yalla

"Chunk had already made his point, which was that Paul never referred to anybody else as "The Lord's brother""

"1 Cor 9.5 "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister as a wife, as the other apostles AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD and Cephas?''

Chunk is wrong.

mikem

Chunk is wrong that only James was referred to as a brother of the Lord, and you are wrong in taking all these references to be metaphorical. In the above verse Paul is referring to all the natural brothers of Jesus, who he distinguishes from the apostles. he gospels tell us who they are: James, Joses, Simon and Judas. We also have independent attestation to at least one of them, Judas I think, some of whose descendents were hauled before a Roman court, and let off because they were regarded as simpletons. I will try and track down the reference, unless someone else reading this can provide it?

mikem

The passage I was referring to occurs in the writings of Hegesippus, writing around 165/175 ce. Hegesippus was a Christian, so it can hardly be described as an independent attestation. However I can see no reason to think that he is not recording what he considers to be historically accurate.

Concerning the relatives of our saviour.6

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.7

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

When they were released they became leaders8 of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.

Chunk

Galatians 1:19

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

Nowhere else in his epistles, does Paul refer to anyone as the "lords brother". He
frequently refers to groups of Christians as brothers. He also refers to other Christians
as his brothers. He also refers to people as "brothers beloved by the lord". However, he
only once calls someone the "lords brothers", which leads me to believe that he meant
something different to all of the other occasions.

The verses that you point out above fall under: "He frequently refers to groups of Christians as brothers".
As in a brotherhood. Its difficult to take it in any way other than this. With the Galatians 1:19 verse its
very different, he is directly calling someone the brother of the Lord.

I agree.

1 Cor 6:4

I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between
his brethren?

How is this the same as calling someone the Lords brother? As above, it falls into the category of calling a group of
Christians "brothers" as in a brotherhood.

Before I made my initial post on this subject, I searched the epistles for the word "brother" and read every verse that
contained the word. The only verse I found that made me question Galatians 1:19 was 1 Cor 9:5. However, I still stand by
it being different to Galatians 1:19.

The KJV version of 1 Cor 9:5 is:

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

This version clearly shows that it falls into the category of brotherhood, as Ive talked about above.

The ESV version of 1 Cor 9:5 is:

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, [1] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

If you take the verse in this way, I think it adds further proof that Paul means a literal brother in Galatians 1:19. Here Paul
is comparing himself to the other Apostles, trying to put himself on a level with them. It doesnt make sense to me therefore for
him to compare himself to just general Christians or "brothers".

This verse seems to seperate out the apostles from the brothers of the lord and Cephas. Therefore, to me it makes sense that Paul
is refering to ALL of the literal brothers of the Lord, which would include James. The gospels back this us up.

Which is fine. James would be included in this. I dont think it means every Christian, for the above reason.

Perhaps the Greek would shed some light on this. The difference between KJV and ESV seems to be pretty big in 1 Cor 9:5. Does
anyone know anything about the Greek version of Galatains 1:19?

yalla

Why am I wrong in taking all of the other references as metaphorical [actually I'm not sure metaphorical is the right word, I take them as terms of group membership]?

Do you think Rufus is Paul's blood sibling?
Do you think the 'brothers of the lord' are having sex with their sisters?
And so on?
Are not all believers 'sons of god"?
Is not Jesus the son of god?
Does that not make the believers brothers of the lord? [Sexism aside].

If you disagree please explain.

No need to give references of the names of those alleged by the gospels to be the brothers of JC.
I concede that the gospels portray JC as a real live HJ complete with siblings.

But that is later.
Paul does not portray JC as "real"', does not state or imply the apostles knew him on any other way than that of Paul, does not refer to an HJ.
Paul has an MJ, the gospels have an HJ.

The story of the relatives of JC coming before the emperor, it's in Eusebius somewhere, is tradition. Cute story. No basis in fact. There are lots of such cute stories. One is about a cave where some Christians hid during a persecution. When they came out of the cave a few days later it was a 100 or more years later. They had been saved! Read some of the martyr stories, they are just as credible.
cheers
yalla

mikem

[QUOTE=yalla]I think Chunk and I have already answered this.

The gospels are later yes, but that does not help your case unless you can demonstrate that they do not contain genuine historical material relating to Jesus' relatives. Can you do that, other than simply making assertions to the contrary?

Why should Paul state that the apostles knew Jesus? It was hardly a point of dispute. The fact that he can simply refer to "James the brother of the Lord" without qualification, and to the brothers of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 9:5 in the way he does, almost incidentally, and distinguish them from the Apostles makes my case I think. The fact that he is not referring to brothers of the Lord as a generic description of Christians in general is proved by the context.

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Paul is referring here to two distinct groups of people, and a further individual, Cephas, all of whom had one thing in common - they were all married men. There were (some) married apostles, and the brothers of the Lord were married, as was Peter.

If your interpretation of brothers of the Lord as being "brothers" of the Lord by virtue of being members of the church family was correct, then this verse would make no sense whatsoever.

That has been debated elsewhere, and you are merely asserting it. I assume that you mean that Paul did not believe that Jesus had been a human person?

In order to convince me of that you would have to prove to me that when Paul wrote the following verses had someone other than a real human person in mind.

