GakuseiDon

No, I don't think the answer can be that. Origen, in his commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John, quite clearly identifies James as one of the brothers of Jesus. In his Commentary on Matthew, Origin relates to a tradition that James was the son of Joseph from an earlier marriage, suggesting that the tradition developed in order to preserve the perpetual virginity of Mary. But Origin certainly regarded James as being the brother of Jesus, from a perspective of being brought up with him.

I don't think that Origen allows for (3). The only options are (1) and (2), but (2) appears to be a result of a later development in the role of Mary, long after Paul wrote.

I think that Origen is saying that Paul saw James as Jesus' brother, but it wasn't so much "on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing", but "on account of his ethics and speech." In other words, the relationship was more than just being brothers, but there was also a kinship of spirit. To me, Origen wants to highlight James' virtue, to provide support for the notion that the Jews believed that Jerusalem was destroyed because of James' death. It seems clear that Origen is not stating that Paul regarded "brother of the Lord" as just a title.

I don't see it in Eusebius' use of Clement, I'm afraid. Here is that passage in Eusebius:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.ii.html

How do you see "Lord's brother" being a title there?

aa5874

Based on "Church History", Eusebius put forward the notion that Jesus was both Divine and human, in essence, the Eusebian Jesus was a mythological entity believed to have been born of a virgin and of the Holy Ghost sometime around the start of the 1st century CE.

This is a writer under the name of Eusebius on the two-fold nature of Jesus in "Church History" 1.

Eusebius wrote the "history" of the two-fold natured MYTH called Jesus.

The history of the "single-fold" or "non-fold" Jesus is not in the writings of Eusebius, perhaps the writings of Marcion since his Jesus was of a "one-fold" nature--only Divine.

In general, Christians may tend to believe the Eusebian story while HJers will probably say something is wrong with the evidence and then immediately begin to make up their own story from their creative imagination as if their imagination was an ample source of evidence.

spin

How long will it be until Abe finishes what is important in his own life and comes back to us with a reheat of the same old same old waffles?

Historical Jesus... best fit... embarrassing... Lord's brother... Peter... christian churches... Occam's razor... Mythers... lies... consilience....
:vomit:


spin

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon,

I always fine it interesting that the history of Jesus always goes back to Eusebius no matter where we start.

Good points, I have to get to bed, so just a quick note now.

This is what Origen says in the Commentary on Matthew,


Here is the similar passage in anti-Celsus:

there are two problems in the passages: 1) In our current edition of Josephus, he does not say that the temple was destroyed on account of James. In our current edition of Galatians, Paul does not say that James was named the lord's brother more for his virtue and doctrine than his biological or familial relationship with Jesus.

Immediately we have to start thinking about corruption of texts and interpolations.

If he was known as the lord's brother because of his virtue and Doctrines than the fact that he was a brother (either biologically or otherwise) means nothing and that the lord's brother must have been a title. If I say that Amenhotep was called "Moonwatcher" more for his skills than for his family, I am suggesting that "Moonwatcher" is a title that can be gotten through skill and not through heredity.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

But, the claim that Jesus had a brother has no relevance at all with respect to the actual history of Jesus when in the same Canon Jesus is said to have a mother with no human father .

Achilles is said to have a sea-goddess as a mother and a human father who was a king, but this human father does not in any way alter the mythological status of Achilles.

It is the mythological activities and description of Achilles with no historical support that qualifies him to be a Mythological entity.

Jesus Christ is no different.

In the canonical Sacred Scripture, Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God and there is no historical source external of the NT and Church writings that can show that there was an actual man who was deified as a Jew in Jerusalem.

The Canonical Sacred Scripture does not support Jesus as a mere man with a human father, so whether it is claimed he had none, one or one thousand brothers is actually irrelevant to the mythological data of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

GakuseiDon

"Brother of the Lord" can always be meant as a title. But if we are talking of Origen: he regarded James as being a brother to Jesus (either as son of Mary or son of Joseph). He said Paul called James "brother of the Lord" (possibly instead of "son of Joseph") to identify James' virtue, possibly to alleviate concerns that Paul regarded James as a full-brother to Jesus (thus undermining Mary's perpetual virginity), and certainly to add emphasis to James' virtue. There's nothing in Origen to make us think he regarded the relationship as one just based on virtue, and nothing to suggest he thought it was a title that anyone could carry. But that doesn't really shed light on what Paul himself meant by the term "brother of the Lord".

Still, if "James, brother of the Lord" means "brother" as a title, would we still have the same argument if it were "James, brother of Jesus" instead? "Brother of Jesus" could still be meant as a title, I suppose.

gurugeorge

*slaps forehead* Yeah, that makes a lot of sense actually - also deals with what Chaucer is talking about.

The main point is that it seems clear that in Paul, so far as we can tell, "brother/sister" is a "term of art", and chances are it's used that way for James as well (esp. considering the negative arguments spin mentioned about use of "Lord" and about it being an odd locution for siblinghood). Under these circumstances, it's plumping for siblinghood that requires the ad hockery.

spamandham

To keep things in perspective, creationists universally accept HJ. :constern01:

Ya had to go there.

We agree again. I say MJ is *simpler* and explains *more* of the evidence with *fewer* contrivances. It just isn't plausible that the life of a real person would play out according to the script of Isaiah precisely a symbolic 40 years prior to the fall of the temple, at a time when messianic expectations were at an all time historical high, only to have the greatest evangelizer closest in time to the events (Paul) completely ignore every aspect of the cult founder - no quotes from him, no stories about his life and ministry...nothin', dick. All Paul knows about Jesus is that he was crucified and resurrected (and a few other tidbits that are disputed by mainstream scholars). Not only that, but the cult leader's name, Jesus (which means YHWH's savior), just happens to also be the role he plays. What luck!

