aa5874

But, what difference does it make when in a fiction story someone is claimed to have a brother and a mother?

It must be obvious by now that the actual historicity of Jesus is irrelevant to the claim that Jesus had a brother in a Canon where Jesus was conceived without a human father and was raised from the dead.

It would appear that the Pauline writer supposedly met James when Jesus was already raised from the dead and in the third heaven whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell, as the Pauline writer would say.

But, James had no brother called Jesus according to Jerome.

Chili

But to meet James is to recognize him as the final imposter who was raised before 3 days (and there was a million of them in every Billy Graham crowd).

When Jesus said to the crowd "these are my brothers and sisters" was he lying but when Paul said that he "met the brother of Jesus" he was not lying?

We rationalize that by saying that we now know better, but in those days "they loved their enemies," and "paid their taxes to the ghost town where they were born", and "everybody was brother and sister" . . . they just did not know any better, obviously not!

yalla

We have been over this before.

I remember the first time I saw 'brother of the lord' it suggested to me that Paul met a bloke who was a brother to JC.

Then I realized that he doesn't say that at all.

He also says there were other brothers of the lord and they are unnamed.

He also uses kin terms constantly, dozens, scores of times in contexts where they definitely don't mean kin relationships.
Without going for Bk Chapter and verse, I reckon most here would be familiar with him calling Timothy his son, Rufus' mother is Paul's mother, which makes Rufus his kin brother, the apostles have 'sisters as wives' and if we are going to be pedantic about kin terms then incest is the obvious implication.
But we don't take any of these kin terms pedantically except .... 'brother of the lord".

Its cherry picking.
And proves nothing.

show_no_mercy

Authentic Paul seems to use the term "brother(s) of the lord" (αδελφος/οι του κυριου) which is found in Galatians and 1 Corinthians. What might be Deutero-Paul seems to use a different phrase: "brother(s) in the lord" (εν κυριω as opposed to του κυριου) at Ephesians 6:21, Philipians 1:14, and possibly Colossians 4:7.

The words "brother(s)" and "sister" is translated in the NIV as "believers" the most times in 1 Corinthians (6:5; 7:12; 7:14; 7:15; 9:5). It's possible that Paul meant biological brothers in 1 Cor 9:5 and Gal 1:19, but it would be highly unusual considering Paul's regular use of the word "sibling" as only a fellow believer. The smoking gun might be Paul's phrase "family of believers" in Gal 6:10.

Though at the same time, Paul uses "sister" two times to mean biological sister at Philemon 1:2 and Romans 16:15; the same amount of times that it's supposed that Paul meant biological brother.

GakuseiDon

Oh, for goodness sake. How many regular posters on this board treat the Gospels as "first hand history reports"?

Well, no, it isn't "as easily might not be". We have a number of statements that show James as a brother of Jesus. It isn't until around the Third Century -- where the doctrine around Mary's status as a 'perpetual virgin' is being strengthened -- that we start to see James' status as an actual brother get questioned.

Yes, exactly. People within 30 years of Paul's writings regard "brother of the lord" to mean "brother of Jesus", despite Paul's use of the word "brother" to indicate a spiritual relationship. So, if "brother of the Lord" is a special title, why is James given no role within the Gospels?

Paul talks of "brothers" and "brothers IN the lord", but is there any evidence, any evidence at all, to indicate that there was a group of Christians called "brothers of the Lord"? And if they did exist, why did the Gospel writers put a James in as a brother of Jesus? And then not give him any real role?

What do you mean? Jesus is depicted as having a mother, brothers and sisters. What is the "deemphasis" there?

Tell me how we know he is the head of the Jerusalem church. I'd be interested in what texts you use to know that. And then how the Gospel writers misunderstood "James, very special brother, not an ordinary one" to be "James, actual brother of Jesus". And then not give him any role in the Gospels.

It **might** be the best explanation, but then again, it just as easily might not be. At the end of the day, we seem to have statements that indicate that Jesus had a brother called James.

spamandham

About 1/3? I haven't taken a poll, so I'm not sure.

Prior to the gospels (which I date as ~140 CE), we have a grand total of 2 such statements, IIRC; one in Galatians 1:19 ("James, the Lord's brother"), and the other in Antiquities 20:9 ("and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"). If you date the gospels more traditionally then there is but 1 reference predating the gospels.

So, if by "a number" you mean 1 (or 2 if you accept my dating for the gospels), then I suppose you're right.

