did jesus exist?

[dogsgod]

Right. That's not illogical at all.

Jesus was a historical person with a historical family. His later deification means that his brothers were thought to be the brothers of God. The same is true for other deified historical people. The family of Augustus didn't cease to exist simply because Augustus was deified.

So Paul met the brother of the Lord God himself. OK. Got it.

 

[Oberon]

So Paul met the brother of the Lord God himself. OK. Got it.

You've already admitted that people can be deified and be historical. Can they have brothers?

 

[Ilisrum]

So you're saying that Jesus wasn't the divine Son of God who came to Earth to die on the cross for our sins? That's the devil talking!

 

[dogsgod]

So you're saying that Jesus wasn't the divine Son of God who came to Earth to die on the cross for our sins? That's the devil talking!

Fiction is not the devil talking, it's a means of expression, not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[dogsgod]

You've already admitted that people can be deified and be historical. Can they have brothers?

James, brother of the Lord God Almighty Himself. No wonder Peter was afraid of him.

 

[Oberon]

James, brother of the Lord God Almighty Himself. No wonder Peter was afraid of him.

So are we at the point when you've run out of actual arguments again, but can't admit that so resort to the above type of response?

 

[Ilisrum]

What I find interesting is that many mythicists resort to the same faulty arguments as Christian apologists trying to prove the truth of Christian faith. Both pick and choose what evidence to follow and run with it, but when something doesn't suit their case, they dismiss it as either wrong or irrelevant. Can't it be argued that the mythicist position is just another form of apology?

 

[Oberon]

Can't it be argued that the mythicist position is just another form of apology?

It can indeed. When it comes to the historical Jesus, it seems both extreme positions are religious.

 

[dogsgod]

So are we at the point when you've run out of actual arguments again, but can't admit that so resort to the above type of response?

It's well understood that Lord is another name for God, such as with angel of the Lord. If James was called the brother of the Lord by people that spoke of angels of the Lord, perhaps James was called a brother of the Lord (God) because of his position within the church, and considering that Paul made reference to the church of God, why not a brother of God as the head of that church? The earliest Liturgy to St. James refers to him as just that, the brother of God.

 

[outhouse]

scholars are pulling non fiction from mostley fiction

what they deem non fiction, to me is surely debatable.

out of mountain of lititure they have pulled only a few sentences out with what they call certainty, Some dont hold the same view.

 

[Oberon]

It's well understood that Lord is another name for God, such as with angel of the Lord.

"Lord" isn't simply another word for "god." The two can by the same, but then again we aren't actually dealing with "lord" and "god" but kyrios and theos. Kyrios is a title of respect for people (like "sir" or "master"). It can even simply mean "owner" as in ho kyrios tou oikiou. It is Paul's term for Jesus, but Paul doesn't call Jesus theos. There isn't any indication Paul thought Jesus was god.

If James was called the brother of the Lord by people that spoke of angels of the Lord, perhaps James was called a brother of the Lord (God) because of his position within the church, and considering that Paul made reference to the church of God, why not a brother of God as the head of that church?

Because 1) Paul doesn't say "brother of God" (and neither does Josephus, who calls James specifically the brother of Jesus), and 2) this doesn't explain the use of the genitive here. Again:
If you want to argue that the construction Paul uses is NOT a means to identify James by his brother, then 1) what is the genitive doing here and 2) how can you show this by other examples in Greek?

 

[dogsgod]

OK, so brother of the Lord could be a title reserved for James because of his position within the church which is what has been suggested by R. M. Price and others. I see.

 

[Oberon]

OK, so brother of the Lord could be a title reserved for James because of his position within the church which is what has been suggested by R. M. Price and others. I see.

You have to laugh at the sheer audacity (idiocy?) of the illogical argument the mythicists put forward here. And I find it suprising that you, who are so keen to accuse others of simply building all their arguments on baseless assumptions, don't have a problem with it.

