spin

I think I should take (some of) the responsibility for the idea that the "brothers of the lord" were a group of believers. Mark's Jesus rejects all connections with his biological family, who consider him mad anyway. The only reason to consider that "James the brother of the lord" (Gal 1:19) and "the brothers of the lord" (1 Cor 9:5b) were siblings of Jesus is later christian tradition.

I've argued that I couldn't see Paul using the non-titular κυριος for both god and Jesus (though there are interpolations in 1 Cor), so thinking that Paul meant Jesus in Gal 1:19 is semantically difficult.

It's under these circumstances that I suggested that the "brothers of the lord", given Paul's usage of "brothers", indicates a group of believers, as they are also mentioned in the context of other believers (apostles, Peter, etc).


spin

Solo

Paul refers to a group of "brothers of the Lord", in 1 Cor 9:5. So, there is evidence for this appelation from early on.

Given the difficulty with the notion that a Jerusalem temple-worshipping sect would refer to Jesus as 'the Lord', the designation would have likely been a colloquial corruptrion of a lengthier descriptor with a traditional Jewish name for God. I am led to believe, based on Acts 6:4 (which of course references the twelve), that there was an inner circle of 'brothers' who had priestly functions perhaps associated with the temple. They would have been referred to as "the brothers in the service (ministry) of the Lord". This appelation would have been truncated in the cultic speech to "the brothers of the Lord".

Jiri

aa5874

It is rather pointless for you to claim Jesus had a brother called James the apostle when the very Church has given a partial genealogy for James the bishop and apostle and a detailed conception of Jesus and his origin.

The very source, the Canonical NT, where it is found that a Paulne writer met an apotles called James the Lord's brother is the same source in which Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and a virgin Mary.

The Church have in their records that the father of James the apostle was NOT the Holy Ghost of God and the mother of James was NOT Mary the virgin.

You have already lost your argument.

Jesus Christ had no brother called James the Apostle.

You made reference to gMatthew so let us look at Matthew 1.18.

So, the author of gMatthew is extremlely clear. The Holy Ghost and the virgin Mary are the parents of Jesus.

Again, since you made reference to gMatthew and gMark with respect to an apostle called James, the Lord's brother, let us look for an apostle called James the Lord's brother.

There is no such character in gMatthew and gMark. Your claim is bogus.

No apostle is called James the brother of the Lord in the entire Canonical Gospels.

Now, the Church presented Papias as an early writer. Let us look at the fragments of Papais and find out what is written about James the apostle.

So, the Church have presented partial genealogies for four women called Mary and for at least three different persons called James and the mother of Jesus, the virgin Mary is NOT listed as the mother of James the Apostle or any of the persons called James.

Using the NT and Papias, Jesus is not listed as having a brother who was an apostle called James.

Let us look at the Church writings deemed to be about 200 years after Papias. It is found to be consistent with Papias.

This another Church writer Jerome who is internally consitent with Papias in "De Viris Illustribus" 2
The argument that Jesus had an actual brother called James the Apostle is fallacious, there is no support for such error even in the NT and Church writings.

You seem not prepared to examine all the information about the apostle called James and is propagating what the Church has already denied over 1600 years ago.

The Church writers indicated that the apostle James was not the actual brother of Jesus Christ. His mother and father were not the mother and father of Jesus Christ.

ApostateAbe

<edit>

ApostateAbe

It is an ad hoc explanation taken by some very outspoken MJ advocates and minimalists, and it makes a little more sense than the ad hoc explanations of Galatians 1:19 all by itself. Any explanation for the phrase in Galatians 1:19 should also account for the same phrase in 1 Corinthians 9:5, where "brothers of the Lord" is implied to be a group distinct from the Christian apostles. Maybe I did overlook your arguments, and maybe they make considerably more sense, so I'm sorry about that.

aa5874

But, Papias has thrown a "monkey wrench" so to speak in your "Lord's brother theory. In the writings of Papias, a mother for James the apostle has been identified and it is not the mother of Jesus. A father of James has been identified and it is not the father of Jesus.

Based on Papias, your argument is dead.

But, Papias' monkey wrench also affects Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 since Papias was not able to find any James that was a brother of Jesus called Christ.

All of the persons called James that were identified by Papias were sons of AUNTS of Jesus.

This would mean that, based on Papias, AJ 20.9.1 is not related to Jesus of the NT.

If a look is taken of Papias' list of persons called James, there is none who is the son of the mother of Jesus. They are sons of aunts of the Lord.

AJ 20.9.1 has been contradicted by Papias, and Jerome, about 200 years later, would confirm the contradiction by agreeing with Papias and claim that the mother of James is NOT the mother of Jesus.

spamandham

I know we don't see eye to eye on this, but I see the works attributed to Paul as layered material much like a typical archaeological dig. From my perspective, a verse here or a verse there are not independently very significant since there certainly is indistinguishable overlap between the layers. I think this is the Occam approved position based on all the evidence.

What matters then, is the overall picture, since any given verse can easily have been a later addition (really, all of it can be).

No problem. In light of spin's comment above, I may have been a bit rash to accuse you of a strawman.

angelo

Here is a catholic perspective on the subject.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a27.htm