Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-20-2011, 09:09 PM

In two of my previous threads, I presented the arguments that I take to be the two best arguments in favor of a historical Jesus.

The failed prophecies of the historical Jesus (Jesus the apparent doomsday cult leader)
The awkward fact of the baptism of Jesus

In this thread, I discuss the evidence concerning James, the brother of Jesus. I take it be the third best argument for an actual human Jesus. Any single isolated one of these arguments is strong enough to establish the probability of the existence of an actual human Jesus, but the accumulation of these arguments makes for a case that is strong enough to cause a “guilty” verdict in a criminal trial, and Jesus-birtherism is jailed.

This thread is about the evidence from James, but it focuses most heavily on the ad hoc explanations about it from Jesus-birthers. I don’t mean the phrase “ad hoc” merely as a shallow insult. An ad hoc explanation is a claim that is both:

1) new, and
2) without probability

Any claim of any kind in any empirical field of study can be made to fit the evidence with sufficient ad hoc explanations. In the field of ancient history, a few more ad hoc explanations than a competing theory is a death blow, as ancient history is a field where evidence is scarce and ambiguous.

The evidence starts with Galatians 1:19. I must rush to emphasize that this is NOT where the evidence ends. This is where the evidence begins. Galatians 1:19 states:

...but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Paul always uses the title, “Lord,” to refer to Jesus. If Paul met the brother of Jesus, then Jesus existed.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe a ‘Lord’s brother’ is a high-ranking member of the church.”

This is where the other evidence comes in. If there is any ambiguity about what Paul means, then it should be resolved by looking at what other Christians close to the same time believed about James. Did Christians believe that James was merely a respected member of the church? Or did they believe that he was actual brother? After the letters of Paul, the earliest known Christian writing is the gospel of Q. The gospel of Q does not mention anyone named James. After Q, we have Mark. Fortunately, we find James in Mark 6:3.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence at him.

After Mark, we have Matthew. James is again found in Matthew 13:55.

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

So, we resolve the ambiguity by looking at what other Christians close to the time of Paul believed about James--they believed he was an actual brother of Jesus. And Paul apparently met him. The ad hoc birther proposition requires that knowledge of the well-respected metaphorical “Lord’s brothers” were lost among early Christians, except for two passing mentions of Paul and a hasty bizarre misunderstanding of Christians immediately after Paul that likewise left no evidence. This is the essence of an ad hoc explanation. But, wait, there’s more. At least six more.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “But Paul always uses the word for “brother” (Greek: ἀδελφός) in a metaphorical sense.”

Apparently, most of the time, this is true. The argument is that we should determine the meaning from the pattern of Paul’s use of the word. However, there are two big problems with this argument. (1) Paul is using the word in a somewhat unique sense--not just a “brother” but “the Lord’s brother.” (2) If Paul ever needed to use a word meaning a literal flesh-and-blood brother, then there is only one Greek word that he could possibly use: ἀδελφός. These counterpoints render the Jesus-birther argument impotent, as the argument from Paul’s pattern does not remove any plausibility or explanatory power from the claim that Paul meant a literal flesh-and-blood brother.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “James was a common name. It is no big coincidence that James was the name of both a mythical brother of Jesus and an actual human being who was a metaphorical ‘Lord’s brother.’”

James was indeed a common name, but we have evidence that James was reputed to be not just a brother of Jesus, but a highly-respected one, more so than his other three reputed brothers. Josephus wrote about the myth of James in Antiquities 20.9.1:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…

This is a martyrdom story, undoubtedly sourced from Christian myth, and it apparently gives James special respect among the Christians. This would mean that James is the sort of character who would be likely to have a leadership role in the early church, at least more so than his other three brothers, and he would be the one most expected for Paul to write of meeting at the Council of Jerusalem. The point is that it is not such a big coincidence that there would exist both a brother of Jesus and a metaphorical “Lord’s brother” each named “James.” But, it is indeed a big coincidence that both the most important brother of Jesus and the most important metaphorical “Lord’s brother” would each be named “James.”

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Josephus’s writing about James was interpolated.”

That claim is highly unlikely, but it hardly matters if this writing of Josephus’s was interpolated. The relevant point concerns Christian beliefs surrounding James, which clarify Paul’s phrasing, and the point is made almost as well with the writing of an interpolator of Josephus as with the writing of Josephus himself. If Josephus’s writing of James was interpolated, then it is not an especially late interpolation, as it preceded the interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum by at least 100 years, per the writings of Origen, which cited Josephus’s writing of James and also admitted that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ (contrary to the modern Testimonium Flavianum).

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe Paul lied.”

Paul apparently did not make any important point with this particular claim in Galatians 1:19. There is no apparent reason that he would have lied. It is something he says in passing, like he is merely filling in the details leading up to the account of the relevant meeting.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe Galatians 1:19 is an interpolation.”

