Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 09-06-2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church at one time did propagate that Jesus had a real brother called James, that is why a forgery can be found in AJ 20.9.1 where Jesus is claimed to have a brother.

In Church History, James is said to have a brother called JESUS, however sometime later a writer called Jerome claimed James must have been the cousin of Jesus not really his brother, since Joseph was not the father of Jesus and James was not the son of his mother Mary.

It may have been that the Church would later claimed Mary the mother of Jesus only had a single virgin born child of the Holy Ghost.

In any event, the Church did propagate that Jesus had some relative or sibling named JAMES.

Wouldn't that make James cousin to the Holy Ghost too? :huh: Maybe sschlichter can explain exactly how James and the Holy Ghost were related, since such absurdities are his forte.

Doug Shaver · 09-06-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If Paul did believe that Jesus had recently lived on earth as a human being, why did he say "likeness of flesh" rather than "flesh"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

He didn't. He said sinful flesh.

OK. Have you got a proof text showing that Paul thought there was any other kind?

aa5874 · 09-06-2009, 09:51 AM

It is clear that the Church backtracked on the claim that Jesus had a brother called James. In Church History it is written many times that Jesus had a brother called James.

Church History 2.1.2

Quote:

2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together," as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

And in De Viris Illustribus

Quote:

James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority.

See http://www.newadvent.org

It is clear that the Church manufactured James and could switch his mother at anytime they desired.

James is not history but mythology or just plain unadulterated fiction.

sschlichter · 09-06-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church at one time did propagate that Jesus had a real brother called James, that is why a forgery can be found in AJ 20.9.1 where Jesus is claimed to have a brother.

In Church History, James is said to have a brother called JESUS, however sometime later a writer called Jerome claimed James must have been the cousin of Jesus not really his brother, since Joseph was not the father of Jesus and James was not the son of his mother Mary.

It may have been that the Church would later claimed Mary the mother of Jesus only had a single virgin born child of the Holy Ghost.

In any event, the Church did propagate that Jesus had some relative or sibling named JAMES.

Wouldn't that make James cousin to the Holy Ghost too? :huh: Maybe sschlichter can explain exactly how James and the Holy Ghost were related, since such absurdities are his forte.

he was James brother, descendant of David with reference to the flesh. James has the same relationship to the Holy Ghost that I, and all those who follow Christ have.

if all that is left of your argument is childish goading, I guess I will move on.

sschlichter · 09-06-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If Paul did believe that Jesus had recently lived on earth as a human being, why did he say "likeness of flesh" rather than "flesh"?

OK. Have you got a proof text showing that Paul thought there was any other kind?

I gave you about a dozen quotes from Paul that proved Paul beleived he had flesh, died, and resurrected. You call it proof texting because it is easier than responding to the texts themselves.

so, here is a text that proves Paul saw the flesh as sinless. He beleived the flesh Jesus has is the other kind.

(2 cor 5:21) God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.

and

(Heb 4:15) For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin.

since this is our 2nd time having this conversation, I would also like to draw your attention to your conclusion the last time we went through this.

Quote:

In hindsight, I probably should have disregarded the historicity issue. Paul says Christ was crucified and resurrected.

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...5&postcount=16

sschlichter · 09-06-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church at one time did propagate that Jesus had a real brother called James, that is why a forgery can be found in AJ 20.9.1 where Jesus is claimed to have a brother.

In Church History, James is said to have a brother called JESUS, however sometime later a writer called Jerome claimed James must have been the cousin of Jesus not really his brother, since Joseph was not the father of Jesus and James was not the son of his mother Mary.

It may have been that the Church would later claimed Mary the mother of Jesus only had a single virgin born child of the Holy Ghost.

In any event, the Church did propagate that Jesus had some relative or sibling named JAMES.

When did the church start alleging that James was the brother of Jesus?

aa5874 · 09-06-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church at one time did propagate that Jesus had a real brother called James, that is why a forgery can be found in AJ 20.9.1 where Jesus is claimed to have a brother.

In Church History, James is said to have a brother called JESUS, however sometime later a writer called Jerome claimed James must have been the cousin of Jesus not really his brother, since Joseph was not the father of Jesus and James was not the son of his mother Mary.

It may have been that the Church would later claimed Mary the mother of Jesus only had a single virgin born child of the Holy Ghost.

In any event, the Church did propagate that Jesus had some relative or sibling named JAMES.

When did the church start alleging that James was the brother of Jesus?

It must have been on or before Church History was written. See Church History book 2 where James is called the brother of the Lord many times.

Church History 2.23.4

Quote:

...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles..

sschlichter · 09-06-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

When did the church start alleging that James was the brother of Jesus?

It must have been on or before Church History was written. See Church History book 2 where James is called the brother of the Lord many times.

Church History 2.23.4

Quote:

...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles..

aren't you in the 300's? what is the relevance of that?

jakejonesiv · 09-06-2009, 06:54 PM

The pro-flesh statments in the Pauline epistles are best understood as anti-docetic interpolations.

jakejonesiv · 09-06-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

James has the same relationship to the Holy Ghost that I, and all those who follow Christ have.

Imaginary friends?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2009, 06:54 PM	#499
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	The pro-flesh statments in the Pauline epistles are best understood as anti-docetic interpolations.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.