Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-26-2010, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

For a biological brother, might Paul have used the term "kata sarka" - brother in the flesh?

Why are you so sure that the gospel writers were early, or that they understood the brother of the Lord to refer to the biological brother of Jesus? They could have cast James as a biological brother for literary reasons. In any case, haven't you claimed that no one believes the gospels are history?

But, when the Pauline writer made this admission in Galatians 1.1&11, then the biology of Jesus becomes a study of astrology.

This is a Pauline writer on the the "Lord" Jesus in Galatians 1.

Quote:

1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,).......11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The biological nature of James is actually irrelevant to the nature of Jesus as described by the same Pauline writers.

Doug Shaver · 01-27-2010, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

What makes me lean towards Paul referring to an actual brother is Occam's razor

A potential metaphorical usage of "brother" does not have to be assumed. It is uncontroverted that Paul did use the word in that sense on many occasions.

The position that "brother of the lord" actually meant "male sibling of Jesus of Nazareth" assumes Jesus' historicity.

Would you now like to elaborate on how Occam's razor favors your interpretation?

GakuseiDon · 01-27-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

For a biological brother, might Paul have used the term "kata sarka" - brother in the flesh?

Yes, that's a good point. "James, brother of Christ kata sarka" would in fact be consistent with how he uses it elswhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why are you so sure that the gospel writers were early, or that they understood the brother of the Lord to refer to the biological brother of Jesus? They could have cast James as a biological brother for literary reasons.

Anything is possible, I suppose. Of the pillars in Paul, only a James was made into an actual brother in the Gospels, for whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In any case, haven't you claimed that no one believes the gospels are history?

I was claiming that few regular posters on this board believe that they are "first hand history reports". Spamandham suggested that about 1/3 of regular posters here believe this.

GakuseiDon · 01-27-2010, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

What makes me lean towards Paul referring to an actual brother is Occam's razor

A potential metaphorical usage of "brother" does not have to be assumed. It is uncontroverted that Paul did use the word in that sense on many occasions.

The position that "brother of the lord" actually meant "male sibling of Jesus of Nazareth" assumes Jesus' historicity.

Yes, of course it does. Or at least, early writers' belief that Jesus was historical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Would you now like to elaborate on how Occam's razor favors your interpretation?

Not much more to add than what I have above: all early sources appear to depict a James who was an actual brother of Jesus. None of them depict James as someone described as a 'spiritual brother' -- and not an actual brother -- until Mary's 'perpetual virginity' starts to become an issue.

spamandham · 01-27-2010, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Not much more to add than what I have above: all early sources appear to depict a James who was an actual brother of Jesus. None of them depict James as someone described as a 'spiritual brother' -- and not an actual brother -- until Mary's 'perpetual virginity' starts to become an issue.

What happened to the rest of Jesus' family? Others are mentioned in the gospels as well, and depicted as being followers of Jesus. Yet they had no role outside the gospels, not even in Paul's letters. Did early Christianity follow ordinary cult dynamics in regard to James and only James?

Doug Shaver · 01-28-2010, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

all early sources appear to depict a James who was an actual brother of Jesus. [emphasis added]

That assumes your conclusion. The Pauline literature, which is earliest of all, does not appear that way to me.

ExMormon_Dude · 01-28-2010, 02:57 AM

States that Hebrew & Aramaic never had a word for cousin and that brother & sister were often used instead.

Toto · 01-28-2010, 09:01 AM

James_the_Just also says:

Quote:

Those who assert that James and his brethren are not full or half-siblings of Jesus (the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and some Protestant churches) point out that Aramaic and Hebrew tended to use circumlocutions to point out blood relationships; it is asserted that just calling some people "brothers of Jesus" would not have necessarily implied the same mother.[42][43] Rather, something like "sons of the mother of Jesus" would have been used to indicate a common mother. Scholars and theologians who assert this point out that Jesus was called "the son of Mary" rather than "a son of Mary" in his hometown (Mark 6:3).[42

But there is no evidence that Paul spoke Aramaic or Hebrew.

show_no_mercy · 01-28-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But there is no evidence that Paul spoke Aramaic or Hebrew.

Though an apologist might point out Aramaisms like "Abba" and "Maranatha" as evidence that Paul knew Aramaic...

andrewcriddle · 01-28-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Not much more to add than what I have above: all early sources appear to depict a James who was an actual brother of Jesus. None of them depict James as someone described as a 'spiritual brother' -- and not an actual brother -- until Mary's 'perpetual virginity' starts to become an issue.

What happened to the rest of Jesus' family? Others are mentioned in the gospels as well, and depicted as being followers of Jesus. Yet they had no role outside the gospels, not even in Paul's letters. Did early Christianity follow ordinary cult dynamics in regard to James and only James?

FWIW I posted some time ago about stories of Jesus' family found in Eusebius. desposyni et al

Andrew Criddle

01-28-2010, 02:57 AM	#37
ExMormon_Dude Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Living in Melbourne, Australia. Posts: 9	'James The Just' in Wikipedia States that Hebrew & Aramaic never had a word for cousin and that brother & sister were often used instead.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.