An interpolator of Paul has no more apparent reason to lie than Paul himself, and this claim is improbable for the same reasons as above.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe the Epistle to the Galatians was forged.”

No, the Epistle to the Galatians was written by Paul. In this letter, Paul makes enemies with other heroes of the early Christian church--Peter (Cephas), James and John--over the matter of whether or not Gentiles should be accepted into the faith. He writes that he opposes Cephas to his face (Galatians 2:11). This is something that we expect Paul may write, but we would never expect a later Christian to write such a thing. Like any other member of a cult or a religion, a writer is always interested in the founding figures being in agreement with the writer, not divided among themselves. For example, the author of the book of Acts, telling of the same event (the Council of Jerusalem), portrays it as a peaceful occasion where all members are in agreement.

Final notes

Maybe, since, there are apparently so many ad hoc explanations, then this makes the Jesus-birther position at least significantly possible, though each ad hoc possibility is small, because the accumulation of the possibilities affords at least some significant degree of doubt to the position of the establishment. In my opinion, this is a reasonable position.

However, it should not be overblown--ad hoc explanations are always a dime a dozen for any unlikely fringe theory in any field of study, and the accumulation, more than anything significant, affords the delusion of having a serious point. If we are serious about evidence and probabilities, then we go with the most probable conclusions, not the conclusions that are merely possible and appeal to our wishful thinking.

jgoodguy · 05-20-2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

In two of my previous threads, I presented the arguments that I take to be the two best arguments in favor of a historical Jesus.

The failed prophecies of the historical Jesus (Jesus the apparent doomsday cult leader)
The awkward fact of the baptism of Jesus

In this thread, I discuss the evidence concerning James, the brother of Jesus. I take it be the third best argument for an actual human Jesus. Any single isolated one of these arguments is strong enough to establish the probability of the existence of an actual human Jesus, but the accumulation of these arguments makes for a case that is strong enough to cause a “guilty” verdict in a criminal trial, and Jesus-birtherism is jailed.

This thread is about the evidence from James, but it focuses most heavily on the ad hoc explanations about it from Jesus-birthers. I don’t mean the phrase “ad hoc” merely as a shallow insult. An ad hoc explanation is a claim that is both:

1) new, and
2) without probability

Any claim of any kind in any empirical field of study can be made to fit the evidence with sufficient ad hoc explanations. In the field of ancient history, a few more ad hoc explanations than a competing theory is a death blow, as ancient history is a field where evidence is scarce and ambiguous.

The evidence starts with Galatians 1:19. I must rush to emphasize that this is NOT where the evidence ends. This is where the evidence begins. Galatians 1:19 states:

...but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Paul always uses the title, “Lord,” to refer to Jesus. If Paul met the brother of Jesus, then Jesus existed.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe a ‘Lord’s brother’ is a high-ranking member of the church.”

This is where the other evidence comes in. If there is any ambiguity about what Paul means, then it should be resolved by looking at what other Christians close to the same time believed about James. Did Christians believe that James was merely a respected member of the church? Or did they believe that he was actual brother? After the letters of Paul, the earliest known Christian writing is the gospel of Q. The gospel of Q does not mention anyone named James. After Q, we have Mark. Fortunately, we find James in Mark 6:3.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence at him.

After Mark, we have Matthew. James is again found in Matthew 13:55.

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

So, we resolve the ambiguity by looking at what other Christians close to the time of Paul believed about James--they believed he was an actual brother of Jesus. And Paul apparently met him. The ad hoc birther proposition requires that knowledge of the well-respected metaphorical “Lord’s brothers” were lost among early Christians, except for two passing mentions of Paul and a hasty bizarre misunderstanding of Christians immediately after Paul that likewise left no evidence. This is the essence of an ad hoc explanation. But, wait, there’s more. At least six more.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “But Paul always uses the word for “brother” (Greek: ἀδελφός) in a metaphorical sense.”

Apparently, most of the time, this is true. The argument is that we should determine the meaning from the pattern of Paul’s use of the word. However, there are two big problems with this argument. (1) Paul is using the word in a somewhat unique sense--not just a “brother” but “the Lord’s brother.” (2) If Paul ever needed to use a word meaning a literal flesh-and-blood brother, then there is only one Greek word that he could possibly use: ἀδελφός. These counterpoints render the Jesus-birther argument impotent, as the argument from Paul’s pattern does not remove any plausibility or explanatory power from the claim that Paul meant a literal flesh-and-blood brother.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “James was a common name. It is no big coincidence that James was the name of both a mythical brother of Jesus and an actual human being who was a metaphorical ‘Lord’s brother.’”

