Toto

It literally means Brother of God. What's wrong with this? James the Just is known as "adelphotheos" or the brother of God in the Eastern churches.

judge

Is this what you are prepared to argue was intended. Are you or Spin willing to just say this?
Are you or Spin prepared to say that you think that Galatians 1:19 was meant to say ""James the brother of god "?

See, it is one thing to vaguely point out that the word lord may, in some instances, be ambiguous.
It is quite another thing to actually say you think it might or did mean it here.
This is what Spin and you have avoided doing despite my repeated requests, Which makes me think that neither of you really believe it.

Toto

I guess spin has you on ignore.

Sure, I think that the best explanation is that Brother of the Lord means Brother of God. What's your problem with this?

judge

You will notice that he has already replied me in this thread.

Whew, that wasn't so hard was it.

Now the real question is, is Spin, prepared to commit himself to that as well?
Becasue if he is willing to stop sitting on the fence, then it will change his theory considerably. Which will be good because at the moment it is too vague and non comittal to do much.
Until he is prepared to actually take a stand and argue that, yes, Paul meant "brother of god", he is not saying much at all.

dogsgod

I think that it is very important to some that Jesus is historical. I think that is the reason why people want to believe Paul refers to James as a literal brother of Jesus.

A literal brother of Jesus contradicts everything else Paul says and doesn't say. It comes out of no where. Not even Acts so much as names the brothers of Jesus, let alone that one of them became a religious leader. Besides, Paul refers to Peter, James, and John as pillars and it is most likely that these same so called "pillars" are portrayed as Jesus' most favored three disciples in the gospel fictions that were written later. There was tension between Paul and this Jerusalem group which could explain why the author of gMark portrays these disciples as dimwits, they just don't get what Jesus is saying.

Toto

Rather dismissively. He has no obligation to answer.

You haven't answered the question: what's your problem? What does this phrase mean to you and why is it important?

I don't think that Brother of God means much. Paul could even have been writing sarcastically.

spamandham

I think a better question is, what do you think of what Toto said? spin's a smart guy and all, but others are interested in the discussion as well.

ApostateAbe

The book of Acts does not name the "James" as a brother, but the gospels of Matthew and Mark do name him as a literal brother, and so does Josephus. Arguments from silence have a very limited applicability--they are useful when you very much expect something to be discussed given a proposition, but it isn't discussed. "James, the Lord's brother" means a literal brother of Jesus, because that seems to be the only option available. If it meant something else, then we are left with no clues--only the misunderstandings of every generation of Christians afterward to mislead us. You say that "I think that it is very important to some that Jesus is historical. I think that is the reason why people want to believe Paul refers to James as a literal brother of Jesus," but be aware that such a reality is a two-edged sword. See my thread, Relationship between opposition to Christianity and advocacy of mythical-Jesus theory.

And welcome to the forum.

Toto

James or Jacobus was not an uncommon name. There is no good reason to connect the James mentioned in Acts and in Paul's letter to the Galatians with the brother named James in the gospels (as opposed to one of the disciples, named James)

Arguments from silence are attacked when they don't go your way, I've noticed.

No it's not.

It wouldn't be the first or the last mystery of Christian history.

And remember that most of those Christians believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, so they didn't think that James was the biological brother of Jesus.

Where you have utterly failed to prove your contention.

aa5874

1. Galatians 1.19 has already been debunked by Papias.

2. Paul did not worship a man as a God.

3. The Pauline writings are non-historical with respect to any disciple or relatives of Jesus. Neither Paul, Jesus, Peter, or James lived in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

4. One cannot assume Paul lived in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple and then use that assumption as proof of another's historicity.

5. HJers must first PROVE Paul did exist before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

6. A claim that some-one a met a brother of someone else means absolutely nothing with respect to history. A mad man can always say the LORD is his brother or that he met the Lord's brother. How many people are in mental asylums for making claims like Galatians 1.19 when the Lord was described as the offspring of a Ghost.

Did David Koresh claim he was David? If he did then the Lord is the root and offspring of David Koresh. Anyone who met David Koresh met the Lord's father.

HJers are just wasting time.

They need to get a credible source for their HJ. How many times must they be told that the ENTIRE Canon is about a God/man born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost of God?