Greek Myth vs. Christian belief

[dogsgod]

You stated that acts is a work of second century myth making. I am assumed, therefore, that as such it is useless historically in your view. Am I wrong that by "a work of myth making" you meant it isn't historical?

Do you live alone in a cave or is there someone you can ask what it means to assume something for the sake of argument? I find it inconceivable that anyone can have such difficulty with this simplest of tasks.

If we are to assume it is historical, then the whole point is moot because it specifically presents Jesus as historical and his followers as people who knew him during is earthly mission.

Alright already, then let's assume it is accurate and get on with it, what is so difficult?

The only importance of James as Jesus' brother is in establishing a piece of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. That is unnecessary if "we assume acts is historical."

Oh, for the love of God, get some outside help, please.

Again, if you want to "assume for the sake of argument" the whole point is that after that assumption your entire case doesn't fall apart. But it does.

Never mind, I'm losing interest real fast.

Not necessarily true, because it does refer to Jude of James, and Jude is also identified as a brother of Jesus. So it is plausible (though not definite) that this is an indirect reference to Jesus.

Does it get anymore far reaching, because if it does I might need to wear a parachute?

I've offered to different explanations for this. The first is that Luke's readers would have known James as the lord's brother, because by that time he had enough of a reputation as such.

Of course they would know this, and the gospels are historical accounts, right?

The second is that even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the James who is the pillar and who is discussed in acts is a different James, James the brother of the lord still exists as a James who wasn't important enough for acts to mention. In other words, Paul mentions him in passing, but the James he refers to as a "pillar" and who is discussed in acts is someone different.

Are you just making this up as we go along? I think you are.

Open to interpretation by who? You? Again, this is the standard way of establishing a blood relation in greek. It doesn't resemble any of the "brotherhood" language used elsewhere in the gospels,

Dozens and dozens of times brother is used in the epistles as well as Acts which makes it nothing short of amazing when anyone claims this one mention is different and is meant to be understood as a literal brother.

nor is the title given to any other "leader" (Peter, John, etc).

, That's hardly a compelling reason to believe brother must be taken as a literal brother as in a sibling.

Can you provide any references where this phrase is used in a sense other than to establish a blood relation?

I don't know of any reference where it is used to mean a literal brother. Paul refers to the Lord as a title, and so is Jesus Christ a title, it is not a name, and there's no time when he refers to any family members, or places, or times. For all we know Paul's risen Christ was crucified hundreds of years before Paul was even born.

Or is it "open to interpretation" simply because it means your completely wrong about Paul.

Oh yeah, that's it.

Once again, your lack of knowledge of greek makes you particularly unqualified to answer. Unlike ton

adelphon​

tou​

kuriou​

/the brother of the lord (which is the was one speaks of blood relations in greek),

adelphôn​

en

kuriô​

is an entirely different construction. It uses the preposition en with the dative to establish a specific type of relationship, quite apart from the standard way of establish actual blood relations (with the genitive, as in the James reference). That phrase is NEVER used to establish literal brothers in greek literature (in fact, it specifies that it isn't literal brothers), but the genitive is always used in this way.

There is no reason why brother of the Lord can't be a title. I doubt you can get unequivical support for your notions of how it must be interpreted.

Not for Paul, who never refers to Jesus as just Jesus. He is always the lord, or christ, or christ Jesus. In your analysis greek phrasing to establish brotherhood (literal vs. metaphorical) can you provide any evidence to support either of your claims (1. that "brother of the lord" is used in a way other than to imply a blood relation and that 2. when this phrase is used you have to use the name of the person, rather than a title like brother of the lord, brother of the emperor, etc).

There is division by scholars on this because it can be interpreted either way. The division is caused by those that insist it be interpreted one way over the other.

I don't care what he means or thinks at all. He is a professor of German studies, and his work in the field of Jesus research has been almost entirely ignored by those who study in the field. Notable exceptions are reviews such as the devastating critique by J. Dunn, in which he ripped Wells' earlier work to pieces, forcing him to back off his Jesus is a complete myth hypothesis.