There is no parallel in history that comes even remotely close to such an improbability. It is totally against human nature and flies in the face of everything we understand about cult behavior, present and past. It's borderline impossible, and requires all kinds of *complicated* hemming and hawing to reconcile.

On the other hand, we do have parallels of religious movements completely fabricating origins stories, and it happened within the same religious group from which Christianity sprung. Abraham is obviously a constructed figure, not a historical person, made to explain the origin of Judaism which was otherwise unknown.

I say the same is true of Jesus. Jesus is the Abraham of Christianity, and early Christians constructed him, just as they knew Abraham was constructed. They constructed him *after* the fall of the temple, and possibly after the Bar Kochba revolt. His construction was *in response to* those events, even though the ideas we see in Paul's letters - a rejection of the law in favor of a spiritual interpretation - preceded 70. In a natural-selection sort of way, Christianity filled a niche decimated when the temple fell.

GakuseiDon

No, Paul appears to know more than that. Jesus came as a servant; he was crucified in Jerusalem; he died some time after Moses (and probably in Paul's recent past); he had a brother named James. Yes, I know that you disagree with those conclusions, but the "all Paul knows is the crucifixion and resurrection" comment should be qualified. We can see that all Paul was interested in was the implications of the resurrection. But we don't know what Paul knew.

There's Sai Baba of Shirdi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi

Sai Baba of Shirdi (Unknown – October 15, 1918), also known as Shirdi Sai Baba was an Indian guru and yogi, regarded by his followers as an incarnation of God... There are many stories and eyewitness accounts of miracles he performed. He is a well-known figure in many parts of the world, but especially in India, where he is much revered.

The name 'Sai Baba' is a combination of Persian and Indian origin... The appellative thus refers to Sai Baba as being a "holy father" or "saintly father". His parentage, birth details, and life before the age of sixteen are obscure, which has led to a variety of speculations and theories attempting to explain Sai Baba's origins...

Sai Baba left no written works. His teachings were oral, typically short, pithy sayings rather than elaborate discourses... Sai Baba's millions of disciples, followers and devotees believe that he had performed many miracles...

According to his followers he appeared to them after his death, in dreams, visions and even in bodily form, whence he often gave them advice.

Not exactly the same of course, but some parallels there.

aa5874

There is no historical source of antiquity outside the NT and Church writings that can show any Jew believed in a spiritual or heavenly Jesus before the fall of the Temple.

No historical records of antiquity outside apologetics sources can show that before the fall of the Temple that a Jewish man named Jesus was in heaven after being raised from the dead and had the ability to forgive the sins of the Jews and that his resurrection made the commandments of God with respect to sacrifice and circumcision obsolete.

We have the writings of Philo and Josephus and none of these authors indicate that there was an entity called Jesus, the son of God, the Lord and Saviour of Jews and Gentiles. Philo implied that Jews would not have deified a man, and Josephus who lived or stayed in Galilee and did not write about Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Jesus, the Apostles, the Pauline writers, James, Peter, John or Jude.

It must be obvious that the Pauline Universal [Catholic] Jesus Christ was after the Jesus of the Synoptics who preached primarily or virtually exclusively to the Jews even forbidding his disciples to preach to the Gentiles.

The Synpotic Jesus did not tell his disciple why he would be raised from the dead but the Pauline Jesus Christ did reveal to Paul that there would be no remission of sins without his resurrection.

It must be obvious that the Synoptic Jesus never heard of the Pauline Jesus's revelations.

The Synoptic Jesus spoke in riddles to the Jewish multitudes so that the Jews would remain in sin, but the Pauline Jesus Christ revealed to Paul to preach salvation to the world.

It must be obvious that the Synoptic Jesus never heard of the Pauline Jesus' revelations.

The Synoptic Jesus came from heaven to preach the kingdom of heaven to the lost sheep but he did not even venture out in the Mediterranean Sea or preach to Jews in Alexandria, Damascus or Bithynia. The Synoptic Jesus traveled on a sea about 10 miles wide in which at times he could even walk in.

However the Pauline Jesus revealed to Paul to preach to people all over the Roman Empire and he traveled tens of hundreds of miles

It must be obvious that the authors of the Synoptic Jesus did not realise or never heard that Paul had already preached salvation to the world before they invented the riddler of Nazareth.

The Synoptic Jesus came to fulfill the Law, was circumcised and asked others to make offerings to the high priest, but the Pauline Jesus revealed that the Laws of Moses including circumcision were made obsolete by his resurrection.

It must be obvious that the Synoptic Jesus never heard of the revelations of the Pauline Jesus.

The revelations from the Pauline Jesus had already made the Synoptic Jesus OBSOLETE and the inventors of the RIDDLER of Nazareth did not know because there was no such thing as Pauline Jesus before the Synoptic Jesus was invented.


The revelations from the Pauline Jesus was after the invention of the RIDDLER of the Nazareth who, in the NT, did not even know or teach his disciples and the lost sheep of Israel why he must be raised from the dead.

This is the revelation from the Pauline Jesus.

1Co 15:17 - This is the Synoptic Jesus, he did not teach why it was necessary for him to be raised.
Mr 9:31 - And now look at even the Gospel according to John which is deduced to be later than the Synoptics. John's Jesus did not teach his disciples about the vital significance of the resurrection.

John 20.8-9 It must be obvious that the revelations of the Pauline Jesus were after the invention of the Gospel Jesus, the RIDDLER of NAZARETH.