According to the Bible, yes, including James, but please don't ask me how. 
James was not a child of Mary, nor Joseph. Where does the Bible say this?
The first chapter of Acts, part of which you just quoted on another thread, refers to Jesus's brothers.
A full account his here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just
You can make the argument that James was a stepbrother or more distant relation, but you cannot do so using the Bible (or Josephus, who agrees.)
Strange that you picked that passage as most people spring for Matthew 13:55-56. All I can find in Acts is a mention of Mary being present with "brothers".
Sticking with Matthew, Matthew specifically mentions two Mary's at the crucifixion:
Matthew 27: 56
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Now, one would think that it would be odd that Matthew would omit Mary the Mother of Jesus, and thus, he must be saying that Mary mother of James and Joseph is also Mary, Mother of Jesus. .. especially since he calls these two men, among others, Jesus' "brothers" in the other passage I mentioned above.
Well, it is just that... odd. Because, if we look at John, he specifically records three (or perhaps four, depending on how you interpret the commas) women at crucifixion (John 19):
25
10 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if the Mary noted by Matthew as the "the Mother of Joseph...." was also Mary the Mother of Jesus, then why would Matthew not have said that? In fact, James and Joseph, two of those earlier identified as being "Brothers of Jesus" were actually the children of Mary the wife of Clopas (who was Joseph's brother, hence eliminating the theory that he and Jesus' Mother ever married and had children)
But, what is of particular interest is what comes next:
26
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son."
27
Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
------------------------------------------------------------
John offers Mary over to the care of John, and vice versa.
If John were Jesus' brother (as has also been supposed) then this statement would have no point, because it would simply be understood. If, on the other hand, Jesus had had other siblings, then this statement would have been a huge dis to them, because it would basically be suggesting, by the laws and customs of the day, that they were unfit to take care of Mary.
Speaking of customs, we can, in fact, explain this whole "brothers" thing. We know Jesus' aunts and uncles had kids. It is often explained that "Aramaic and Hebrew lack a word for "cousin"", but this actually doesn't go far enough.
I rolled across a revelation one day when I was in an Anthropology class, one day, discussing a totally different subject. The topic was about how other cultures viewed familial relations, and the professor said that there were other cultures in the world where a persons cousins on one side, or both sides of the family tree were, in no way at all distinguished from a persons (what we would call) "brothers and sisters". Furthermore, the professor said that this was far more common throughout the world in ancient times then today.
I was intrigued, so I went to look it up, and low and behold, the reason there is no word for "cousin" in Jesus' native tongue was because they didn't even distinguish such a thing. The biblical evidence seems pretty clear, if you know where to look, Jesus did not have brothers or sister in the strict sense.