You use him as a source. I don't

Also, I don't agree with many experts in this field on many points. On many issues there is no consensus, and on almost all of them (even something as accepted as Q) there are notable dissenters. Wells is highly critical, believing that all we can establish historically is that Jesus was some sort of preacher in first century palestine, and the early parts of Q are authentic recordings of his teachings. The rest is all spurious. None of the experts are quite as critical as Wells, but there are a number who treat the gospels more critically than I do (e.g. Crossan and Mack).

However, neither this debate nor our others have been concerned with how much we can know about the historical Jesus, but about whether he is a myth. Wells has backed of this position, and is now arguing that he was historical, but the sources about him are almost entirely worthless historically (apart from the early layers of Q).

If Paul's risen Christ hearkens back to a human figure that was sacrificed in the year 100BCE, as Wells suggest, I don't have a problem with that because that could explain why Paul knows nothing of a Jesus of Nazareth, nor that he was a teacher, nor that he was a miracle worker, so what do you mean when you state that Wells doesn't agree with me? Do you think he agrees with you? Now do you understand what Wells means when he states that this Q personage can not be connected with the dying and risen Christ of the early epistle writers?

"A final argument against the nonexistence hypothesis comes from Wells himself. In his most recent book, The Jesus Myth, Wells has moved away from this hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus, derived from the lost early 'gospel' 'Q' (the hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke). Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Wells's about-face will have on debate over the nonexistence hypothesis in popular circles.", Van Voorst, Robert E, "NonExistence Hypothesis," in Houlden, James Leslie (editor), Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia, page 660 (Santa Barbara 2003) "

You can check this reference out yourself at google books, where you can see the page in question.

Why would I check it out? It's hearsay and inaccurate, besides, I read The Jesus Myth for myself.

 

[Oberon]

Alright already, then let's assume it is accurate and get on with it, what is so difficult?

The difficulty is that your whole case (Jesus is mythical) falls apart if we assume Acts is historical. There is no need to get into the brother issue at all (although I did nonetheless in my last response to you). Acts presents Jesus as historical, and if we assume it is historical, then Jesus is historical.

You can't asssume it is historical to make an argument about James, but not deal with the implications of assuming that (i.e. Acts says Jesus is historical).

Of course they would know this, and the gospels are historical accounts, right?

James would be well known enough (even Josephus know him) in christian communites that his relationship with Jesus would be known.

Are you just making this up as we go along? I think you are.

argumentum ad hominem. You didn't address the argument.

Dozens and dozens of times brother is used in the epistles as well as Acts which makes it nothing short of amazing when anyone claims this one mention is different and is meant to be understood as a literal brother.

Never is it used in this way. Every time in the NT literature (or in greek literature, for that matter) that the phrase "the brother of X" is used it is used to indicate a blood relationship.

That's hardly a compelling reason to believe brother must be taken as a literal brother as in a sibling.

The compelling reason is that "brother of the lord" actually means brother, until you can show any evidence that this phrase is used elsewhere in a way which does not establish a blood-relation.

I don't know of any reference where it is used to mean a literal brother.

It always is. In josephus, in the NT, etc, "Y the brother of X" is always used as a blood relation. It always means an actual brother.

Paul refers to the Lord as a title, and so is Jesus Christ a title, it is not a name, and there's no time when he refers to any family members, or places, or times.

James the brother of the lord is a reference to a family member.

There is no reason why brother of the Lord can't be a title. I doubt you can get unequivical support for your notions of how it must be interpreted.

Just by people who have read greek literature. Language of "brotherhood" is common, not only in the NT but elsewhere. Paul calls people brothers, and brothers in the lord, but this phrasing is not unique to him, as others also used family metaphors. However, this phrasing is also not used in the passage which mentions James. The phrase their is the standard way of identifying someone in relation to family to prevent confusion (because so many people had the same name). It is not titular, but familial, and is always used that way.

There is division by scholars on this because it can be interpreted either way. The division is caused by those that insist it be interpreted one way over the other.

What scholarship can you point to to establish this? You haven't read scholarship.