It doesn't matter whether 2nd/3rd century writers (or even late 1st) thought James was a blood brother of Jesus. It's easy enough to see why they would think of him that way even if it was originally a title, as it appears to be in Gal., particularly as the cult grew in size such that members no longer knew (or knew of) all the other members.

I don't accept the traditional chronology. I say the gospels as we know them were written ~100 years after the purported events. As to why James has no special role in the Gospels, he was long dead and barely remembered by the time they were written.

I am not arguing for the existence of such a group, but rather, am arguing that 'brother of the lord' is a unique title for James only, since he is the leader of the lead church.

...where Jesus denounces his blood relationships and instead refers to those who follow him as his mother and brothers.

The day doesn't end until we figure out whether that is meant as 'blood brother' in the earliest record, or if it is meant as spiritual brother, in the sense Paul uses the term over and over.

Chili

I see a difference between "who was called Christ" and 'who was Christ' if Christ is the name for the Man in the image of God. "The Lord's brother" does not make that suggestion because Jesus was not Christ until after the resurrection . . . and only an imposter can make that mistake which now means that James was not Christ.

The proper rendition here is that all Christians are imposters in that same way since Jesus was not known as the Christ and told Peter to tell noone that he was the Christ until he was crucified died and rose first, while James was merely known as the Christ and that is about where his story ends until he died like a rich man, I suppose.

GakuseiDon

That's right, so we aren't starting from nothing. The earliest references depict James as a brother to Jesus. There are no references to an early Christian group with the title "Brothers of the Lord".

Well, no, my point is that it isn't easy for them to see it that way, once the question of Mary's on-going virginity arose. That's why you see the 2nd/3rd century writers starting to move away from the notion that James was an actual brother of Jesus.

Eh? Earlier you wrote that "James is singled out in a special way when he is referred to as 'brother of the lord'. We also know he is the head of the Jerusalem church...the church that Paul obviously sees as the cornerstone church. It follows then that the leader of that church is a very special brother, not an ordinary one, since he is the head of the head church."

Now, you say in the Gospels he was known as "brother of the Lord", so he was put in as an actual brother, but he had no special role in the Gospels because "he was long dead and barely remembered by the time they were written."

So, James, the "Brother of the Lord" and head of the head church in Jerusalem, dies. When GMark is written, James is long dead and barely remembered, but the GMark author remembers enough about James as "brother of the Lord" and decides to put him into the Gospels as Jesus' ACTUAL brother, but doesn't give him any role in the Gospel stories. Is that what the evidence tells us?

Yes, it's possible. But the evidence -- meager though it is -- points to a James who actually is a brother of Jesus. There is no evidence for "Brother/s of the Lord" being referred to as a group or title.

Yes, AFTER having his actual mother and brothers declared to be present.

I agree there is no way to tell for sure. The evidence suggests that Jesus was thought to have a brother called James; but I agree it is no certainty.

But I think this scenario has more to back it up: James was Jesus' brother. He didn't play any big part in Jesus' ministry, but when Jesus died he became involved in the Jerusalem church (which wouldn't be unexpected he is a relative). Possibly he even claimed to have seen the Risen Jesus.

Toto

Or James was an early leader of a Jewish-Messianist faction, and was known as the Brother of the Lord. The gospel writers belonged to different, rival faction(s), and deliberately wrote him out - making him an actual brother who was rejected by Jesus in favor of his followers.

That's consistent with the evidence, which is hardly definitive for any theory.

ApostateAbe

I take it you mean it is consistent with the evidence that Paul uses the word "brother" in a metaphorical religious sense. But, it is not consistent with the interpretation reflected by Josephus, nor is it consistent with the interpretation reflected by the gospels of Matthew and Mark, nor is it consistent with the intent that can be discerned by the context (an identifying phrase for a name common even among a small group of men). If a group of people could brainstorm for a few minutes, they may come up with a hundred possibilities for what the phrase means. And, that has been something like the age-old pattern of anyone with a particular ideology, religious claim or theory, because the ambiguity of history and textual interpretation may seem to allow that. If advocates of any fringe theory want to be taken seriously, they need to argue in terms of probability. It is not enough to argue, "The evidence does not necessarily contradict my theory, because there is a possible alternative, and here it is..." That is true for any theory of early Christianity. Instead, what they should be arguing is that they have the most probable theory to explain the available evidence. The best meaning is determined by the best and whole evidence, not just any evidence. The evidence from the pattern of the way Paul uses the word "brother" should be considered secondary, especially because the full phrase is "the Lord's brother," not just "brother." The reason why the interpretation given by Josephus matters a helluva lot more is because any doubt should be resolved when the meaning is clarified by the contemporary readers of any author.