James was indeed a common name, but we have evidence that James was reputed to be not just a brother of Jesus, but a highly-respected one, more so than his other three reputed brothers. Josephus wrote about the myth of James in Antiquities 20.9.1:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…

This is a martyrdom story, undoubtedly sourced from Christian myth, and it apparently gives James special respect among the Christians. This would mean that James is the sort of character who would be likely to have a leadership role in the early church, at least more so than his other three brothers, and he would be the one most expected for Paul to write of meeting at the Council of Jerusalem. The point is that it is not such a big coincidence that there would exist both a brother of Jesus and a metaphorical “Lord’s brother” each named “James.” But, it is indeed a big coincidence that both the most important brother of Jesus and the most important metaphorical “Lord’s brother” would each be named “James.”

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Josephus’s writing about James was interpolated.”

That claim is highly unlikely, but it hardly matters if this writing of Josephus’s was interpolated. The relevant point concerns Christian beliefs surrounding James, which clarify Paul’s phrasing, and the point is made almost as well with the writing of an interpolator of Josephus as with the writing of Josephus himself. If Josephus’s writing of James was interpolated, then it is not an especially late interpolation, as it preceded the interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum by at least 100 years, per the writings of Origen, which cited Josephus’s writing of James and also admitted that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ (contrary to the modern Testimonium Flavianum).

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe Paul lied.”

Paul apparently did not make any important point with this particular claim in Galatians 1:19. There is no apparent reason that he would have lied. It is something he says in passing, like he is merely filling in the details leading up to the account of the relevant meeting.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe Galatians 1:19 is an interpolation.”

An interpolator of Paul has no more apparent reason to lie than Paul himself, and this claim is improbable for the same reasons as above.

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe the Epistle to the Galatians was forged.”

No, the Epistle to the Galatians was written by Paul. In this letter, Paul makes enemies with other heroes of the early Christian church--Peter (Cephas), James and John--over the matter of whether or not Gentiles should be accepted into the faith. He writes that he opposes Cephas to his face (Galatians 2:11). This is something that we expect Paul may write, but we would never expect a later Christian to write such a thing. Like any other member of a cult or a religion, a writer is always interested in the founding figures being in agreement with the writer, not divided among themselves. For example, the author of the book of Acts, telling of the same event (the Council of Jerusalem), portrays it as a peaceful occasion where all members are in agreement.

Final notes

Maybe, since, there are apparently so many ad hoc explanations, then this makes the Jesus-birther position at least significantly possible, though each ad hoc possibility is small, because the accumulation of the possibilities affords at least some significant degree of doubt to the position of the establishment. In my opinion, this is a reasonable position.

However, it should not be overblown--ad hoc explanations are always a dime a dozen for any unlikely fringe theory in any field of study, and the accumulation, more than anything significant, affords the delusion of having a serious point. If we are serious about evidence and probabilities, then we go with the most probable conclusions, not the conclusions that are merely possible and appeal to our wishful thinking.

I like simplicity. I'd argue that the literal word is to be assumed correct unless it can be impeached, then address the impeachments.

Here is a word search for the word brother in the Pauline epistles.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=31&bookset=10

and for verses with lord and brother in the same verse.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=31&bookset=10

IMHO the closest we come to the 'lord's brother' being a title is in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ?. So is it a title or is it a reference to Jesus physical brothers?

A myther take on this issue can be found here

However the term the lords brother and a proper name can only be found in Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

All of the other references can be taken to mean brother as in Christian brother to Paul or to other Christians not brothers to Christ. Christ is a god not a brother and humans are devotees to that god not brothers to that god. Of course all of this can be impeached by a drill down to the underlying Greek.

ApostateAbe · 05-20-2011, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

I like simplicity. I'd argue that the literal word is to be assumed correct unless it can be impeached, then address the impeachments.

Here is a word search for the word brother in the Pauline epistles.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=31&bookset=10

and for verses with lord and brother in the same verse.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=31&bookset=10

IMHO the closest we come to the 'lord's brother' being a title is in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ?. So is it a title or is it a reference to Jesus physical brothers?

A myther take on this issue can be found here

However the term the lords brother and a proper name can only be found in Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

All of the other references can be taken to mean brother as in Christian brother to Paul or to other Christians not brothers to Christ. Christ is a god not a brother and humans are devotees to that god not brothers to that god. Of course all of this can be impeached by a drill down to the underlying Greek.

Yes, thank your for your thoughts and references on the matter. It should have been a simple matter, and it really is a simple matter until Jesus-birtherism gets involved.

I wrote about the point about the pattern of Paul's use of the word for "brother":

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Some Jesus-birthers say: “But Paul always uses the word for “brother” (Greek: ἀδελφός) in a metaphorical sense.”