Why would I check it out? It's hearsay and inaccurate, besides, I read The Jesus Myth for myself.

Its not hearsay its a summary. And I already quoted Wells himself.

 

[dogsgod]

The difficulty is that your whole case (Jesus is mythical) falls apart if we assume Acts is historical. There is no need to get into the brother issue at all (although I did nonetheless in my last response to you). Acts presents Jesus as historical, and if we assume it is historical, then Jesus is historical.

You can't asssume it is historical to make an argument about James, but not deal with the implications of assuming that (i.e. Acts says Jesus is historical).



James would be well known enough (even Josephus know him) in christian communites that his relationship with Jesus would be known.



argumentum ad hominem. You didn't address the argument.

I did address it, I think you made it up. BTW, I don't think you'd know an ad hominem if one bit you in the ***.

Never is it used in this way. Every time in the NT literature (or in greek literature, for that matter) that the phrase "the brother of X" is used it is used to indicate a blood relationship.



The compelling reason is that "brother of the lord" actually means brother, until you can show any evidence that this phrase is used elsewhere in a way which does not establish a blood-relation.



It always is. In josephus, in the NT, etc, "Y the brother of X" is always used as a blood relation. It always means an actual brother.



James the brother of the lord is a reference to a family member.



Just by people who have read greek literature. Language of "brotherhood" is common, not only in the NT but elsewhere. Paul calls people brothers, and brothers in the lord, but this phrasing is not unique to him, as others also used family metaphors. However, this phrasing is also not used in the passage which mentions James. The phrase their is the standard way of identifying someone in relation to family to prevent confusion (because so many people had the same name). It is not titular, but familial, and is always used that way.



What scholarship can you point to to establish this? You haven't read scholarship.



Its not hearsay its a summary. And I already quoted Wells himself.

:sleep:

 

[Oberon]

Does it get anymore far reaching, because if it does I might need to wear a parachute?

How about Acts 1:14- houtoi pantes esan proskarteprountes homothymadon te proseuche syn hynaixin Mariam te metri tou Iesou kai tois adelphois autou/ All these were with one mind in prayer, with the woman and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers.

Also, in any sort of anaysis of any text (textual analysis, literary analysis, etc), when one wants to show that the meaning of the text is other than the plain meaning, one has to provide evidence. For example, it is easily argued that the logos in the prologue to john isn't a literal word/account/etc, because it is not only identified as god but becomes flesh. Obviously, it is meant to be Jesus.

There are no such markers in the reference to the brother of Jesus by Paul. He uses standard syntax and terminology to imply an actual brother. That Jesus had a brother named James is further reported in Mark, Matthew, and Josephus. That his brothers were part of the later ministry is reported in the quotation from Acts above (if we assume, for the sake of argument, that it is historical). Even if we cut out Mark and Matthew, Josephus still stands to reinforce Paul, and even without that, you would need evidence to say that the standard way of referring to literal brothers is in Gal. a metaphor or a title. You have no such evidence. So far all you have done is point to other clearly metaphorical references to family, but these differ both syntactally and semantically. Also, you say that Paul would have said Jesus not the Lord if he were referring to a literal brother, but provide no evidence for this assertion. Paul never says just "Jesus" and frequently calls him the lord. You have claimed it is a title, but have provided no evidence for this. Also, titles typically aren't rendered in this fashion. Rather this is the typical usage of indicating a "brother." You have zero evidence to the contrary.

There is division by scholars on this because it can be interpreted either way. The division is caused by those that insist it be interpreted one way over the other.

Still waiting for evidence of this division.

 

[Caladan]

Thank you for well thought posts Oberon. Im still taking the time and go back through the thread to see what I have missed.

 

[Oberon]

Thank you for well thought posts Oberon. Im still taking the time and going back through the thread to see what I have missed.

My pleasure. And thank you.

 

[Useyourhead]

People don't like having the word mythology attached to a living religion. I don't understand it myself, as the definition of mythology does not distinguish between whether people still believe in the stories in the myths or not, but people are funny that way.

