Grog

We know this case and aren't convinced by it. The response that follows your's seems to be a stronger one. You would say that I am biased, but why? As part of my adopting a provisional, tentative "mythicist" point of view, I considered this argument and felt it wasn't strong enough to carry the day. Not only does the alternative point make more sense within the context of Galatians, I believe if it were to mean "sibling of Jesus" it stands against the greater weight of Paul's writings and thus would be a suspect phrase in an already compromised document.

But we could do this around in circles and we wouldn't really get us anywhere.

spin

Who said anything about need? Did Paul need to call Jesus "the lord Jesus" so frequently? You'd say, "The Galatians were foolish, but surely they didn't need to be told that Jesus had the title of "lord" so often. "

Paul tells us when he deals with the as he deals with apostles.

But not as "brothers of the lord", as in those who could have sister wives, like the apostles.

You could just as easily say, "Why people waste their time listening to such apologetic inanity from you is beyond comprehension."

You simply omitted part of the phrase in order to show your inability to comprehend the discourse. All believers were "brothers", but only some of them were "brothers of the lord" and Paul indicates that they had an elevated status. James was one of the three pillars of the community.

Your comment is just too personal and distanced from what I said. I don't know why you are talking about Catholicism here. You aren't dealing with the discourse at all. If you think that James was not the foremost of the pillars, you might like to say so giving reasons, but, as is, you don't seem to be talking to me with your comment. I can only glean the bile it holds.

sotto voce

Why not? The above comment makes sense when followed by a reason, after which it becomes pretty redundant. Sentences containing personal pronouns are barred by presidents of serious debate, remember. Who are 'we', anyway?

On a different topic. How can it be stronger?

It does? Does Paul elsewhere believe that someone other than Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah? Or is it maintained that Paul elsewhere wrote that Jesus had no brothers and sisters, the offspring of Mary and Joseph? It is nowhere stated or implied in the Bible that this couple did not have other children beside Jesus.

Grog

Where does Paul anywhere mention Jesus of Nazareth? Where does Paul say anywhere that his Jesus is the son of Mary and Joseph? In fact, we have no source for the claim that Joseph was Jesus' father.