Switch89

And yet Matthew 16:8 says, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

I think that Peter can safely be assumed as one in power, or at least can be seen as a very high ranking leader.

figuer

That has nothing to do with the papacy, except in Roman Catholic mythology.

Switch89

Correct. The peter-as-pope mythology indicates (to me) that Peter was a very high leader (not necessarily a pope). However, I think you could ignore it completely and still come to the conclusion that peter was a high ranking leader in the church.

aa5874

All evidence from antiquity seems to show that Peter of the NT was a fictitious character manufactured by an author of a Jesus story.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever that Peter of the NT was a church leader.

In the NT Peter was a witness to fictitious and implausibly events.

Peter attempted to walk to Jesus while he (Jesus) was walking on water, but Jesus was a creature born without sexual union he must have been lighter than air.

Peter was with Jesus when he transfigured and Jesus was an impausible creature.

Peter saw Jesus after he was resurrected and when he ascended, stories of fiction and implausibilties.

Peter received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and had some kind of fire on his head.

Peter talked to people, Ananias and Sapphira, and they just died, all fiction.

An angel took the chains from the hands and feet of Peter while he was in the cutody of guards and locked away in a jail and helped him to walk away and escape. Just fiction after fiction.

There is no external non-apologetic source that can account for Peter.

Peter of the NT was a fabricated chartacter in fables about Jesus, but was thought to be true by believers.

yalla

I certainly agree with the latter part of that sentence.

Paul used familial terms frequently, extensively, in his writings when referring to those who shared his faith.
They were a collegiate of fellows and he referred to them in kin terms.

Sort of like my how my dad was referred to by letters from his union:
"Dear Brother ...."
Or as communists refer to each a other as "comrade'.
Or as members of the "Judean Peoples' Front" are referred to as 'brothers", later changed, in the interests of gender neutrality to "siblings". [That's a referenece to Monty Python's "Life of Brian".]

None of the above, Paul's writings included, refer to actual blood relationships.

Galatians is simply one of scores of such references.

When placed in context, the fact that Paul uses the term[s] in a variety of ways, shows that James was no more a blood relation of JC than Timothy was a real and actual 'son' [1 Cor 4.17] in one case or 'brother' in another [2 Cor 1.1].

It has only been the desire of the church to portray James as a blood relation that has led to such intense focus upon a phrase that in the context of dozens of similar or exactly the same usages has no special meaning of itself.

Someone wanted JC to have real kin and so undue attention has been thrust upon a phrase that that cannot bear such weight.

Galatians no more suggests James is a real brother to JC than Paul has a son anda brother named Tim [who is almost certainly the same person] , shares a mum with Rufus etc etc etc .............
If people want to claim that brother = kin relationship then dozens of examples of context, sheer repetition of the use of familial terms by Paul, will lead them, if they are to be consistent, to worry about the apostles marrying their 'sisters' [incest?], the changing status of Tim and so on.

aa5874

But, this may not really be true.

If it is supposed that James was really a blood brother of the Lord, then Galations 1.19 is perfectly in order.

If it is supposed that Paul referred to people as his brother, he would still be correct in calling James the Lord's brother if James was indeed the Lord's blood brother.

But, in any event, the NT and church writings did present a James as the brother of Jesus.

Galations 1.19 may have been from the church.

Switch89

Update: I just took a look at Gary Habermas' review of one of G.A. Wells' books. Although he disagrees with Wells' hypothesis that the "brethren of the Lord" were a zealous sect of Christians, Habermas agrees that in 1 Corinthians 9:5 the brothers of the Lord are being compared in authority to Peter and the apostles.

"[I]n 1 Corinthians 9:5, the Lord’s brothers refer to individuals who are authoritative enough to be compared to Peter and the apostles, not to some obscure group of believers."

http://www.ankerburg.org/Articles/_P...s/HJ2W1206.pdf

Just to clarify, Habermas still argues that James was a flesh and blood brother of Jesus, and if anyone wants me to address any of his points, please let me know.

Toto

aa5874 - are you arguing that later church writings are a reliable guide to the meaning of Paul's letters? Why would you think this?

aa5874

So, are you going to make stuff up because you think the later church writings are unreliable?

All the information about James and the Lord are in the NT, the church writings, a forged passage in Josephus, and the non-canonised texts. There is nothing else to use.

Eusebius wrote in Church History that a James was the son of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus Christ.

Even if you think it is not true, that is the information presented.

But one thing is certain, in Church History, James was presented as the brother of Jesus.

Now, if it is supposed that there was a James whose brother was the Lord, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Galations 1.19.

And further nothing in the letters with the name Paul are reliable since nothing can be corroborated external of apologetic sources.

In letters with the name Paul, it is written that some creature named Jesus rose from the dead, ascended to heaven and that over 500 people saw this creature after he rose from the dead.

Why is the letter writer reliable?

The letter writer with the name Paul is no more reliable than Eusebius. And, further, the writer called Paul, or the version of Paul that are in the letters may very well be Eusebius.

Toto

So you think that Brother of the Lord must be a biological brother because Eusebius forged Paul's letters?