Apparently, most of the time, this is true. The argument is that we should determine the meaning from the pattern of Paul’s use of the word. However, there are two big problems with this argument. (1) Paul is using the word in a somewhat unique sense--not just a “brother” but “the Lord’s brother.” (2) If Paul ever needed to use a word meaning a literal flesh-and-blood brother, then there is only one Greek word that he could possibly use: ἀδελφός. These counterpoints render the Jesus-birther argument impotent, as the argument from Paul’s pattern does not remove any plausibility or explanatory power from the claim that Paul meant a literal flesh-and-blood brother.

The hypothesis does not make the model simpler. Would you argue that Paul would use some other word besides "ἀδελφός" if he needed to speak of a literal male sibling, the way it would have been commonly used among all Greek speakers and writers? If so, then what word would that be? If not, then we don't have much if anything in the way of a simpler model of Paul.

On top of that, are you not introducing a whole new otherwise-unevidenced category of people?

jgoodguy · 05-20-2011, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

I like simplicity. I'd argue that the literal word is to be assumed correct unless it can be impeached, then address the impeachments.

Here is a word search for the word brother in the Pauline epistles.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=31&bookset=10

and for verses with lord and brother in the same verse.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=31&bookset=10

IMHO the closest we come to the 'lord's brother' being a title is in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ?. So is it a title or is it a reference to Jesus physical brothers?

A myther take on this issue can be found here

However the term the lords brother and a proper name can only be found in Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

All of the other references can be taken to mean brother as in Christian brother to Paul or to other Christians not brothers to Christ. Christ is a god not a brother and humans are devotees to that god not brothers to that god. Of course all of this can be impeached by a drill down to the underlying Greek.

Yes, thank your for your thoughts and references on the matter. It should have been a simple matter, and it really is a simple matter until Jesus-birtherism gets involved.

I wrote about the point about the pattern of Paul's use of the word for "brother":

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Some Jesus-birthers say: “But Paul always uses the word for “brother” (Greek: ἀδελφός) in a metaphorical sense.”

Apparently, most of the time, this is true. The argument is that we should determine the meaning from the pattern of Paul’s use of the word. However, there are two big problems with this argument. (1) Paul is using the word in a somewhat unique sense--not just a “brother” but “the Lord’s brother.” (2) If Paul ever needed to use a word meaning a literal flesh-and-blood brother, then there is only one Greek word that he could possibly use: ἀδελφός. These counterpoints render the Jesus-birther argument impotent, as the argument from Paul’s pattern does not remove any plausibility or explanatory power from the claim that Paul meant a literal flesh-and-blood brother.

The hypothesis does not make the model simpler. Would you argue that Paul would use some other word besides "ἀδελφός" if he needed to speak of a literal male sibling, the way it would have been commonly used among all Greek speakers and writers? If so, then what word would that be? If not, then we don't have much if anything in the way of a simpler model of Paul.

On top of that, are you not introducing a whole new otherwise-unevidenced category of people?

At the moment, baring some impeachment attempt, I am assuming that the translators are experts and what we have is the best English equivalent. A quick look at parallel translations shows that most translators do not apparently take brother in Galatians 1:19 as a title.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/galat...9-compare.html

There are several Greek Interlinears online for ex: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...NTpdf/gal1.pdf
http://biblos.com/galatians/1-19.htm

Looking at it all, the mythers have the burden of proof in showing that in this verse brother must be a title. Not could be, or possibly be, but high probability.

ApostateAbe · 05-20-2011, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, thank your for your thoughts and references on the matter. It should have been a simple matter, and it really is a simple matter until Jesus-birtherism gets involved.

I wrote about the point about the pattern of Paul's use of the word for "brother":

The hypothesis does not make the model simpler. Would you argue that Paul would use some other word besides "ἀδελφός" if he needed to speak of a literal male sibling, the way it would have been commonly used among all Greek speakers and writers? If so, then what word would that be? If not, then we don't have much if anything in the way of a simpler model of Paul.

On top of that, are you not introducing a whole new otherwise-unevidenced category of people?

At the moment, baring some impeachment attempt, I am assuming that the translators are experts and what we have is the best English equivalent. A quick look at parallel translations shows that most translators do not apparently take brother in Galatians 1:19 as a title.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/galat...9-compare.html

There are several Greek Interlinears online for ex: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...NTpdf/gal1.pdf
http://biblos.com/galatians/1-19.htm

Looking at it all, the mythers have the burden of proof in showing that in this verse brother must be a title. Not could be, or possibly be, but high probability.

Thanks and sorry, I misunderstood you before, and what I said wasn't relevant. The issue of whether or not "Lord's brother" or "Lord's brothers" is in the Greek form of a title is new to me. I think the established theory could have either word form--the "Lord's brother" would certainly be a respectful position, whatever the specific meaning would be. The Jesus-birther position, on the other hand, would be in even more trouble than before if Paul does not maintain the form of a title in either of those two uses.

aa5874 · 05-20-2011, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

In two of my previous threads, I presented the arguments that I take to be the two best arguments in favor of a historical Jesus.

