Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-11-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you think that the statement you single out is false, stop the bald assertion and prove it's false.

You made the assertion. It is you that needs to show that it is true, which you havent done.
All you did was make your own bald assertion. Here it is again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin

As things stand the only reason that "James the brother of the lord" is believed to be the brother of Jesus is that writers and interpreters have confused the usage of the non-titular "lord" shifting it onto Jesus.

This is part of your opening post, part of the foundation of your argument. But you haven't shown this to be true. All you did was claim it to be so.

"James the brother of the lord", could easily be believed to be the brother of Jesus for the simple reason it can mean that!
That may be what Paul meant. That may be what tradition held since Paul wrote it.
If you want to claim that it cant mean this or it cant be believed to mean this, then it is you that needs to demonstrate this.

You have not shown that anyone must have been confused.
All you have shown is that perhaps, maybe, there is a chance, possibly that paul did not mean "brother of Jesus" and that later people maybe, possibly, perhaps, got confused.

But instead of just admitting you dont know you claim that you do.

Isn't this what we are trying to discourage here? People claiming they know things despite them have no evidence that it is so?

But, as I have already told you Galatians 1.19 has been contradicted by Papais who gave details about the supposed bishop of Jerusalem called James. Even Jerome gave details about James and also claimed James the bishop was not the son of the mother of Jesus.

This is found in the fragments of Papaias. See http://www.newadvent.org

Papais listed the four Marys found in the Canon and the mother of James the bishop.

Quote:

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord;

(2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph;

(3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James;

(4.) Mary Magdalene.

These four are found in the Gospel.

James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's.

James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's.

Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason.

Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

You simply cannot use Galatians 1.19 to resolve the very same verse. There is other information from antiquity that has more details about James the bishop, his mother and father that is not found anywhere in Galatians 1.19.

It is clear that the mother and father of James the bishop are not the parents of the supposed Jesus.

judge · 03-11-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You simply cannot use Galatians 1.19 to resolve the very same verse. .

You may not have noticed but I haven't used galatians 1:19 to resolve anything.
It is possible that Galatians 1:19 is ambiguous. I dont really care what Paul meant by it.

I just dont see much point in refuting fundamentalists using the same flawed approach that they use.

aa5874 · 03-11-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You simply cannot use Galatians 1.19 to resolve the very same verse. .

You may not have noticed but I haven't used galatians 1:19 to resolve anything.
It is possible that Galatians 1:19 is ambiguous. I dont really care what Paul meant by it.

I just dont see much point in refuting fundamentalists using the same flawed approach that they use.

You may be totally confused.

It is fundamentalists and HJers who tend to depend upon Galatians for the historicity of Jesus.

But, you may be right.

You may have used your own imagination to resolve Galatians 1.19 just like fundamentalists.

I used Papias and Jerome and these writers have contradicted Galatians 1.19.
Now, tell me what you used to claim James was the Lord's brother?

Do not reply if it was your imagination.

spin · 03-11-2010, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you think that the statement you single out is false, stop the bald assertion and prove it's false.

You made the assertion. It is you that needs to show that it is true, which you havent done.
All you did was make your own bald assertion. Here it is again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin

As things stand the only reason that "James the brother of the lord" is believed to be the brother of Jesus is that writers and interpreters have confused the usage of the non-titular "lord" shifting it onto Jesus.

This is part of your opening post, part of the foundation of your argument. But you haven't shown this to be true. All you did was claim it to be so.

"James the brother of the lord", could easily be believed to be the brother of Jesus for the simple reason it can mean that!
That may be what Paul meant. That may be what tradition held since Paul wrote it.
If you want to claim that it cant mean this or it cant be believed to mean this, then it is you that needs to demonstrate this.

You have not shown that anyone must have been confused.
All you have shown is that perhaps, maybe, there is a chance, possibly that paul did not mean "brother of Jesus" and that later people maybe, possibly, perhaps, got confused.

But instead of just admitting you dont know you claim that you do.

Isn't this what we are trying to discourage here? People claiming they know things despite them have no evidence that it is so?

I send you back to the post in this thread you almost totally ignored, #93. Please address the issues in that post. You were asked to make an analysis.

spin

dogsgod · 03-11-2010, 05:57 PM

There you have it. Paul writes that he did not receive the gospel he preached nor was taught it from any man in the same letter that he claims to have met with the brother of the Lord. How is it that readers ignore what Paul writes when suggesting that James is the literal brother of Jesus?

11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

judge · 03-11-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I send you back to the post in this thread you almost totally ignored, #93. Please address the issues in that post. You were asked to make an analysis.

spin

I will consider posting my analysis if you pay the the same courtesy of addressing the points I raised before you raised your point.

judge · 03-11-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.
Now, tell me what you used to claim James was the Lord's brother?

.

Um..I didn't claim James was the lords brother.
Galatians say he was the lords brother.
Some people interpret this to mean he was Jesus's brother.
Toto thinks it means he was god's brother.
Spin wont say just what he think it means, but says that those who thought it means Jesus's brother, got confused. He still wont explain how he knows this to be true.

Doug Shaver · 03-12-2010, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

How is it that readers ignore what Paul writes when suggesting that James is the literal brother of Jesus?

We're not ignoring what Paul writes. We're ignoring the claim that it can only mean whatever Christians have always assumed it means.

Paul did not write "sibling of Jesus." Paul wrote "the lord's brother." We're ignoring the former, not the latter.

spin · 03-12-2010, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I send you back to the post in this thread you almost totally ignored, #93. Please address the issues in that post. You were asked to make an analysis.

I will consider posting my analysis if you pay the the same courtesy of addressing the points I raised before you raised your point.

I responded to two assertions made by you in the post I drew your attention to. If you mean something else you need to clarify.

spin

dogsgod · 03-12-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

How is it that readers ignore what Paul writes when suggesting that James is the literal brother of Jesus?

We're not ignoring what Paul writes. We're ignoring the claim that it can only mean whatever Christians have always assumed it means.

Paul did not write "sibling of Jesus." Paul wrote "the lord's brother." We're ignoring the former, not the latter.

True, but to clarify, I meant to ask why believers ignore what Paul says in Galatians 11, just a few lines prior to the reading of James, the brother of the Lord. If they paid attention to what they just read they could not possibly mistake the brother of the Lord to be a reference to a literal blood sibling. Paul makes it clear that all his information about Jesus Christ comes from his revelations, visions, and not from any man, in other words, James is not a brother of Jesus, nor did Peter meet Jesus. According to Paul, James and Peter were apostles not unlike himself.

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

03-11-2010, 05:57 PM	#125
dogsgod Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 104	There you have it. Paul writes that he did not receive the gospel he preached nor was taught it from any man in the same letter that he claims to have met with the brother of the Lord. How is it that readers ignore what Paul writes when suggesting that James is the literal brother of Jesus? 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. 13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.