Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 05-21-2011, 03:25 AM

Isn't special pleading the criterion that comes right after it's embarrassing, but before "why would they lie"?

Toto · 05-21-2011, 06:53 AM

What is the signficance of the fact that James is call the "brother of God" in the Eastern Orthodox tradition?

Quote:

He is sometimes referred in Eastern Christianity as "James Adelphotheos", i.e., "James the Brother of God" (Iάκωβος ο Αδελφόθεος. The oldest surviving Christian liturgy, the Liturgy of St James, called him "the brother of God" (Adelphotheos).

Sweet Brother of God lists all of the early church traditions:

Quote:

Was James literally, physically the brother of Jesus of Nazareth? This point has always been controversial for various reasons. Mark 6:3 seems to assume simply that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters who were his physical kin in the same way as his parents, Mary and "the carpenter" (according to some manuscripts, as also in Matthew 13:55). But second-century ascetic piety, which deemed sexual intercourse to be sinful even between husband and wife, came to believe that Mary and Joseph can never have had intercourse hence cannot have had children of their own. This implied that, while Jesus was miraculously conceived with no human father, the other children mentioned in Mark 6:3 must have been either his cousins or his half-siblings. In the latter case, they were the children of the elderly widower Joseph by his previous marriage. In the former case, they were the children of Mary's sister Mary(!) and her husband Clopas or Cleophas. This latter understanding seems already to have gained a foothold in the New Testament in Mark 15:40 and 16:1 and John 19:25. "James of Alphaeus" (Mark 3:18) represents this tradition, since Alphaeus and Cleophas appear to be but variant versions of the same name, both meaning "substitute." James, the son of Mary and Cleophas is James of Alphaeus is James the Just, brother of the Lord. Likewise, James bar-Zebedee, along with John, is traditionally held to be the cousin of Jesus. All such cousin ascriptions are attempts to distance Jesus from fleshly siblings and safeguard the perpetual virginity of Mary. ...

On the other hand, it seems just as likely that "brother(s) of the Lord" referred originally to a group or class of missionary itinerants, as in Matthew 25:40 and 3 John 1:3, 5 8, and that the epithet thus no more implied physical relation to Jesus than Paul and Apollos, as "colleagues of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 3:9), would have had offices next to the Almighty's. It is not unlikely that "brother(s) of the Lord" came later to be historicized, misunderstood in literal fashion in order to satisfy the same biographical curiosity that eventually filled the apocryphal Infancy Gospels with details of the childhood and home life of Jesus (though, as we have seen, all this would soon clash with the perpetual virginity doctrine). ... “The (first) Apocalypse of James” explicitly repudiates any physical connotation of "brother" ("For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially"). We see the same tendency to historicize in the case of Thomas, called Jesus' "twin" in “The Gospel of Thomas,” because he, the ideal disciple, has attained spiritual equality/identity with Jesus (in saying 13). Elsewhere he seems to be portrayed as the literal, physical double of his Master. So "the brother of the Lord" need not denote blood kinship. After all, the Taiping messiah Hong Xiuquan in nineteenth-century China called himself the Younger Brother of Jesus, but no one thought he was claiming to be eighteen hundred years old.

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

All very interesting, but we do, in fact have evidence from antiquity, late second/early third century that this passage was disputed. So, before anyone get's too wrapped around trying to interpret Paul's meaning, the first order of business is to show that Paul actually wrote this.

You say the passage was disputed. There was no dispute that Paul wrote it. The dispute was over the meaning of Paul's use of the word, "brother." Origen wrote,

Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

There was an apparent reason why Origen believed this, and it had nothing to do with any attempt to plausibly interpret the writing of Paul or the other evidence. It was explicitly because Origen believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.

The official catholic church maintains the doctrine to the present. So, they have believe and argue essentially the same as Jesus-birthers.

dog-on · 05-21-2011, 07:06 AM

I was not referring to Origen...

aa5874 · 05-21-2011, 07:09 AM

How many times are we going to go over the very DEBUNKED nonsense from ApostateAbe?

1. In the NT Canon there are ONLY TWO apostles called James.

James the Son of Zebedee and James the Son of Alphaeus.

2. In the NT Canon, Jesus Christ was the Child of the Holy Ghost and God's OWN son.

3. The NT Canon MUST be COMPATIBLE with the teachings of the Church that Jesus Christ had was God Incarnate and had no human father.

Examine Matthew 10.

Quote:

2 Now [u]the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican, James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him..

Examine Matthew 1.18

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise..... his mother...... was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Examine Galatians 4.4

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...

Let us STOP wasting time with ApostateAbe who has ZERO EVIDENCE to support his imagination.

The very Church that PRODUCE the NT Canon claimed that there was ONLY TWO JAMESES.

"Church History" 2

Quote:

But there were two Jameses, one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.

Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

James the Son of Zebedee was EXECUTED in the NT .

Acts 12.2

Quote:

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

In the NT, it was the Apostle James the Son of Alphaeus who met "Paul" based on actual written evidence NOT AD HOC explanations and Jesus was the CHILD of a GHOST.

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I do not support a mythicist view of Jesus...

This is the reason why I use the term, "Jesus-birther." A "Jesus-myther" or a "mythicist" is someone who is committed to the position that Jesus never existed, but it does not include the people who don't believe it but still defend it all of the gosh darn time. A "Jesus-birther" covers all of the intermediate levels of uncertainty, analogous to the way the word "birther" is used to denote the various Obama-birth nutters.

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I was not referring to Origen...

Then what were you referring to? Give the author, book, chapter and verse, please.

Toto · 05-21-2011, 07:37 AM

Please stop using the term Jesus birther, since you have made it clear that you are using it to insult people.

dog-on · 05-21-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I was not referring to Origen...

Then what were you referring to? Give the author, book, chapter and verse, please.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcion Book 4, if I recall.

Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place.

So, like I said, using the evidence, like you claim that you do, show that Paul did, in fact write Gal. 1:19

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Then what were you referring to? Give the author, book, chapter and verse, please.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcion Book 4, if I recall.

Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place.

So, like I said, using the evidence, like you claim that you do, show that Paul did, in fact write Gal. 1:19

The complete text of Adversus Marcion, Book IV, is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...0book4_eng.htm

There is one mention of James and two mentions of Galatians. In each of those three cases, it is assumed by the author that Paul wrote Galatians.

I already gave the reasons why it is highly probable that Paul wrote both Galatians and Galatians 1:19 in the OP.

"Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place."

Evidence?

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

05-21-2011, 03:25 AM	#21
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Isn't special pleading the criterion that comes right after it's embarrassing, but before "why would they lie"?

05-21-2011, 07:06 AM	#24
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I was not referring to Origen...

05-21-2011, 07:37 AM	#28
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	*Please stop using the term Jesus birther, since you have made it clear that you are using it to insult people.*

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.