aa5874

But, you would admit that the letter writer called Paul did refer to Jesus as Lord in the letters.

In the very same letter where the writer claimed he met James the Lord's brother, he also called the Lord Jesus Christ.

And, the letter writer did say our Lord Jesus about 100 times in the letters.

Any ambiguity in Galations 1.19 is dispelled by Eusebius in Church History who claimed that James was the son of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus Christ.

The church presented James as the human brother of Jesus.

[

Switch89

So what if a fourth century church historian presented James as a flesh and blood brother of Jesus?

ApostateAbe

I have seen many arguments based on perceived parallels. They are more convincing than they should be, because it is unexpectedly easy to draw parallels between stories where very little linkage exists in actuality, especially when you have a large anthology of stories to choose from. That is how early Christians drew parallels between the Jesus story and the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53. Turton draws parallels between the crucifixion of Jesus as told in Mark and the story of Daniel in the lion's den, but to make his case he has to be inconsistent with his characters. For example, King Darius singly corresponds to Joseph of Aramethia, Pontius Pilate and the women of the tomb, changing from one verse to the next?

aa5874

There is really no need for any theories. The NT and church writings presented James as the human brother of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mr 6:3

yalla

From Paul's Epistle to the Romans

1.1 I want you to know brethren
7.1 Do you not know brethren
7.4 Likewise, my brethren
8.12 So then, brethren
8.28 ...first born among many brethren
9.3 ....my brethren, my kinsmen by race
10.1 Brethren ...
11.25 I want you to understand this mystery brethren
12.1 I appeal to you therefore brethren
14.10 Do you passs judgment on your brother ....do you despise your brother?
14.13 .....or hindrance in the way of a brother...
14.15 ..if your brother...
14.15 ..if your brother is being injured ....
14.21 ....that makes your brother stumble...
15.14 ....my brethren ...
16.6 .. Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen
16.11 my kinsman Herodian
16.13 Greet Rufus...also his mother and mine
16.17 I appeal to you, brethren
16.21 Lucius, and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen
16.23 our brother Quartus, greet you.


These are the kin terms that Paul uses to adress his fellow believers.
I may have missed a few.
There are many more in the other Pauline epistles.

Do we presume that all these people are blood relatives, actual kin in a genetic sense?
All related to Paul and each other?

ApostateAbe

No. We determine the meaning from the context.

yalla

Well we are "members of the brotherhood [1 Cor 6.5] aren't we?
Because we "are the body of Christ" [1 Cor 12.27], "more than 500 [brethren]" of us [1 cor 15.6], all part of "the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" [ 1 Cor 1.9] and 'fellow heirs with Christ'' as befits being "children of God' [Romans 8.16] because we are " sons and daughters ...of..the Lord Almighty" [2 Cor 5.16].

figuer

Not convincing. The part about "rumored to have been the first pope" is anachronistic and mythological. That the office of "pope" as it developed in Rome claimed to derive from the position held by one disciple does not establish that said disciple was awarded such a similar distinction in his lifetime. He would have been the leader of an obscure, insignificant cult, not the "pope".

Huon

There are three competing theories about the question of the brethren of Jesus :

1. The theory of Helvidius, written before 383. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are the children of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus. Helvidius supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian (ca.160 – ca. 220) and Victorinus (died 303 or 304) of Poetovio (Ptuj, Slovenia).

2. The theory of Epiphanius (ca. 310–320 – 403) was bishop of Salamis and metropolitan of Cyprus at the end of the 4th century. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are the children of a previous marriage of Joseph.

3. The theory of Saint Jerome (c. 347 – September 30, 420). The "brothers and sisters" of Jesus are really his cousins, born of a brother of Joseph, Clopas by name, and a sister of Mary, bearing the same name, Mary.

Jerome maintains against Helvidius (c. 383) three propositions:—
1. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.
2. That the "brethren" of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.
3. That virginity is better than the married state.

The Antidicomarianites were an ancient Eastern Christian sect which flourished in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. The Ebionites were the first who maintained that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, not of God. This doctrine was later modified so as to teach that although Jesus was born of Mary through the Holy Ghost, afterwards Joseph and Mary lived in wedlock and had many other children.

The sect denied the formula "ever-Virgin Mary" used in the Greek and Roman Liturgies. The earliest reference to this sect appears in Tertullian, and the doctrines taught by them are expressly mentioned by Origen (Homilia in Lucam, III, 940).

The theory of Jerome is that of the Catholic Church.

aa5874

If you think that writer called Paul was ambiguous with respect to Galations 1.19 whare he called a James the Lord's brother, you must use some other source to resolve the ambiguity.

The authors of the gospels implied that Jesus Christ had a brother called James.

The forged passage in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 has information there that there was a James who had a brother called Jesus Christ.

And Eusebius in Church History 2.1 wrote that Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, had a son named James.

So, even if Galations 1.19 is not clear to you, the NT and the church writings did propagate that Jesus Christ had a brother called James.