angelo

There is ample evidence in Mark that points to it been written between 65-70 Ad, not as you state 55-60. The destruction of the temple is mentined, that occured sometime in 66-70 ad.
The very first christian writings are those of Paul. 15-25 years after jesus death.

sschlichter

what is it that you think 'flesh' means? Why do we need Paul to say something positive about it before James can be a brother of the Lord.

Doug Shaver

Which translation are you using? I just checked five -- Darby, KJV, ASV, ISV, and NET. None of them says it was public. [Added in edit]: Never mind. I got the answer after posting.

To the modern mind, yes. What about the hellenistic mind?

As a counterpart to Adam. Did Paul believe that the first chapters of Genesis were a record of historical fact?

But my main question to you is: If Paul did believe that Jesus had recently lived on earth as a human being, why did he say "likeness of flesh" rather than "flesh"?

Amaleq13

What does Paul tell you it means?

Did you even read the posts a first time? You certainly haven't reread them. :banghead:

Other examples of Paul apparently deviating from his general tendency to completely differentiate "Christ" and faith in Christ from the world of the flesh would tend to lessen the oddity of the phrase. But you don't have any so it remains odd.

Likewise, other examples of Paul appearing to acknowledge greater status or legitimacy to earlier apostles would make that aspect less odd. But you don't have of those, either, so it remains odd. Paul can't even offer a straight-up admission that these guys were considered a Big Deal in Jerusalem. He has to offer a disclaimer.

And in that context, we have a single sentence in which Paul simultaneously describes an entirely fleshy connection to Christ while granting an inherently greater claim to legitimacy on the part of James.

If one stops reacting and starts thinking, this should argument should be fairly easy to follow.

jakejonesiv

The text under discussion is Gal 1:19. "But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. I have shown conclusively that this was not in Marcion's recension, and likely was missing from Irenaeus and Tertullian. The question then becomes, what did the catholic redactor intend?

In 1 Cor. 9:5, there is mentioned "the brethren of the Lord." By conflation with the gospels, it is presumed that the reference is to Jesus' family. But it could well be a reference to a group whose members were not related to Jesus but were zealous in the service of the risen Lord; brethren of the Lord, not Jesus. Indeed, the force of the argument is that Paul considers himself in the same category and eligible for the same privleges. Many texts in the redacted text (such as Romans 10:9) shows that "Lord" is a title associated with the alleged resurrection.

Phillipians 2 NAB
9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Romans 10 NAB
9 for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Thus the reference to the Lord in Galatians 1:19 is intended to the resurrected Christ enthroned in heaven, rather than the pre-Lord "human" Jesus which Paul scarcely knows. The Pauline epistles use the name "Jesus" nearly 150 times but never once is a saying attributed to him. A few times, appeal is made to "words of the Lord"--communicated by revelation from the risen one.

2 Corinthians mentions the brother who is of considerable fame.

2 Corinthians 2
18 With him we have sent the brother who is praised in all the churches for his preaching of the gospel.

Thus "the brethren of the Lord" and indeed even with the definite article "the brother" denotes a group especially zealous in the Lord's service.

James is not the brother of Jesus in Acts. Read chapter 15 for yourself. James is not identified as Jesus brother.

We would be remiss if it wasn't mentioned that the only gospel that identifies a James as a literal brother of Jesus is Mark 6:3. And this same gospel [Mark] identifies that physical kinship to Jesus means nothing, it is religous kinship.

Mark 3
31 His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
32 A crowd seated around him told him, "Your mother and your brothers 12 (and your sisters) are outside asking for you."
33 But he said to them in reply, "Who are my mother and (my) brothers?"
34 And looking around at those seated in the circle he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.
35 (For) whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother."

It is irresponible to insist that only literal kinship can be meant in Gal 1:19.

Best,
Jake

sschlichter

He didn't. He said sinful flesh.

(Rom 8:3) For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,


He also said many other things of Jesus make me quite confident that Paul considered Jesus a flesh and blood man, a descendant of David, crucified, and resurrected.

(Rom 1:3) a descendant of David with reference to the flesh,

and

(1 tim 3:16)He was revealed in the flesh

and

(Rom 3:25) God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

if you do not like publicly, that is fine. He was displayed at his death for the purpose of demonstration.

and

(Rom 5:10) we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son

and

(Rom 6:10) For the death he died, he died to sin once for all

and

(Phil 2:8) He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross!

and

(Phil 3:10) My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death,

and

(Col 1:22) but now he has reconciled you by his physical body through death

and

(1 Cor 2:8) If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

(Heb 2:14) he likewise shared in their humanity (Heb 10:20) through his flesh.

in case you think Paul wrote Hebrews.

sschlichter

Which Lord said this?

(1 Cor 9:14) In the same way the Lord commanded those who proclaim the gospel to receive their living by the gospel.

yes, brothers, brothers in the Lord. Christians still use this phrase today. How come no brothers of the Lord?


Josephus helps us identify this James as the brother of Jesus. do you have evidence that he is some other james?

actually, you are remiss to mention only one gospel identifies james as Jesus brother when Matthew also does.

I do not beleive there was any insisting occurring. What is most likely is that Paul is referring to a man he beleives to be one of the brothers of Jesus.


~Steve

aa5874

The Church at one time did propagate that Jesus had a real brother called James, that is why a forgery can be found in AJ 20.9.1 where Jesus is claimed to have a brother.

In Church History, James is said to have a brother called JESUS, however sometime later a writer called Jerome claimed James must have been the cousin of Jesus not really his brother, since Joseph was not the father of Jesus and James was not the son of his mother Mary.

It may have been that the Church would later claimed Mary the mother of Jesus only had a single virgin born child of the Holy Ghost.

In any event, the Church did propagate that Jesus had some relative or sibling named JAMES.

angelo

The catholics claim Mary was and died a virgin. My question then is........ which orifice did Jesus use to come into the world? If he used the rear one, doesn't that mean he was an arsehole?

spin

The assumption in this last question seems anatomically challenged to me. The rectum remains attached. It's just part of a delivery system.


spin