Even if Paul stated "brother of Jesus" scholars would no doubt question the validity of that line because of everything else Paul and the other epistle writers state that contradicts such a notion. It would be considered an interpolation, and a stupid one at that.
The problem with Jesus is historical arguments is that they are based on the assumption that the gospels are reliable histories, they assume what they are trying to prove. Price is aware of this and does not apply the circular reasoning.
Based on the fact that you are the only one that insists that brother of the Lord can only be interpreted this one way, and the only one to ignore that we find this in a religious context, and the only one to ignore the hundred times or more that brother means 'fellow believer' within these...
Aren't Biblical scholars believing Jews and Christians for the most part, are they not biased in that they look for what they already believe is there?
In context it makes no sense for James to be a literal brother as in sibling because Paul declares that he received his information from no man. It's inconceivable that he would not have picked James' brain for information of this Jesus if he was a brother or had actually met him.
God does exist, as a belief. Beyond that I can't be bothered to argue anymore except to say that the behavior of those that do hold a believe in God are being observed by scientists, so
You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why...
He's making a list...
The historical Jesus extraction from the gospel story as Oberon describes it is analogous to skipping a stone across the water, it touches down to say we can know Jesus was baptized, goes up over some magic parts and touches down to say he was a Jewish itinerant preacher/teacher/miracle worker...
People try. I can understand trying to see an historical Jesus and there may be one within the gospel story but he's far from obvious, and the one that the epistle writings tell of is almost certainly non existent from what I can gather.
The literal Jesus can't possibly be historical because He defies the laws of physics, but many many truly do believe God's Son came down to earth and sacrificed himself in order to save us all, or at least all that believe.
It's hardly a stretch to consider that just as many tone down the...
I don't know what point you are making by Robert M. Price being a Christian and at the same time not seeing Jesus Christ as historical. I don't see a problem with that, neither did Paul, Peter, James, et al we read of in the epistles. The literal Jesus can't possibly be historical because He...
There's a lot of idiocy out there, but then, that's your opinion.
"Earlier scholars (e.g., John Wick Bowman), as many today (e.g., J. Duncan M. Derrett), saw gospel echoes of the ancient scriptures in secondary coloring here or redactional juxtaposition of traditional Jesus stories there. But...
I was referring to Robert M Price, John Dominic Crossan and Randel Helms.
New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash
Robert M. Price
The line is thin between extrapolating new meanings from ancient scriptures (borrowing the authority of the old) and actually composing new scripture...
The works are Jewish mythology written for theological/political purposes, the genre is gospel. I've tried to explain how these theological works were put together such as Crossan, Price, Helms, etc. pointing out that every single line from the passion narrative alludes to the OT as well as most...