Zeichman

I identify myself as a Christian, and I would agree with most of this. To dismiss one's opinions on the basis of their confessions (thus, atheism and agnosticism as well) alone is fallacious.

But for some to suggest that atheists and agnostics are doctrinaly free and thus more pure-minded than deists, theists or whatever seems absurd. I'd rather not launch this into a debate over this, and I will not participate if it turns into that, but it seems that the whole point of post-modern thinking is that NO ONE can be objective. Atheists, Christians, Jews, etc. No one.

However, I think it's also important to acknowlege academic integrity. The far majority of Christian scholars do not have goals of acting as apologists for Christianity; likewise for Ehrman, Mack, Fredriksen and many other non-Christian scholars (Despite their occasional inclusion of theology in their conclusions). Anyone who claims that either camp is pure and the other is not seems to be fooling themselves.

jjramsey

I don't brush Freke and Gandy off for being biased; I brush them off for being sloppy and intellectually dishonest. The real jawdropper for me was when they completely misrepresented Arnobius by misquoting their source who in turn misquotes Arnobius.

Chris Weimer

It's a personal opinion really. It may well be a literal "brother", but it doesn't have to be. Paul uses "brother" figuratively elsewhere, so there's no reason to assume it literally reads brother here. Moreover, being the literal brother of Jesus ought to, at least in my opinion, give James a far higher authority than Paul. There are historical instances when the brother of a leader doesn't take over the active role (even when he's supposed to) or is opposed by others, so it isn't concrete in either way. Moreover, if a biolgical connection was made, one wouldn't think Paul would at least clue his readers in to James' relationship to divinity as well. How could the son of God have a brother who is not the son of God? Adoptionist policy? Nah, Paul doesn't appear to be that either.

It's a judgement call.

jjramsey

It doesn't seem that odd at all. Joseph and Mary are not divinities, so for any of their children to be divine would require special intervention by God, whether that takes the form of adoption, or a pre-existent Son incarnating in one of their children, or whatnot. There is no reason to presume that God would do this special intervention for each and every one of Joseph and Mary's kids. Even if "Son of God" is a title that took on a life of its own (with help from Paul!), there is no reason to assume Jesus' brothers would share that title, especially since its "specialness" would be diluted that way.

Chris Weimer

Where does Paul ever mention Joseph or Mary?

jjramsey

He doesn't. That's beside the point, though. As far as the argument is concerned, one could call Jesus' parents Mr. and Mrs. X. The point is that if Jesus is going to be a Son of God in the sense of actually being a quasi-divinity, it is going to be by some action of God. Paul certainly makes clear in Romans and Galatians that he understood Jesus to be human--born of a woman, and a descendent of David according to the flesh, so Jesus does not, by Paul's understanding, have divine parentage in a direct sense, unless perhaps one assumes that Paul knew of the doctrine of the virgin birth (which I doubt).

Chris Weimer

Not in the direct sense, maybe not even in the adoptionist sense. But in what sense, exactly...?

yalla

I remember the first time I saw "bro of the lord" in Paul.
Hmm, thought I, that seems to suggest a historical JC.

Then I went through Paul's writings to see how many times he uses similar kin descriptors when referring to people who are clearly not intended to be a blood relation to JC.

Too many to count. At least dozens.
Sons, brothers, a mother, brethren abound. They are everywhere.

I submit to all that "brother" is a term used in the same way as "comrade" is used by communists, as my father was called "brother'' in letters to him by his lodge and by his union.

Membership of a brotherhood. A fraternity [pardon the sexism].
Not a kin relationship at all.

PS There is the case where Paul says that the apostles inc. Pete, have "sisters as wives'' and I don't see that being used by HJ persons to claim that the apostles practised incest.

jjramsey

If you look in the XTalk discussion list archives (which is an academic, moderated list), you should see this post:

In short, the grammar and context give the cues that indicate whether to take "brother" in a literal or figurative sense. Paul is singling out James as "brother of the Lord," not referring to him as a brother the way he normally refers to other Christians as brothers.

Hard to say. My point was that the question "How could the son of God have a brother who is not the son of God?" suggests that being a son of God is a genetic thing, which would make sense from a pagan, polytheistic view but not the Jewish, monotheistic viewpoint of Paul.

yalla

jj
I have previously tried to access Xtalk but cannot.
Could you explain this grammar point raised?
ta
yalla