No, its because christians want to devalue ancient gods and beliefs, to do so they have to make them less than their religion, and by virtue of the lessing of past beliefs have to make the Christian religion the one and only so as to give it credence, therefore all past histories except the christian one are now all myth.

 

[sojourner]

This statement is bascially ludicrous, like a historian of U.S. history would fail to mention the founding fathers.

The disciples weren't the "founding fathers" of the faith. The disciples were (and are) students. Plus, Paul's concern isn't history, it's theology.

 

[sojourner]

Acts is an entirely different matter because Acts is about Paul,

Acts isn't "about Paul." It's about the Church. Luke, writing as an ancient historian, divides history into three great periods, all centered around Jesus: 1) the time before Jesus, 2) the time during Jesus, 3) the time after Jesus. If you read Acts in context, that is, with Luke as a single document, it makes a whole lot more sense.

 

[sojourner]

No, its because christians want to devalue ancient gods and beliefs, to do so they have to make them less than their religion, and by virtue of the lessing of past beliefs have to make the Christian religion the one and only so as to give it credence, therefore all past histories except the christian one are now all myth.

Follow your user name.
Christians speak about the mythic nature of Xy all the time. We don't need to devalue other religions. What are you talking about?

 

[themadhair]

I admit when I get owned. I got the ******* arse ripped off me there.

 

[Oberon]

I admit when I get owned. I got the ******* arse ripped off me there.

Wow. I have to say (if you are being serious) that I have enormous respect for someone who can admit that.

 

[dogsgod]

1 Corinthians 9:5

We have the right to take a believing wife with us like the other apostles, the Lord's brothers, and Cephas, don't we?

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?


Philippians 1:14

Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.

Acts 15:36
Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing."

Brothers in the Lord, brothers of the Lord, Lord's brothers, brothers in all the towns, these are references to the many brothers in/of the Lord. Certainly James is to be counted in among these brothers in/of the Lord.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

You are ignoring that the text distinguishes between brothers in the Lord and the brothers of the Lord.

 

[Oberon]

1 Corinthians 9:5

We have the right to take a believing wife with us like the other apostles, the Lord's brothers, and Cephas, don't we?

Your translation is off:
μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς/me ouk echomen ecousian adelphen gynaika periagein, hos kai hoi loipoi apostoloi kai hoi adelphoi tou kyriou kai kephas

Notice the bolded "kai" words? kai means "and." In other words, the sentence is "like the other apostles, and the Lord's brothers, and Kephas." Why do you think Paul is distinguishing between the apostles and kephas, and Jesus' brothers? Because they are his actual brothers.

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Better translation. Again, what is their to suggest that these are not literal brothers? Especially given that they are distinguished from the other followers specifically by being referenced as Jesus' brothers?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=57&chapter=1&verse=14&version=31&context=verse

Philippians 1:14

Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.

Again, here once more you have "brothers in the Lord." The structure in greek is syntactically and semantically different. Rather than using the typical genitive to indicate a "literal" familial relationship, you have a preposition en with the dative. It is impossible for this sentence to refer to literal brothers.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&verse=36&version=31&context=verse

Acts 15:36
Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing."

Again, no one is denying that the terms for family were used metaphorically in many cases. However, once again you do not have the phrase "brother(s) of the lord" in any place other than referring to actually family.

Brothers in the Lord, brothers of the Lord, Lord's brothers, brothers in all the towns, these are references to the many brothers in/of the Lord. Certainly James is to be counted in among these brothers in/of the Lord.

No, because James, and other literal brothers, are distinguished as such. No one else is. Paul calls his fellow christians brothers or brothers in the lord, but uses the typical genitive syntax to indicate a literal brother. This is the typical formation of literal familial bonds in greek! No one else except Jesus' literal brothers are referred to as such. You quotation helps my case, not yours, because it shows that "the brothers of the lord" in 1 Cor. 9:5 are to be distinguished from the other followers. The evidence is strengthened because all the gospels and acts state that Jesus had brothers, and acts (1:14) specifically states that these became part of the mission. Furthermore, James is specifically named as a brother by Mark, Matthew, Paul, and Josephus.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the typical greek way of indicating a literal familial relationship (vs. the metaphorical en or just the friendly term "brother") is to be taken as something other than a familial reference. All you have done is make my case stronger.

