Vivisector

Exactly. However one interprets "brother" or "brethren" of the Lord, information on the Lord's brethren was in circulation and available to Paul at a relative early date, independently of GMk.

I'm not sure why you'd characterize it as a "throwaway line." How many more times would Paul have had to refer to the Lord's brother and brethren for it to carry sufficient weight? Where, in what we have of (what we think are) Paul's epistles, should he have included these additional references?

I respect your hypothesis, and heaven knows (figuratively speaking, of course) I've thrown out some of my own. I have to note, though, that you're proposing that "brother of the Lord" (and brethren as well, I assume) applied to something other than flesh-and-blood siblings, though you're not sure else it would have meant. I understand you to be saying, in other words, "I don't know what it meant, but it didn't mean literal brother/brethren." This is, I might further add, in contrast to the plain reading of Paul's references to brother/brethren of the Lord when, in other currently active threads, people like me (that is to say, of the non-Christian persuasion) are beating our heads against the wall to get Christians to accept the plain reading of the text.

If one had nothing more than these references from Paul, I think it's natural that one would assume Paul was referring to biological siblings. Without additional evidence, it further seems one would almost have to assume one's conclusion to interpret Paul's references differently. I'd be very interested in supporting evidence for your hypothesis.

Cheers,

V.

Doug Shaver

To read it as "the lord" = "Jesus of Nazareth" is not straightforward. It is reading the gospels back into it.

My hypothesis is a proposed explanation for all the evidence, not just that one line.

I want a world in which people's beliefs are not dictated by 2,000 years of religious orthodoxy.

Why do otherwise skeptical people devote such strenuous effort to prove the existence of a man whose major claim to fame is that lots of people think he was God's only begotten son?

No Robots

The fact is that millions of people love this man. Your arch hypothesizing tramples on that which they hold most dear. Where is your humanity? Do you not expect opposition? Do you think we're all too inarticulate to defend Christ, to oppose your pseudo-scholarship?

Sparrow

Millions love Mohammed and Joseph Smith too. Are they more right than you? Is is true simply because they believe it? Is it inhumane to oppose a belief simply because it's dear to the holder (think carefully because there have been many who held beliefs dear that we now recognize as wrong - eg. slavery, subjugation of women, etc.). Your protestations remind me of a line from a Richard Pryor skit: "Tell me some more of those lies of yours and make me stop thinkin' 'bout the truth". You apparently prefer comfort to accuracy. I can see how that might lead one to believe in an imaginary friend, especially one with magical powers.

I don't personally think you're alltoo inarticulate to defend your belief in Christ, but "the bible says it, that settles it" does tilt me in that direction. Besides, being articulate is separate from being correct. If you want to see some first class pseudo-scholarship, might I recommend any book by Lee Strobel.

No Robots

Look, I'm not a Christian in the sense you seem to take it. I love the man, Christ. I have no problem with people who love the men Muhammad and Smith.

The fact is that those who question the existence of the man Christ do so on very flimsy ground. I am perfectly aware that my position against Christ's divinity also tramples on some people's cherished beliefs. But that is a conflict that I am convinced can ultimately be resolved. There can be no resolution in the conflict between those who believe in the historicity of the man and those who do not. I am suggesting that all those who love Christ, however they understand him, have a common enemy in mythicism. The main question is why would you attack something so important to so many ordinary people when you have so little justification in doing so?


I am saying that the mass of people who love Christ are easily cowed by the pseudo-scholarly jargon and hypothesizing of the mythicists. Some of us, however, are not. Trotting out Strobel isn't going to help you when all scholars concur on the question under consideration, ie. the historicity of Christ.

ChandraRama

Just for fun.. No offence
:wave:

No Robots

Sorry, but this is indeed quite offensive.:down:

Many mythicists seem to alternate between tones of pseudo-scholarly detachment and peurile mockery. This does not help their case.

Sparrow

Of course you don't. You're not willing to challenge the status quo. The comfort of the dear belief trumps any investigation into truth and historicity. You seem to take the post modernist approach with many differnet paths to many different, even contradictory, truths. Anything can be a truth if it makes one feel good.

You are making an assumption when you call this man Christ. The whole question here is whether there was a man at the center of the Christian core belief. The evidence can be interpreted either way. Even if there was a human at the center, there appears to be some question over who that was, when he lived and what details of his life are known. If you think that such questions are on flimsy ground, than you must have overwhelming evidence you can share with us to support your historicist view. Please bring it out.

Yes, you're right. The uneducated masses are easily cowed by pseudo scientific jargon. We have a vast array of healilng devices and methods, get rich quick schemes and even outright frauds (I won't mention any specific ones in case you hold one dear). Because so many do not exercise critical thinking skills, they lose their money or even their health to a variety of quackery. Even you have fallen for the idea that all scholars concur on the historicity of a Christ.

Keep reading and studying. If you've already recognized that the supernatural parts of the Christ story are imaginary and thus ahistorical, you're well on your way to understanding the problem of assuming everything else written around those words is accurate and historical. Those who wrote those words had a deep religious motivation to be persuasive. Some even condoned lying to convert others.

No Robots

Certainly. What I am fighting is the flat-out denial of his historicity.

ChandraRama

Sometimes it helps. It might just shock one to question their belief. It did once for me.