Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 07-29-2013, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

I

Quote:

Why is Marks' list 'almost certainly fictional'? Because Mark has no historical truths in it?

Bingo.

Hi again. I see from several of your answers that you have made up your mind about things that IMO are unsettled and are likely not correct, so I have nothing more to add. We'll just agree to disagree at this point, as I can't take the time to get into them and it probably won't matter anyway

. Take care.

spin · 07-29-2013, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

2. The existence of several plausible reasons Paul would need to specify James in such a manner. (To indicate his apostleship status vis-a-vis Peter; to distinguish him from another James; etc.)

I find it interesting that Paul has given James a more elevated position than Cephas. James is given first place among the pillars, ie James, Cephas and John. Cephas is indicated as deferring to him, when agents of James come to Antioch.

And parenthetically I find it noteworthy that Acts shows no knowledge of a James brother in the flesh of Jesus. That would be a significant fact, yet zippo about it.

spin · 07-29-2013, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Bingo.

I see from several of your answers that you have made up your mind about things that IMO are unsettled and are likely not correct,

Anybody note the irony here?

Tenorikuma · 07-29-2013, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And parenthetically I find it noteworthy that Acts shows no knowledge of a James brother in the flesh of Jesus. That would be a significant fact, yet zippo about it.

Yes, it is damning that at the time the Gospels and Acts were written, there was as yet no tradition that Jesus had a brother who was a prominent religious figure in Jerusalem and a devotee to the Christian mission. Instead, the Gospels say Jesus' brothers thought he was crazy (Mark) or were nonbelievers (John).

I can only assume that if the authors knew about the Letter to the Galatians, they did not think Paul had been talking about a flesh-and-blood brother.

Tenorikuma · 07-29-2013, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Bingo.

I see from several of your answers that you have made up your mind about things that IMO are unsettled and are likely not correct,

Anybody note the irony here?

Unlike Ted — who has been friendly and gracious in general toward me — I do not have all the answers. I'm still searching.

TedM · 07-29-2013, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And parenthetically I find it noteworthy that Acts shows no knowledge of a James brother in the flesh of Jesus. That would be a significant fact, yet zippo about it.

Yes, it is damning that at the time the Gospels and Acts were written, there was as yet no tradition that Jesus had a brother who was a prominent religious figure in Jerusalem and a devotee to the Christian mission. Instead, the Gospels say Jesus' brothers thought he was crazy (Mark) or were nonbelievers (John)....I can only assume that if the authors knew about the Letter to the Galatians, they did not think Paul had been talking about a flesh-and-blood brother.

Why? If the author of Acts had introduced James and not said anything about a biological relationship then I would agree with you. Instead he just suddenly appears with no explanation. Without the introduction I don't think we can say one way or the other.

It is strange. However, Acts DOES mention Jesus' brothers as being believers.

Quote:

14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Since it had already mentioned the 11 apostles ("These"), and it directly follows mention of Mary - his biological mother, "brothers" in this verse IMO is a biological reference. Otherwise it should have qualified that the apostles too were 'brothers' by saying something like "with the other brothers". It wouldn't be strange for the author of Luke to have meant that either, since he mentions his brothers in that gospel (btw GLuke doesn't say they didn't believe):

It therefore would not be a stretch to see one of those brothers appointed to lead the Christians. In fact, it might be expected -- who better to head up the new group of Christians than a devout believing brother of Jesus? Yet, Acts doesn't mention how James got appointed. Either the author left it out or it or it got dropped -- intentionally or accidentally. I think it was intentional, since it obviously was important. It's a strange omission but may have to do with a strained relationship between James and Paul (Paul is the hero in Acts). Perhaps James actually was originally introduced as the replacement for Judas, instead of Matthias, in Acts 1. That would make sense.

Quote:

21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Peter proposes this. Peter was later teamed with James. A requirement was that he was with them from the beginning. James was with them from the beginning. Barsabbas was also called Justus -- very similar to "Just" or the "Just One". We have no record of Matthias. It's an intriguing speculation.

andrewcriddle · 07-29-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

As you say, brother of the Lord was understood from early times to mean brother of Christ. Before replacing this ancient understanding with an alternative without ancient support, I think one has to clearly show that the alternative makes sense.

Andrew Criddle

Do you mean specifically this reference to "brother of the Lord" in Gal 1:19 was interpreted as "brother of Christ" meaning Jesus' brother, from Nazareth? And how ancient do you mean? It seems like there is plenty of support for the view that some ancients did not accept that Jesus had physical brother.

For example Hegesippus refers to James as the brother of the Lord. From Hegesippus' other comments about Jesus' relatives he clearly means that Jacob and Jesus were family.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 07-29-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Leaving aside the question of the literal or symbolic meaning of the phrase, I think brother of the Lord makes far more sense as brother of Christ than as brother of God.

Despite the possible parallels in the Hebrew scriptures, brother of God seems bizarre.

Of course, it does. You have been trained all your life to read "the brother of the lord" in a way not reflective of Paul's usage, so any suggestion to the contrary will be bizarre. But when one realizes Paul clearly and consistently uses "brother" in a non-familial way to represent a believer, you should think that re-inserting the notion of "physical brother" is contrary to Paul's usage, so we should not be dealing with any literal notion that you conjure up with "brother of god". As I point out in the discussion above, if Paul wanted to talk of a physical connection he usually added "in the flesh" to convey the notion, so clearly the literal understanding is questionable.

At this stage someone who wants to assert the significance that the text refers to James being the physical brother of Jesus needs to justify the assertion. They will find that it cannot be done. It appears to be eisegesis.

To clarify; my point was that even if the passage does not refer to physical brotherhood it is, in terms of Paul's usage and general probabilities, more likely to mean brother of Christ than brother of God.

I.E. the passage provides evidence that James (like Paul) believed that the Messiah had already come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And obviously calling someone Ahijah was not deemed bizarre. We don't know what was bizarre at the time of Paul's writing, so your declaration is irrelevant to your attempt at understanding what Paul may have meant.

FWIW It is possible that Ahijah means little brother.

Andrew Criddle

TedM · 07-29-2013, 02:20 PM

Even if the passage read "James the brother of Jesus" one could still apply the metaphorical meaning to it. "the Lord" doesn't have to mean God in order to speculate on a group of 'fellow believers' that considered themselves to be brothers of Jesus himself, or as Andrew says, of Christ.

MrMacSon · 07-29-2013, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

For example Hegesippus refers to James as the brother of the Lord. From Hegesippus' other comments about Jesus' relatives he clearly means that Jacob and Jesus were family.

All we have of Hegesippus's alleged writings is recorded in

BOOK II, CHAPTER XXIII: The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of the Lord. in ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY by Eusebius Pamphilius (c. 265 - 339), Bishop of CESAREA, in Palestine (Written in A.D. 3250

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Chur...s_history.html

The prospect of elaboration is high.

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

07-29-2013, 02:20 PM	#49
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Even if the passage read "James the brother of Jesus" one could still apply the metaphorical meaning to it. "the Lord" doesn't have to mean God in order to speculate on a group of 'fellow believers' that considered themselves to be brothers of Jesus himself, or as Andrew says, of Christ.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.