There is division by scholars on this because it can be interpreted either way. The division is caused by those that insist it be interpreted one way over the other.

Still waiting for any evidence of such a division. You made this up, didn't you?

 

[dogsgod]

Your translation is off:
μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς/me ouk echomen ecousian adelphen gynaika periagein, hos kai hoi loipoi apostoloi kai hoi adelphoi tou kyriou kai kephas

Notice the bolded "kai" words? kai means "and." In other words, the sentence is "like the other apostles, and the Lord's brothers, and Kephas." Why do you think Paul is distinguishing between the apostles and kephas, and Jesus' brothers? Because they are his actual brothers.



Better translation. Again, what is their to suggest that these are not literal brothers? Especially given that they are distinguished from the other followers specifically by being referenced as Jesus' brothers?



Again, here once more you have "brothers in the Lord." The structure in greek is syntactically and semantically different. Rather than using the typical genitive to indicate a "literal" familial relationship, you have a preposition en with the dative. It is impossible for this sentence to refer to literal brothers.


Again, no one is denying that the terms for family were used metaphorically in many cases. However, once again you do not have the phrase "brother(s) of the lord" in any place other than referring to actually family.





No, because James, and other literal brothers, are distinguished as such. No one else is. Paul calls his fellow christians brothers or brothers in the lord, but uses the typical genitive syntax to indicate a literal brother. This is the typical formation of literal familial bonds in greek! No one else except Jesus' literal brothers are referred to as such. You quotation helps my case, not yours, because it shows that "the brothers of the lord" in 1 Cor. 9:5 are to be distinguished from the other followers. The evidence is strengthened because all the gospels and acts state that Jesus had brothers, and acts (1:14) specifically states that these became part of the mission. Furthermore, James is specifically named as a brother by Mark, Matthew, Paul, and Josephus.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the typical greek way of indicating a literal familial relationship (vs. the metaphorical en or just the friendly term "brother") is to be taken as something other than a familial reference. All you have done is make my case stronger.




Still waiting for any evidence of such a division. You made this up, didn't you?

:biglaugh:, now I know you're making this up as we go along. They're all family, yeah, good one.

 

[dogsgod]

The (First) Apocalypse of James

Translated by William R. Schoedel​

It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear."


Estimated Range of Dating: 180-250 C.E.

 

[dogsgod]

You are ignoring that the text distinguishes between brothers in the Lord and the brothers of the Lord.

How so?


1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?


Philippians 1:14

Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.

 

[Oberon]

:biglaugh:, now I know you're making this up as we go along. They're all family, yeah, good one.

You can't actually be this simple.
I have specifically differentiated the syntax used to refer to actual familial relations and metaphorical ones. You have presented zero evidence that the typical syntactic way to refer to family should be taken as metaphorical or titular. All of sources (the gospels, Josephus, Hegesippus, Paul, etc) state that jesus had family.

And you still can't reference the division in scholarship you claim existed. Why should anything you say on the subject be taken seriously, when you make claims like this when you can't back them up with anything (because you haven't read the scholarship)?

 

[dogsgod]

The evidence is strengthened because all the gospels and acts state that Jesus had brothers, and acts (1:14) specifically states that these became part of the mission. Furthermore, James is specifically named as a brother by Mark, Matthew, Paul, and Josephus.

Now you are just being silly. Luke/Acts doesn't even so much as name any of Jesus' brothers or sisters. If a literal brother of Jesus became a leader of a Christian community you'd think the author of Acts might write about that since he's writing about the ministry after Jesus' death. C'mon now, let's use a little sense here.

Part of the mission, are you kidding? The scene described in Acts 1,14 is of two groups, one of men, and one of women & children, they prayed together. Jesus' sibling are with their mummy in every scene where ever they are mentioned in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Acts.