The failed prophecies of the historical Jesus (Jesus the apparent doomsday cult leader)
The awkward fact of the baptism of Jesus

You presented NOTHING but AD-HOC explanations without a single shred of credible evidence from antiquity . You used the very source that "WE CAN'T TRUST", the very Gospels as your SOLE source for your AD-HOC explanations.

It has ALREADY been pointed out to you that Jesus was NOT an Apocalyptic preacher and was NOT described as human in the NT yet you INSIST with your PROPAGANDA machinery.

Jesus did NOT preach any Apocalypse to the POPULACE. Jesus had a PRIVATE discussion with at least FOUR disciples about the END of time and DELIBERATELY spoke in PARABLES to Confuse the Jews lest they should be saved.

Now, you are BACK with more PROPAGANDA about the Apostle James.

1. First of all the NT CANON is a non-heretical compilation of the Church. You will NEVER EVER find the HERESY that Jesus was just a man who could NOT resurrect in the NT CANON so from the very start you are WASTING time.

2. In the very Galatians 1, "Paul" claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a MAN, could NOT please man to be a servant of Jesus, and did NOT get his from Man and in Galatians 4.4 Jesus was described as GOD INCARNATE.

ApostateAbe, stop your NONSENSE.

You MUST first FIND a credible historical source from antiquity for Jesus and the Apostle James. You are ATTEMPTING to simultaneously DISCREDIT the Canon as UNRELIABLE and at the same time use it as a RELIABLE source.

In the NT CANON Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

Church writers IDENTIFIED that the HERETICS who claimed Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father and "Paul" was NOT included. See "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, "Refutation of ALL Heresies" by Hippolytus and "Prescription Against the Heretics" by Tertullian.

STOP, your PROPAGANDA, APOSTATEABE.

You are NO longer involved in a rational discussion you are only here to spread your propaganda about HJ and have ALREADY ALTERED the Jesus story with your GOSPEL according to ApostateAbe by simply inventing your OWN history of Jesus.

hjalti · 05-20-2011, 11:53 PM

What's a Jesus-birther?

spin · 05-21-2011, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul always uses the title, “Lord,” to refer to Jesus. If Paul met the brother of Jesus, then Jesus existed.

In Gal 1:19 "lord" is not a title. A title would be "lord X" or "my lord". However, κυριος in the verse is not used this way, but as a substitute, as haShem, the Bard, or the Governator are used. It does not indicate rank, but a specific entity, apparently god, for that seems to be how Paul generally uses κυριος when it is non-titular. Just think of his Hebrew bible quotes Paul uses, Rom 14:11/Isa 45:23b, 1 Cor 3:19/Ps 94:11, 1 Cor 14:21/Isa 28:11f, 2 Cor 6:17/Isa 52:11, etc. In the specific case they necessitate the equivalence of κυριος with god. Each case reflects the non-titular use of κυριος, as can be seen throughout the LXX.

For Paul to use κυριος in the manner that you would have him do, it would require that he use a term in a totally ambiguous manner, for, if the non-titular use of κυριος can mean "god" here and "Jesus" there, one would have no way of discerning its reference without sufficient contextual clues and frequently there are not. I defy you to specify the reference for κυριος for example in the eight times it is used in 1 Cor 7 if the non-titular κυριος can mean both "god" and "Jesus".

The tacit accusation here is that Paul would willingly write in such a manner as not to make clear sense, for how could the reader know what Paul was talking about with the non-titular κυριος if it could mean two different things without there being a way of knowing the reference at any one time?

If that doesn't shake you out of your apologetic complacency, perhaps you might have a theory as to why Acts shows no knowledge of a James who is the brother of Jesus, while it knows of two important Jameses?

This James the brother of Jesus stuff is merely apocryphal. The only reason why anyone is now interested in it is that it is one of the few issues that can be construed to justify the theory of historicity of Jesus.

And if you are convinced in your disagreement over the non-titular use of κυριος in Gal 1:19 then I'm happy to debate you on the subject.

spin · 05-21-2011, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Looking at it all, the mythers have the burden of proof in showing that in this verse brother must be a title. Not could be, or possibly be, but high probability.

I do not support a mythicist view of Jesus, but you are flagrantly wrong in your claim of the burden of proof here. We have sufficient evidence for Paul's use of brother to understand that he generally means it to refer to a believer in his religion. Given that fact (do I have to cite 50 odd examples of how he uses "brother"?), the problem is for someone who wants to go against the common significance of "brother" in Paul's work to demonstrate that it does not what he usually means (approximately "fellow believer") in the instance where one arbitrarily wants it not to mean such. So please demonstrate your non-standard significance of "brother" for Gal 1:19.

spin · 05-21-2011, 01:41 AM

There you go: every example of "brethren" and "brother" in Romans-Galatians (I used ASV so as not to have the tendentious "brothers and sisters", hence the older form "brethren"). Knock yourself out trying to demonstrate that any of them must imply genetic brother.