First, Price "leapfrogs" over the evidence in Josephus (not to mention ignores the independent attestation in the synoptic tradition). Then, the argument runs as follows, ending with a conclusion achieved solely by assuming it to begin with:

1) Jesus was a myth, therefore he couldn't have a brother
2) Paul calls James the brother of the lord, the title he refers to Jesus by.
3) Paul can't mean a literal brother.
4) Therefore, "brother of the lord" must be a title of some sort that DOESN'T mean a literal brother

Conclusion: The mythicist hypothesis is not disproven or problematic in anyway because of Paul's reference to Jesus' brother.

That's great, only you get to the conclusion by assuming it in the first place. There is no evidence for Price's speculation that this is some title. Nor does Price offer an analysis of the greek that would explain why we see a typical kin identification construction. Another explanation is offered without any basis, nor any argument put forth as to why the best and typical rendering is wrong, other than it can't be right given an assumption of a mythical Jesus.

Again: If you want to argue that the construction Paul uses is NOT a means to identify James by his brother, then 1) what is the genitive doing here and 2) how can you show this by other examples in Greek?

 

[dogsgod]

A traditionalist's straw man view of the mythical Jesus theory, how convincing.

 

[Oberon]

A traditionalist's straw man view of the mythical Jesus theory, how convincing.

Once again, sacrcasm takes the place of an argument. So tell me, what evidence is there that adelphos tou kyriou should not refer to a literal kin relationship, and how do you explain the genitive usage here? Because if my argument is a "straw man" type then you should easily be able to show what evidence I'm missing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Once again, sacrcasm takes the place of an argument. So tell me, what evidence is there that adelphos tou kyriou should not refer to a literal kin relationship, and how do you explain the genitive usage here? Because if my argument is a "straw man" type then you should easily be able to show what evidence I'm missing.

I don't think that he knows what a strawman is.

It's more than a little ironic that he's accusing us of doing that...

 

[dogsgod]

As if within a religious context the use of language is ever clear. Brother is used dozens upon dozens of times to mean a Christian believer consistently throughout the epistles and even Acts, so it becomes a source of amazement when one can be so certain that this one phrase is clearly to be understood as a reference to a sibling when brother of Jesus would have been more apt.

 

[Oberon]

As if within a religious context the use of language is ever clear. Brother is used dozens upon dozens of times to mean a Christian believer consistently throughout the epistles and even Acts, so it becomes a source of amazement when one can be so certain that this one phrase is clearly to be understood as a reference to a sibling when brother of Jesus would have been more apt.

Certainly, the "use of language" isn't clear when you can't read the language in question. However, if cognitive linguistics, particularly work in constructions, has taught us anything it is that constructions cannot be simply reduced to the lexemes that make them up. Saying "brothers" is quite different from using the particular syntactic/grammatical construction X the [kin relation] of Y. So until you can offer a better analysis of the genitive construction here, it makes little sense just to plead "religious context" as a means of explaining away the obvious.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As if within a religious context the use of language is ever clear. Brother is used dozens upon dozens of times to mean a Christian believer consistently throughout the epistles and even Acts, so it becomes a source of amazement when one can be so certain that this one phrase is clearly to be understood as a reference to a sibling when brother of Jesus would have been more apt.

Only James is called "brother of our Lord."

 

[dogsgod]

Certainly, the "use of language" isn't clear when you can't read the language in question. However, if cognitive linguistics, particularly work in constructions, has taught us anything it is that constructions cannot be simply reduced to the lexemes that make them up. Saying "brothers" is quite different from using the particular syntactic/grammatical construction X the [kin relation] of Y. So until you can offer a better analysis of the genitive construction here, it makes little sense just to plead "religious context" as a means of explaining away the obvious.

We're talking about use of language in a religious context. Your insistence that this phrase has one meaning and one meaning only is of no consequence within a religious context. Religious language makes use of meaning in a creative way, and anyway it cares to regardless of your rigid rules of grammatical construction, it's called poetic license.