TedM

Which is never explained, disappears, and is interpreted early on only as something else. Odd, given the implied importance of the title of "brother of God".

Seems highly unlikely since no such reference is given and 1 Cor 9:5 refers to "brothers (plural) of the Lord". Were a bunch of men given the name Ahiyah?

Unlikely since James is singled out with this designation


Why would he be? In response to Mark having given Jesus a brother named James who clearly WASN'T the one in the inner circle? Makes no sense.

Seems pretty clear to me that none of these options you've given can be supported and therefore pale in comparison to the most natural reading which is supported in multiple other fairly early documents, including one which likely was written within 10 years of this very popular James' death!

ted

TedM

No, but he says that he saw it last of all, as though one "untimely born". Why such a distinction if they were all having visions many years after some mythical figure was presumed to have lived? And why did Paul, writing some 20 years later, say that he was the last one to have seen the risen Jesus?

This assumes 1 Timothy isn't Paul's since he mentions the confession in front of Pilate, something that is debatable.

He implies in Romans that the crucifixion happened in Jerusalem as a passover sacrifice.

ted

Toto

Not this again. "Untimely" in this case is a soft euphemism for what Paul actually says - he refers to himself as an "ektroma" - translated in the early 1900's as "an abortion" but more accurately in today's terms as a "miscarriage."

From here

The idea that "untimely" refers to Paul being born too late is a confusion due to the English translation. There is no implication of that here. None.

Most readers assume that 1 Timothy isn't Paul's.

Cite?

Amaleq13

If Mark "did" what? Fabricated the family and deliberately chose the names? If that is the case, we simply don't know why those particular choices were made and can only speculate but I think we can assume Mark's author presumed his audience understood why he chose to name Jesus' doubting brothers as he did. If Mark's author "did" nothing but record the actual names of Jesus' brothers, we would appear to have an unfortunate coincidence that resulted in confusion on the part of Christians in subsequent centuries.

And yet that is precisely what we appear to have in Mark's story if we assume that "brother of the Lord" is a literal reference.

Again, what seems complicated to you is not necessarily true for Mark or his audience.

Again, I hope you are keeping in mind that the problems you are pointing out result from a literal interpretation of the phrase. That Paul had a need to differentiate is not my argument. Also, you seem to be ignoring the clearly relevant factor that Paul has a goal of obtaining equal authority to the other Apostles which would certainly supercede and dictate the specifics of any desire to specifically describe James.

This completely ignores Paul's expressed desire to present himself as having equal authority to the first Apostles.

How James was "normally" identified is irrelevant to Paul's expressed desire to obtain equal authority and I am arguing against the notion that James would only have been known as "brother of the Lord".

Please. Taken literally, it clearly emphasizes the relationship between James and the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition, your suggestion of a need for "preciseness" seems to conflict with your earlier statement that there was "clearly no need" for Paul to make a differentiation. Again, you seem to be losing track of what it is I am arguing against. This is all offered against the notion that Paul would have good reason to choose such a clearly and inherently problematic identifier given a literal meaning. I believe I have shown that the notion he had no other viable choice is without merit and you seem to agree that the notion he needed to differentiate between important men by the same name has no merit.

If Jesus was executed as a political threat, regardless of his actual actions, why should it be any different for his brother and especially if the continuation was explicitly connected to notion of Jesus as the Messiah?

And Christian scribes would be motivated to delete a reference to James' leadership role because....?

TedM

Thanks, I didn't know about that. The citation goes on to say that Paul acknowledges that they know he is using a familiar Gnosis term, even though the next verse seems to be a better explanation--ie they already knew of his reputation as a persecutor of the church. SO, I'm not sure I buy the explanation here. The reference to an abortion may be to his being unworthy of the gift of eternal life because of his past actions rather than some Gnostic reference.. If so, that does still remove any sense of a generational difference. Still, I wonder why Paul seems to stress his being last to have the appearances. Here's the timeline I see:

Various appearances to Peter, James, etc..
Church grows
Paul persecutes the church
Appearance to Paul
Over next 20 years no more appearances to anybody

Seems odd if this Jesus was presumed to have lived many years prior.

Jerusalem, passover
I know it isn't crystal clear, but here's what I'm basing it on:

Romans 9:33 just as it is written," BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

Romans 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written," THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

1 Corinthians 5:7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.

Julian

I wasn't arguing for any of them nor did I indicate that all were equally likely, merely that there are more than two options.
Lots of things aren't explained by Paul. Maybe it is a title for a church leader. I wouldn't want to promote that argument but it is certainly possible.
The argument was originally made by spin who posits that Lord in general refers to God and not Jesus. The name was probably not that uncommon. It could simply be an overlap between a name and some of the other options in my list. Again, I am not promoting any of them, having not studied it in detail.
But he is not singled out. We see the term in 1 Cor. 9:5 and the term brothers appears frequently in Paul's writings.
I didn't necessarily mean James was a late addition, just the appellation.
They can all be supported just not particularly well, except for the christian designation which appears reasonable. Again, I have not studied this in depth so I shall refrain from further comment on this topic. My only point was to illustrate more than two points, which I did.

Julian

NOGO

Let me try and help you understand.

Paul talks about Jesus and dedicated his life at doing just that.
Yet he never gives even a small hint that Jesus had a life and was human.
Not one quote of what he may have said.
Not one event that may gives us any idea of his character
So what do you have left?
You need to make something of every little thing which can be construed as supporting your view.
"Brother of the Lord" is a crutch to an otherwise impossible argument.
Just imagine this.
Paul dedicated his life to Jesus.
He never mentions anything that Jesus said in his life time.
He never mentions anything that Jesus did in his life time.
He does not consider Jesus' life as a source of revelation of God's salvation.
He visits Jerusalem and meets Peter and yet does not return with any stories of Jesus the man.
In this total desert some people want us to believe that Paul just dropped a line like "Brother of the Lord" and that he was talking about the human Jesus.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Please get real!

TedM

Ok, but I don't see much merit in any of them...

From what I see it was very uncommon.

I am referring to the cite in Galations. He IS singled out there, which would be unnecessary and strange if the phrase were applied to generic Christians.


I know, and don't see that it matters to my argument. I see no reason why an alleged interpolator of Galations put it in in response to the belief that the inner circle pillar James was the literal brother of Jesus, given the way he is represented in the Gospels--as a non-believer.

I don't think so. The best alternative IMO is the one of a title, but I think it is still poorly supported.

ted

TedM

You are defining Paul by about 70 pages of writing on very specific subjects. What if all we had from Paul was a 6 page document? Would you state things so strongly then? Context, Context, Context! And, I would say that the Lord's Supper account is clearly about something Paul believed Jesus did during his lifetime.

ted

Toto

Could you please try to make your argument easier to follow? Which next verse? what does it explain?

And again - the term that Mead translates as abortion is better translated as miscarriage - someone born prematurely, not yet fully developed. It has nothing to do with the current preoccupation with what would have been called in those days "induced abortion" or sin or unworthiness - it just means not fully developed.

Why do you assume that is the timeline, except for your presuppositions?

The timeline could have been:

"The Way" exists as a movement.
Paul persecutes members of "The Way"
A long dead apparition of the Teacher of Righteousness appears to Peter, James, etc., and The Way evolves into the early church.
Then it appears to Paul, and he drops his persecution and joins the Way.
(Then the Temple is destroyed, and shell shocked survivors rework what they remember, and construct a mythic Jesus. . .)

I'm not arguing for this, but it seems just as likely as your timeline.