angelo

Brothers was meant as to name his closest followers. Paul also uses the phrase to address his listeners/receivers of his 6-7 claimed authentic letters.
This is one explanation, and it is a good one. In reality though, James could not possibly be the brother of a non existent man now could he?

aa5874

If Jesus did exist he could have ONLY been human and it was ALREADY claimed Jesus was "made of a woman" by "PAUL" but there was NO actual Roman and Jewish records, no actual KNOWN earthly human relatives of Jesus, NO KNOWN earthly acquaintances of Jesus.

ALL the Heretics of antiquity would have used the supposed Jewish and Roman records AGAINST the Church writers, the Gospel authors and Jesus cult members when they wrote or claimed Jesus was the Child of the Ghost of God, the CREATOR, and was EQUAL to God.

Marcion and the Marcionites would have LOVED to have had Jewish and Romans records that Jesus was a mere man who lived in Galilee from around the TAXING of Cyrenius to around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

Tacitus a non-believer and Josephus a Pharisee, themselves, would have used those supposed records that Jesus was a KNOWN man who lived in Galilee against those who claimed Jesus was God Incarnate, without a human father, in Antiquity.

And based on the NT, thousands of people in Galilee knew Jesus was a mere man yet no KNOWN Heretic was able to prove or show Jesus was a man and destroy "Tertullian" or any Church and NT writer.

bacht

I'd like to know how they explain this:

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"

Mk 6.3

or this:

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away; and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Acts 1.12-14

Toto

Catholics say that "brother" here means half brother (Joseph's son by a previous wife) and that the term could even mean "cousin."

aa5874

The Church claimed Jesus was GOD INCARNATE and had an earthly MOTHER without an human father.

There are NO known credible sources or ADMISSION from either the mother or brother of the supposed Jesus anywhere in ALL EXTANT sources of Antiquity.

Papias in Fragment 10 claimed James the Apostle was NOT the Son of the mother of so-called Jesus and Jesus had NO human father.

Fragnent X Jerome in "De Viris Illustribus 2" claimed James the Apostle was NOT the Son of the mother of Jesus, and again, Jesus had NO human father.

De Viris Illustribus 2. And, Origen has already written over 1500 years ago that in "NONE of the EXTANT Gospel is Jesus described as being a CARPENTER.

"Against Celsus" 6.36 And any EVIDENCE that Jesus was a KNOWN mere man destroys any claim that Jesus was God Incarnate, the Creator.

This is "On the Flesh of Christ"
1. Whether or NOT the supposed HUMAN mother of Jesus had ZERO or 100 children, James the Apostles was NOT one of them.

2. Whether of NOT the supposed HUMAN mother had a Son called Jesus, he had NO human father.

3. Whether or NOT supposed Jesus was HUMAN he was NOT known to be a Carpenter in the Gospels during the time of "Against Celsus".

No HERETICS, including Marcion and the Marcionites, used Josephus and Tacitus to prove or show that Jesus was KNOWN to be a mere man living in Judea for about 24-30 years in Galilee.

"Tertullian" in "Against Marcion" and "On the Flesh of Christ" did not use USE the supposed Roman and Jewish records to prove Jesus was a mere man.

Jesus was just a MYTH fable, there was NO records of his humanity in Antiquity and not even from his supposed contemporary, "PAUL".

Juststeve

I'm not sure Catholics have a reason for translating brother as half brother or cousin apart from their desire to preserve the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Steve

aa5874

Your claim is irrelevant.

If Jesus did exist, he would have been known to be a mere man living in Judea for about 30 years long BEFORE the Catholics.

There was NO benefit to the Jesus cult that the supposed Jesus was KNOWN by thousands of people to be a mere man who was PUBLICLY crucified after a PUBLIC trial at around the 15th year of Tiberius.

The crucifixion of a mere Jewish man for Blasphemy has NO ability to save mankind from sin. Jesus could NOT resurrect once he was a mere man.

The claim that Jesus was a KNOWN Jewish man cannot be shown to be true since so-called Heretics would have USED such information Against the JESUS cult LONG BEFORE the Catholics.

Toto

Catholics on brothersI don't think that the various possibilies of cousin or other male sort-of relative affect the argument for historicity.

Juststeve

Toto:

I was merely observing that the Catholics choose not to give the word its most natural construction because to do so would run contrary to their superstition about Mary. If memory serves the notion that Mary was a perpetual virgin arose long after Jesus was described in various places as having brothers, sisters, brothers and sisters or a brother. It seems to have been natural to write about him in that way. Then dogma intervened and the Catholics had a lot of explaining to do.

Steve

Chaucer

And clearly, any male sort-of relative relationship is just as damning as "brother" in confirming the historicity of Jesus as having had some kind of male relative in the first place. Once non-Scriptural references cite a male relative of Jesus of any kind, the gig is up. And it's no surprise that the Catholic Church and mythicists alike do some fast peddling to try and cover up those tell-tale tracks.

Bottom line: only agenda-driven fanatics ignore the plain signs that Jesus was only a simple human who also had a close relative or two, thank you.

Chaucer