Jesus was born in human fashion (Galatians 4:4);

Jesus was born a Jew (Galatians 3:16; 4:4);

Jesus was a descendent of David (Romans 1:4)

Jesus had a ministry to the Jews (Romans 15:8);

Jesus had a brother named James (Galatians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 15:6-70);

Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

Jesus was handed over on the night of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25);

Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16);

Jesus died by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 3:1);

Eusebius is quoting Hegesippus, who wrote in the later half of the 2nd century. He names bishops of various churches, some of whom he has met. He is in a good position to know about the personnel of the church, including members of Jesus family. He is certainly better placed to provide historical information on these matters than sceptics living nearly 2000 years later.

yalla

Gidday mikem,
I think we are not really communicating here.
For example:
"I think Chunk and I have already answered this".
Nope, I don't see that. Neither of you have shown why Rufus is not Paul's sibling, and all the similar examples, but James has to be a literal brother.
Neither of you have told me that Rufus is not Paul's brother, even though Paul says so, because.....
Neither of you have explained why "sister as wife' does not involve incest.
Neither of you have explained how 500 brothers/brethren cannot be related but when the same term is used elsewhere it must mean kin relationship.

You are being inconsistent.
You are taking dozens of kin terms as metaphorical but making an unexplained exception for 2.
I don't have to talk about the gospels.
I'm saying Paul has an MJ.
Refute it..without evoking that which was not written at his time.
Denying or accepting that the gospels have an HJ is not relevant to Paul.
He wrote.
Then they wrote.
If Paul is meaning an HJ then we should see that in Paul.
And, with respect to kin terms, you have to treat 2 out of a 100 plus examples differently to the rest to claim kinship.
Yet paul is telling you that all believers are sons of god...just like JC.
What do you call 2 or more males who have the same father?

For example:
"The gospels are later yes, but that does not help your case unless you can demonstrate that they do not contain genuine historical material relating to Jesus' relatives. Can you do that, other than simply making assertions to the contrary?"
The only comment I have made re the gospels is that they present an HJ.
I have made no assertions to the contrary.

For example:
"If your interpretation of brothers of the Lord as being "brothers" of the Lord by virtue of being members of the church family was correct, then this verse would make no sense whatsoever."
I take it then that "brethren" does NOT mean members of the church family according to you?
Are the brethren Paul's siblings and siblings to each other as well?
Yes or no?
If no what does the term mean?

Another example:
"Why should Paul state that the apostles knew Jesus? It was hardly a point of dispute."
Correct.
That cuts 2 ways. Nobody, except those who later wish to import the gospels into Paul, assumes anyone knew an HJ.
The question is not raised.

Another:
"Paul is referring here to two distinct groups of people, and a further individual, Cephas, all of whom had one thing in common - they were all married men. There were (some) married apostles, and the brothers of the Lord were married, as was Peter."
Exactly.
Distinct groups.
Cephas [not Peter here] is special. He is the bloke Paul spent 15 days with in Jerusalem.
Apostles are "messengers" of the kerygma.
The rest are members of the brethren of the Christian family.
One of them is named James.
Peter is the bloke entrusted by the pillars as focusing on the circumcised.
See there is no need to translate brother as blood brother in 2 cases out of a 100 or so. It makes sense without the brotherhood being siblings of JC.
Perhaps better sense because otherwise it claims only the apostles, Cephas and JC's siblings can be married.
What about Rufus and all the others? Why not Paul [which is what he is asking] after all he is a son of god too, by virtue of being 'in Christ"?

Eusebius also personally translated a letter from Jesus Christ to Abgar.
According to Eusebius.
Do you believe Jesus wrote to Abgar?
Do you believe everything Eusebius wrote?

Your list of verses I would have to address is interesting.
Really. I mean that.
And I don't have time for a more than cursory comment on them now, but later, no problem.
For a start remember that Paul got his gospel from no man.
That claim of his is important.
So how did he know any of the things referred to in your list of verses?
Not from men, so he says.

From revelation?
That is one of his sources according to him.

Well that is not a real live human source is it?

Did he get it from third heaven?
Maybe.

Did he get it from scriptures? Jewish scriptures? The ones that include Abraham and David and Jewish people?
According to him he did.

See?
Nothing from a real live JC, directly or indirectly, according to him.
Do you think he tells lies or is mistaken , whatever?

catch you later,
cheers
yalla








You have not addressed these issues.

Eikonoklast

I'd be interested to know if anyone here has any opinions on the work of theorist Michael Hoffman at www.egodeath.com - specifically where and why you think he is wrong in his assessment of Christianity and the HJ/MJ question.

There's a lot to read there, but based on what I have read, his interpretation of what Jesus is and means seems to be the most likely to me -- namely that the figure of Jesus, his life, and the crucifixion is an extended metaphor for experiential phenomena and revelatory realizations of the nature of mind/time/freewill induced by the use of hallucinogens, particularly amanita muscaria.

Johann_Kaspar

About reading, that is much better. But I never implied anything like what you are writing. It is only your fantasy. Moreover in replying to another poster I had in mind all Romans, Greek and Jewish authors whose works disappeared partially or totally or were kept, but tampered, like for Flavius Josephus. About the gospels, that is another story, for they were written by Jews, not by xians who are not able to understand them. Can you?

yalla

Thanks for this...I think.
How am I supposed to read all this in my all too short spare time?

I checked out the link and my initial reaction was "Oh oh, new age stuff".
Then I saw Eysinga on I Clement.
Thats a good article, thought provoking. I think its available at the Jnl of Higher Criticism.
So I read the interview with Goodacre, Freke, Pagels and Green.
Very interesting, Freke came over better than I expected. Green as expected.
I like Pagels, she's human.

Now I have to read all the rest.
When?

Thanks.
cheers
yalla.