Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 03-03-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

later Christians interpreted it that way

How much later? Who is the earliest Christian writer we know of who unambiguously indicates that he thinks the Jerusalem church was led for a time by Jesus' sibling?

Josephus, 90 CE.

ApostateAbe · 03-03-2010, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Is the first reference to James the Jerusalem church leader as the brother of Jesus first mentioned by Origen?

Not in my opinion. I think James, the Lord's brother means brother of Jesus because later Christians interpreted it that way, there was no debate, and there seems to be no plausible alternative meaning. Another meaning would leave the intended reader either confused or misinformed about which "James" is referred to. And it would require that Christians very quickly forgot the old meaning that Paul presumed the reader would understand. It seems to be very much a no-brainer.

Go ahead and answer your own question. Was Origen really the one to turn James the brother of the lord into James the brother of Jesus?

JW:
Actually, Origen supports spin's understanding:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0....i.xlviii.html

Quote:

Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

If Origen is referring to our Galatians than Origen's understanding of Paul's use of the offending term "brother of the Lord" is primarily figurative. Exactly what spin is saying. One wonders though how Origen deduces this from our Galatians indicating that his Galatians may not have been ours or even worse, that Origen's explanation is based on non-extant Paul which evidenced the figurative use. Add to this that Paul has something of a reputation for the figurative. None of this proves a figurative meaning by Paul, it's just evidence against a literal meaning.

For those who need points sharply explained, we are sitting here with:

1) No first hand witness says Church James was Jesus' brother.

2) No second hand witness says Church James was Jesus' brother.

3) Paul, whose human sources we are unsure of, provides indirect evidence, that Church James was Jesus' brother, by using an ID which could be figurative.

4) Paul lacks credibility as a witness so evidence from him needs confirmation.

5) The original Gospel is clear that Jesus' brother James, rejected Jesus and the exponentially more likely candidate for Church James was Jesus' disciple James who was not his brother. It's also been demonstrated that the original Gospel uses names in a fictitious way. No confirmation there.

6) "Matthew"/"Luke" accept "Mark's" Jesus' family rejection.

7) "John", c. 160, exorcises the family rejection for theological reasons.

8) Origen, 3rd century, is the first to make the clear literal family connection but understands Paul's connection as primarily figurative.

So where is the confirmation of the uncredible Paul's questionable use of "brother"?

Since I find it increasingly difficult to distinguish the two, I also hereby create the titles, "aa the minor" and AA the capo, brother of the Noah Creedterra Historia (perhaps I should have written this before I signed the new Rules of Engagement).

AA, I myself think that Paul is referring to James as a literal brother of Jesus, but you have so many criteria problems:

1) Source

2) Credibility

3) Confirmation

4) Transmission

5) Contrary evidence

I do not consider it proven or a historical fact.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

It was spin who pointed this out a while ago--Origen had an explicit theological purpose for defining "brother" metaphorically--he believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which would mean that Jesus couldn't have literal brothers, unless they were also begotten of God. I don't have confirmation on that, but I guess you can ask spin. The quote from Origen at least seems to imply that the meaning likely to be taken by a normal reader is that James is a literal sibling, so Origen goes a little out of his way to discourage that interpretation.

--AA the capo, brother of the Noah Creedterra Historia

Johnny Skeptic · 03-03-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.......later Christians interpreted it that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How much later? Who is the earliest Christian writer we know of who unambiguously indicates that he thinks the Jerusalem church was led for a time by Jesus' sibling?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Josephus, 90 CE.

Josephus was a Christian writer?

aa5874 · 03-03-2010, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How much later? Who is the earliest Christian writer we know of who unambiguously indicates that he thinks the Jerusalem church was led for a time by Jesus' sibling?

Josephus, 90 CE.

Your response is completely false or bogus.

Josephus was NOT an early Christian writer.

Josephus was a Pharisee and he did not ever claimed that he was converted to a personal belief in any man called Jesus whom he deified.

And, secondly, Josephus wrote not one thing about any Church in Jerusalem or any Church in Judea where a man called Jesus Christ was worshiped as a God and that the Church was led by any character called the Lord's brother.

spin · 03-03-2010, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How much later? Who is the earliest Christian writer we know of who unambiguously indicates that he thinks the Jerusalem church was led for a time by Jesus' sibling?

Josephus, 90 CE.

Bingo!!! Josephus knows even though christians don't.

(See OP smilie sentence.)

(And Josephus is an early christian writer.

)

spin

ApostateAbe · 03-03-2010, 08:47 AM

Wow, three people nailed me on the point that Josephus was NOT, in fact, a Christian writer. I thought about qualifying my answer to the question as such, but I just wanted to keep it short, so now I guess I have to explain. It does not matter whether or not Josephus was a Christian. His writing reflected the belief that was common among Christians of the time.

Toto · 03-03-2010, 08:53 AM

Where does The Protevangelion of James fit in?

show_no_mercy · 03-03-2010, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where does The Protevangelion of James fit in?

According to here, this is where Origen got the idea that James was the son of Joseph from another marriage.

The Protevangelion of James is dated to around 150 CE, thus there were Christians around the middle of the 2nd century who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Chili · 03-03-2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where does The Protevangelion of James fit in?

According to here, this is where Origen got the idea that James was the son of Joseph from another marriage.

The Protevangelion of James is dated to around 150 CE, thus there were Christians around the middle of the 2nd century who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a concept to be understood wherein rebirth is incipient from God as per John 1:13 and is thus 'native' to each and every human being and hence 'perpetual.' That James was Joseph's son from a different marriage just means that James was reborn from carnal desire, also per John 1:13, and thus was 'from his mother's womb untimely ripped' . . . or gang-banged at a charismatic event (to bring this closer to home).

Mary was never a real person = no human condition = without sin = never left Eden = presides over the TOL, and subsequently = Queen of angels in charge of the HS until the trininty collapses with the descent of the Dove = 'the father and I are one' and Mary now redundant as mediatrix but remains behind the scene to grant God's favor upon the Galilean with no Church to go to (also the flip side of Gal. 5:4 = no church and no slavery to the law and no religious behaviour).

Toto · 03-03-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where does The Protevangelion of James fit in?

According to here, this is where Origen got the idea that James was the son of Joseph from another marriage.

The Protevangelion of James is dated to around 150 CE, thus there were Christians around the middle of the 2nd century who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

"150" sounds like someone guessed that it must be a second century document, and picked a date in the middle. Earlychristianwritings.com dates it to 140-170, presumably because it must be later than Matthew and Luke, but earlier than Origen. But I don't see why it must be that much earlier than Origen, and it appears that the text is not always coherent, so it might have been altered or amended over the centuries.

But it is not abolutely clear that James the Brother of Jesus and narrator of the Infancy gospels is identified with James the head of the Jerusalem Church, unless I am missing something.

Quote:

Now I, James, which wrote this history in Jerusalem, when there arose a tumult when Herod died, withdrew myself into the wilderness until the tumult ceased in Jerusalem.

What would this refer to? Were there disturbances in Jerusalem after the death of Herod Agrippa?

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

03-03-2010, 08:47 AM	#16
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Wow, three people nailed me on the point that Josephus was NOT, in fact, a Christian writer. I thought about qualifying my answer to the question as such, but I just wanted to keep it short, so now I guess I have to explain. It does not matter whether or not Josephus was a Christian. His writing reflected the belief that was common among Christians of the time.

03-03-2010, 08:53 AM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Where does The Protevangelion of James fit in?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.