Brethren
Romans 1:13 And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (and was hindered hitherto), that I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles.
Romans 7:1 Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth?
Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God.
Romans 8:12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh:
Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Romans 10:1 brethren, my heart’s desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved.
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in;
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service.
Romans 12:10 In love of the brethren be tenderly affectioned one to another; in honor preferring one another;
Romans 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
Romans 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;
Romans 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brethren that are with them.
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1 Corinthians 1:26 For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ.
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye
Romans 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
Romans 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;
Romans 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brethren that are with them.
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1 Corinthians 1:26 For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ.
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.
1 Corinthians 6:5 I say this to move you to shame. What, cannot there be found among you one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren,
1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
1 Corinthians 7:24 brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.
1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none;
1 Corinthians 8:12 And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 10:1 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another.
1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
1 Corinthians 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?
1 Corinthians 14:20 brethren, be not children in mind: yet in malice be ye babes, but in mind be men.
1 Corinthians 14:26 What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
1 Corinthians 15:6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep;
1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by that glorifying in you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1 Corinthians 15:58 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 16:11 let no man therefore despise him. But set him forward on his journey in peace, that he may come unto me: for I expect him with the brethren.
1 Corinthians 16:12 But as touching Apollos the brother, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren: and it was not all his will to come now; but he will come when he shall have opportunity.
1 Corinthians 16:15 Now I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints),
1 Corinthians 16:20 All the brethren salute you. Salute one another with a holy kiss.
2 Corinthians 1:8 For we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning our affliction which befell us in Asia, that we were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we despaired even of life:
2 Corinthians 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God which hath been given in the churches of Macedonia;
2 Corinthians 8:23 Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner and my fellow-worker to you-ward, or our brethren, they are the messengers of the churches, they are the glory of Christ.
2 Corinthians 9:3 But I have sent the brethren, that our glorying on your behalf may not be made void in this respect; that, even as I said, ye may be prepared:
2 Corinthians 9:5 I thought it necessary therefore to entreat the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your aforepromised bounty, that the same might be ready as a matter of bounty, and not of extortion.
2 Corinthians 11:9 and when I was present with you and was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want; and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
2 Corinthians 11:26 in journeyings often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfected; be comforted; be of the same mind; live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
Galatians 1:2 and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Galatians 1:11 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man.
Galatians 2:4 and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Galatians 3:15 brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.
Galatians 4:12 I beseech you, brethren, become as I am, for I also am become as ye are. Ye did me no wrong:
Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
Galatians 4:31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.
Galatians 5:11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away.
Galatians 5:13 For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another.
Galatians 6:1 brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Galatians 6:18 Th grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.

Brother:
Romans 14:10 But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.
Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother’s way, or an occasion of falling.
Romans 14:15 For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.
Romans 14:21 It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.
Romans 16:23 Gaius my host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you, and Quartus the brother.
1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
1 Corinthians 5:11 but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.
1 Corinthians 6:6 but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1 Corinthians 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.
1 Corinthians 8:11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble.
1 Corinthians 16:12 But as touching Apollos the brother, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren: and it was not all his will to come now; but he will come when he shall have opportunity.
2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia:
2 Corinthians 2:13 I had no relief for my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia.
2 Corinthians 8:18 And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches;
2 Corinthians 8:22 and we have sent with them our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest in many things, but now much more earnest, by reason of the great confidence which he hath in you.
2 Corinthians 12:18 I exhorted Titus, and I sent the brother with him. Did Titus take any advantage of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Obviously the ball is in the court of anyone who wants to show that "brother" in a specific instance means "biological male sibling" to carry their burden of proof and not pretend otherwise.

