Joseph went on to have a normal sexual relationship, and there is absolutely no reason, in an age without reliable birth control, to think that she didn't bear and raise other children. There is nothing surprising in this. Some of the other answers imply that it is a strange or irrelevent idea. I disagree on both counts. It isn't strange to think that Mary and Joseph had a normal sex life. Sex is a natural desire that bonds a man and woman together in their marriage. In the case of children it even makes us co-creators with God. Mary was a wonderful and special woman because she was considered worthy by God to bear and raise the Messiah and fulfilled the role willingly and well. The virgin birth is only special because it signifies that the child was God's and miraculously conceived. Her virgin status only mattered in the context of Jesus' birth. There is nothing holy about being a virgin for no reason when you are married, and having sex with Joseph, or bearing other children, does not at all affect her status as the mother of the Messiah. Secondly, it isn't pointless to ask if Jesus had brothers and sisters. Even if there's a wider spiritual perspective to consider concerning how we are all connected to the family of God, etc, it's still relevent to us to know that Jesus lived a normal life as we do and understands our trials and our joys. You only have to study his parables to see deeply familiar he was with family relationships, community and culture, the politics of his day, and other aspects of a normal life. Jesus grew up in a family, participated in normal religious activities of his time, learned a trade, was part of a community, etc etc. Though the son of God, he never grew up in privileged or abnormal circumstances. Why shouldn't he be an older brother?

His name was Craig, watch this short video to learn the story :D

yes. there is debate, however, if they are half or full siblings.