Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-01-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So you think that Brother of the Lord must be a biological brother because Eusebius forged Paul's letters?

I can only repeat what I found in Church History, the passage is very clear.

Church History 2.1.1

Quote:

.... This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ.......

Galations 1.19

Quote:

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother .

I actually think both accounts are unreliable, the NT and the writings are filled with fiction, but regardless, both statements appear to be making reference to the same characters, James and Jesus.

Again, the NT and the church writers presented James as the brother of Jesus.

Not me.

I did not write Church History or Galations.

spamandham · 02-01-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

I have a theory that being a "brother of the Lord" was a
rank in the early church.

Possibilities:
1. 'brother' was a rank, much like it is today
2. 'brother' represented kinship, much like today
3. 'brother', is a legend, much like it might still be today.

Honestly...I've almost given up trying to figure it all out. How can we distill reality from fantasy or propoagnada 2000 years after the fact?

ApostateAbe · 02-01-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The letter writer with the name Paul is no more reliable than Eusebius. And, further, the writer called Paul, or the version of Paul that are in the letters may very well be Eusebius.

Why stop there? Maybe Eusebius was a fictional creation of the early church, and someone forged the writings of Eusebius. I don't know of any non-Christian reference to Eusebius, despite him being so darned important.

aa5874 · 02-01-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The letter writer with the name Paul is no more reliable than Eusebius. And, further, the writer called Paul, or the version of Paul that are in the letters may very well be Eusebius.

Why stop there? Maybe Eusebius was a fictional creation of the early church, and someone forged the writings of Eusebius. I don't know of any non-Christian reference to Eusebius, despite him being so darned important.

But, Paul could have been the Lord's brother and likewise, Eusebius could have been the Lord's brother.

Paul and Eusebius could have been the same brother or twin brothers.

Switch89 · 02-01-2009, 10:52 PM

Eusebius did not forge Paul. We have manuscripts of the Pauline letters which date to the third century, while Eus. wasn't even alive until the fourth century.

Clivedurdle · 02-02-2009, 01:46 AM

Isn't the more interesting word "Lord"?

What is a brother of a god?

A church rank does make sense.

If we are all sons and daughters of the gods a brother is attempting to get some superiority!

rlogan · 02-02-2009, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Why stop there? Maybe Eusebius was a fictional creation of the early church, and someone forged the writings of Eusebius. I don't know of any non-Christian reference to Eusebius, despite him being so darned important.

Heh. Pretend nobody can be documented when there is no evidence for the individual in question.

Obviously a rhetorical question. But maybe worth answering.

First of all it is an enormous body of work, not anonymously done but in his name and by his hand in a critically important time for the Church.

His favor with Constantine and position at Nicea as Bishop of Caesaria and Chronicler of Church History are well enough known - but to pose that he is a fictional person defies any reason. How could Church History and other works circulate, as is so well documented - with him as a nonexistent person? His Church?

The scale of a conspiracy to fabricate Eusebius' existence would include the Bishops at Nicea, Constantine - hundreds and approaching thousands reasonably.

"Brother" is used loosely as an association in the Bible repeatedly.

Yes, Paul's fabricated letters predate Eusebius and can be traced to Marcion. Commandeered by Orthodoxy in the final conglomeration of canon.

gurugeorge · 02-02-2009, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

I certainly agree with the latter part of that sentence.

Paul used familial terms frequently, extensively, in his writings when referring to those who shared his faith.
They were a collegiate of fellows and he referred to them in kin terms.

Sort of like my how my dad was referred to by letters from his union:
"Dear Brother ...."
Or as communists refer to each a other as "comrade'.
Or as members of the "Judean Peoples' Front" are referred to as 'brothers", later changed, in the interests of gender neutrality to "siblings". [That's a referenece to Monty Python's "Life of Brian".]

None of the above, Paul's writings included, refer to actual blood relationships.

Galatians is simply one of scores of such references.

When placed in context, the fact that Paul uses the term[s] in a variety of ways, shows that James was no more a blood relation of JC than Timothy was a real and actual 'son' [1 Cor 4.17] in one case or 'brother' in another [2 Cor 1.1].

It has only been the desire of the church to portray James as a blood relation that has led to such intense focus upon a phrase that in the context of dozens of similar or exactly the same usages has no special meaning of itself.

I agree. I reckon it was a "term of art" in the earliest church, a sort of jargon appellation, and then later, with the Diaspora, the original meaning was lost and some Christians thought maybe in some uses of "brother" (e.g. James) in the early church a blood relation had been meant.

Clivedurdle · 02-02-2009, 05:00 AM

Remember, the Romans hated any associations as potentially treasonous - even banning a local fire brigade as sedition against the Emperor.

It's only the family (Mafiosi?) would have been a possible get out of jail card.

aa5874 · 02-02-2009, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

Eusebius did not forge Paul. We have manuscripts of the Pauline letters which date to the third century, while Eus. wasn't even alive until the fourth century.

The dates assumed for the Pauline letters are probable dates NOT actual dates of writings.

And do you know what Eusebius was doing before he wrote "Church History"?

There is no evidence anywhere at all external of apologetic sources that there were any Jesus believers whatsoever in the 1st century or that there was a creature called Jesus Christ believed to be the offspring of the Holy Ghost in that century.

It is known that Acts of the Apostles is not credible, but it is the book with the history of Saul/Paul.

Somebody or some group must have fabricated Paul, the Church or Eusebius may be culpable for the fabrication.

Someone or some group may have been authorised to fabricate Paul.

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

02-01-2009, 10:52 PM	#35
Switch89 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montgomery, AL Posts: 453	Eusebius did not forge Paul. We have manuscripts of the Pauline letters which date to the third century, while Eus. wasn't even alive until the fourth century.

02-02-2009, 01:46 AM	#36
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Isn't the more interesting word "Lord"? What is a brother of a god? A church rank does make sense. If we are all sons and daughters of the gods a brother is attempting to get some superiority!

02-02-2009, 05:00 AM	#39
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Remember, the Romans hated any associations as potentially treasonous - even banning a local fire brigade as sedition against the Emperor. It's only the family (Mafiosi?) would have been a possible get out of jail card.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.