05-20-2011, 09:09 PM	#1
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	James, the Lord's brother, and ad hoc explanations In two of my previous threads, I presented the arguments that I take to be the two best arguments in favor of a historical Jesus. The failed prophecies of the historical Jesus (Jesus the apparent doomsday cult leader) The awkward fact of the baptism of Jesus In this thread, I discuss the evidence concerning James, the brother of Jesus. I take it be the third best argument for an actual human Jesus. Any single isolated one of these arguments is strong enough to establish the probability of the existence of an actual human Jesus, but the accumulation of these arguments makes for a case that is strong enough to cause a “guilty” verdict in a criminal trial, and Jesus-birtherism is jailed. This thread is about the evidence from James, but it focuses most heavily on the ad hoc explanations about it from Jesus-birthers. I don’t mean the phrase “ad hoc” merely as a shallow insult. An ad hoc explanation is a claim that is both: 1) new, and 2) without probability Any claim of any kind in any empirical field of study can be made to fit the evidence with sufficient ad hoc explanations. In the field of ancient history, a few more ad hoc explanations than a competing theory is a death blow, as ancient history is a field where evidence is scarce and ambiguous. The evidence starts with Galatians 1:19. I must rush to emphasize that this is NOT where the evidence ends. This is where the evidence begins. Galatians 1:19 states: ...but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. Paul always uses the title, “Lord,” to refer to Jesus. If Paul met the brother of Jesus, then Jesus existed. Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe a ‘Lord’s brother’ is a high-ranking member of the church.” This is where the other evidence comes in. If there is any ambiguity about what Paul means, then it should be resolved by looking at what other Christians close to the same time believed about James. Did Christians believe that James was merely a respected member of the church? Or did they believe that he was actual brother? After the letters of Paul, the earliest known Christian writing is the gospel of Q. The gospel of Q does not mention anyone named James. After Q, we have Mark. Fortunately, we find James in Mark 6:3. Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence at him. After Mark, we have Matthew. James is again found in Matthew 13:55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? So, we resolve the ambiguity by looking at what other Christians close to the time of Paul believed about James--they believed he was an actual brother of Jesus. And Paul apparently met him. The ad hoc birther proposition requires that knowledge of the well-respected metaphorical “Lord’s brothers” were lost among early Christians, except for two passing mentions of Paul and a hasty bizarre misunderstanding of Christians immediately after Paul that likewise left no evidence. This is the essence of an ad hoc explanation. But, wait, there’s more. At least six more. Some Jesus-birthers say: “But Paul always uses the word for “brother” (Greek: ἀδελφός) in a metaphorical sense.” Apparently, most of the time, this is true. The argument is that we should determine the meaning from the pattern of Paul’s use of the word. However, there are two big problems with this argument. (1) Paul is using the word in a somewhat unique sense--not just a “brother” but “the Lord’s brother.” (2) If Paul ever needed to use a word meaning a literal flesh-and-blood brother, then there is only one Greek word that he could possibly use: ἀδελφός. These counterpoints render the Jesus-birther argument impotent, as the argument from Paul’s pattern does not remove any plausibility or explanatory power from the claim that Paul meant a literal flesh-and-blood brother. Some Jesus-birthers say: “James was a common name. It is no big coincidence that James was the name of both a mythical brother of Jesus and an actual human being who was a metaphorical ‘Lord’s brother.’” James was indeed a common name, but we have evidence that James was reputed to be not just a brother of Jesus, but a highly-respected one, more so than his other three reputed brothers. Josephus wrote about the myth of James in Antiquities 20.9.1: Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned… This is a martyrdom story, undoubtedly sourced from Christian myth, and it apparently gives James special respect among the Christians. This would mean that James is the sort of character who would be likely to have a leadership role in the early church, at least more so than his other three brothers, and he would be the one most expected for Paul to write of meeting at the Council of Jerusalem. The point is that it is not such a big coincidence that there would exist both a brother of Jesus and a metaphorical “Lord’s brother” each named “James.” But, it is indeed a big coincidence that both the most important brother of Jesus and the most important metaphorical “Lord’s brother” would each be named “James.” Some Jesus-birthers say: “Josephus’s writing about James was interpolated.” That claim is highly unlikely, but it hardly matters if this writing of Josephus’s was interpolated. The relevant point concerns Christian beliefs surrounding James, which clarify Paul’s phrasing, and the point is made almost as well with the writing of an interpolator of Josephus as with the writing of Josephus himself. If Josephus’s writing of James was interpolated, then it is not an especially late interpolation, as it preceded the interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum by at least 100 years, per the writings of Origen, which cited Josephus’s writing of James and also admitted that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ (contrary to the modern Testimonium Flavianum). Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe Paul lied.” Paul apparently did not make any important point with this particular claim in Galatians 1:19. There is no apparent reason that he would have lied. It is something he says in passing, like he is merely filling in the details leading up to the account of the relevant meeting. Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe Galatians 1:19 is an interpolation.” An interpolator of Paul has no more apparent reason to lie than Paul himself, and this claim is improbable for the same reasons as above. Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe the Epistle to the Galatians was forged.” No, the Epistle to the Galatians was written by Paul. In this letter, Paul makes enemies with other heroes of the early Christian church--Peter (Cephas), James and John--over the matter of whether or not Gentiles should be accepted into the faith. He writes that he opposes Cephas to his face (Galatians 2:11). This is something that we expect Paul may write, but we would never expect a later Christian to write such a thing. Like any other member of a cult or a religion, a writer is always interested in the founding figures being in agreement with the writer, not divided among themselves. For example, the author of the book of Acts, telling of the same event (the Council of Jerusalem), portrays it as a peaceful occasion where all members are in agreement. Final notes Maybe, since, there are apparently so many ad hoc explanations, then this makes the Jesus-birther position at least significantly possible, though each ad hoc possibility is small, because the accumulation of the possibilities affords at least some significant degree of doubt to the position of the establishment. In my opinion, this is a reasonable position. However, it should not be overblown--ad hoc explanations are always a dime a dozen for any unlikely fringe theory in any field of study, and the accumulation, more than anything significant, affords the delusion of having a serious point. If we are serious about evidence and probabilities, then we go with the most probable conclusions, not the conclusions that are merely possible and appeal to our wishful thinking.

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

05-20-2011, 11:53 PM	#7
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	What's a Jesus-birther?

05-21-2011, 01:41 AM	#10
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	There you go: every example of "brethren" and "brother" in Romans-Galatians (I used ASV so as not to have the tendentious "brothers and sisters", hence the older form "brethren"). Knock yourself out trying to demonstrate that any of them must imply genetic brother. Brethren Romans 1:13 And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (and was hindered hitherto), that I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles. Romans 7:1 Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth? Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. Romans 8:12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Romans 10:1 brethren, my heart’s desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved. Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. Romans 12:10 In love of the brethren be tenderly affectioned one to another; in honor preferring one another; Romans 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. Romans 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me; Romans 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brethren that are with them. Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1 Corinthians 1:26 For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye Romans 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. Romans 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me; Romans 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brethren that are with them. Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1 Corinthians 1:26 For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other. 1 Corinthians 6:5 I say this to move you to shame. What, cannot there be found among you one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren, 1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 1 Corinthians 7:24 brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. 1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none; 1 Corinthians 8:12 And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ. 1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 10:1 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. 1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 1 Corinthians 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching? 1 Corinthians 14:20 brethren, be not children in mind: yet in malice be ye babes, but in mind be men. 1 Corinthians 14:26 What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 1 Corinthians 15:6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; 1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by that glorifying in you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Corinthians 15:58 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 16:11 let no man therefore despise him. But set him forward on his journey in peace, that he may come unto me: for I expect him with the brethren. 1 Corinthians 16:12 But as touching Apollos the brother, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren: and it was not all his will to come now; but he will come when he shall have opportunity. 1 Corinthians 16:15 Now I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints), 1 Corinthians 16:20 All the brethren salute you. Salute one another with a holy kiss. 2 Corinthians 1:8 For we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning our affliction which befell us in Asia, that we were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we despaired even of life: 2 Corinthians 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God which hath been given in the churches of Macedonia; 2 Corinthians 8:23 Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner and my fellow-worker to you-ward, or our brethren, they are the messengers of the churches, they are the glory of Christ. 2 Corinthians 9:3 But I have sent the brethren, that our glorying on your behalf may not be made void in this respect; that, even as I said, ye may be prepared: 2 Corinthians 9:5 I thought it necessary therefore to entreat the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your aforepromised bounty, that the same might be ready as a matter of bounty, and not of extortion. 2 Corinthians 11:9 and when I was present with you and was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want; and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. 2 Corinthians 11:26 in journeyings often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfected; be comforted; be of the same mind; live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you. Galatians 1:2 and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Galatians 1:11 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. Galatians 2:4 and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: Galatians 3:15 brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto. Galatians 4:12 I beseech you, brethren, become as I am, for I also am become as ye are. Ye did me no wrong: Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. Galatians 4:31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman. Galatians 5:11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away. Galatians 5:13 For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another. Galatians 6:1 brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Galatians 6:18 Th grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen. Brother: Romans 14:10 But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother’s way, or an occasion of falling. Romans 14:15 For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died. Romans 14:21 It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth. Romans 16:23 Gaius my host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you, and Quartus the brother. 1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 1 Corinthians 5:11 but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. 1 Corinthians 6:6 but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? 1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1 Corinthians 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace. 1 Corinthians 8:11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble. 1 Corinthians 16:12 But as touching Apollos the brother, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren: and it was not all his will to come now; but he will come when he shall have opportunity. 2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia: 2 Corinthians 2:13 I had no relief for my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia. 2 Corinthians 8:18 And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches; 2 Corinthians 8:22 and we have sent with them our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest in many things, but now much more earnest, by reason of the great confidence which he hath in you. 2 Corinthians 12:18 I exhorted Titus, and I sent the brother with him. Did Titus take any advantage of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps? Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. Obviously the ball is in the court of anyone who wants to show that "brother" in a specific instance means "biological male sibling" to carry their burden of proof and not pretend otherwise.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.