Greek Myth vs. Christian belief

[dogsgod]

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)?

Why should we accept your translations and grammatical rules?.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

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.

But Acts does not write how the Jerusalem leadership came to be, at least how it formulated its particulars. Why should Acts record how Jesus' brother came to a leadership position? Just because it is interesting to you does not mean it was an imperative of understanding for the Acts audience- ancient papyrus was not cheap or in great supply.

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?

As we see it here, there are several groups: the Apostles, the Lord's siblings and Cephas. Why conflate them when Paul distinguishes them?

 

[Oberon]

Again, where is the references to the division you refer

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, or for you to admit you simply made this up.

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.

If James (the pillar) was well known at the time of the writing of Luke/Acts as the brother of Jesus, there would be no need to distinguish him from other James. The principle use the phrase "Y the brother of X" is to distinguish "Y" from other persons with an identical name. As many people in antiquity had the same name, such identification functioned as a type of surname. Acts confirms that Jesus had brother. Acts also specifically uses this syntax "Y the brother of X" to distinguish one James as the brother of John. The other James is not distinguished because he is well known enough (even outside christian sources, like Josephus) that no such distinction is necessary.

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.

Wrong again. Another error added to the enormous list of basic ones you have made. Look through the birth narratives and tell me where Jesus' siblings are mentioned "with their mummy."

And you are wrong about your two groups as well. First a number of specific followers are mentioned, then the women, then Mary, who is distinguished from the rest of the women, then the brothers of Jesus. If you had ever studied the sociology of 1st century jewish palestine, you would know that families stuck together long beyond childhood. There is no mention of "children." Rather, the reference is to a group of believers gathered together, including some named, and some unnamed women, and mary Jesus' mother, and his brothers.

Why should we accept your translations and grammatical rules?.

Don't. Learn greek. Or, barring that, ask someone who does know it. Or I can give you references to books on greek grammar. Or I can provide you with dozens of this syntax in greek (in and apart from the NT) to indicate familial relationships. More importantly, why should we accept anything you say, when you can't read the text and haven't read the scholarship?

As we see it here, there are several groups: the Apostles, the Lord's siblings and Cephas. Why conflate them when Paul distinguishes them?

Well put.

 

[dogsgod]

But Acts does not write about the Jerusalem leadership came to be, at least how it formulated its particulars. Why should Acts record how Jesus' brother came to a leadership position? Just because it is interesting to you does not mean it was an imperative of understanding for the Acts audience- ancient papyrus was not cheap or in great supply.

Why the silliness? Acts is about the ministry after Jesus died, if Jesus' brother became a leader of a Christian community Acts would provide his name and status. The reason he doesn't is most likely due to the fact that he doesn't believe Paul met with Jesus' literal brother.

As we see it here, there are several groups: the Apostles, the Lord's siblings and Cephas. Why conflate them when Paul distinguishes them?

Who knows? Why is Cephas named? Why not simply the apostles and the brothers of the Lord?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Dogsgod,

Do you know Koine Greek?

 

[Oberon]

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.

Why the silliness? Acts is about the ministry after Jesus died, if Jesus' brother became a leader of a Christian community Acts would provide his name and status. The reason he doesn't is most likely due to the fact that he doesn't believe Paul met with Jesus' literal brother.

He does mention his name (James) and his status (as a leader). If he is well known (see my last post) there would be no need to mention him as a brother

Who knows? Why is Cephas named? Why not simply the apostles and the brothers of the Lord?

The answer to your question refutes your argument. The groups are named to distinguish them. Cephas is named apart from the others because of his importance. The Jesus' brothers are named apart from the apostles to distinguish them.

 

[dogsgod]

Still waiting for evidence of this division, or for you to admit you simply made this up.

Are you pretending that all scholars are in agreement as to how brother/s of the Lord is to be interpreted?

 

[dogsgod]

Dogsgod,

Do you know Koine Greek?

No, but what are you suggesting, that all those that do are in agreement as to how 'brother/s of the Lord' is to be interpreted?

 

[Oberon]

Are you pretending that all scholars are in agreement as to how brother/s of the Lord is to be interpreted?

Yes. Every scholar of the NT, and virtually ever ancient historian in general, knows agrees that "james the brother of the lord" refers to an actual brother. The two or three scholars in other areas you rely on (Price, Wells, Carrier) do not count as "a division amongst scholars."

Even if they were experts in this field, three scholars against hundreds of experts does not equal "a division amongst scholars."

You made this claim up.

No, but what are you suggesting, that all those that do are in agreement as to how 'brother/s of the Lord' is to be interpreted?

Yes. The fact that Jesus had siblings, and that James was one of them, is well known in scholarship. Again, the "division" you refer to is you making claims you can't substantiate.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Who knows? Why is Cephas named? Why not simply the apostles and the brothers of the Lord?

Because if you pay close attention to the texts, there is a Petrine primacy in the office of Apostle. We don't know the details of this either, but it is clear it is in some sense there. This might explain why Peter warrants his own mention.

Why the silliness? Acts is about the ministry after Jesus died, if Jesus' brother became a leader of a Christian community Acts would provide his name and status. The reason he doesn't is most likely due to the fact that he doesn't believe Paul met with Jesus' literal brother.

Now that is silly. Acts does not set out to be a comprehensive account of everything you want to know. In fact, this seems to be a major problem for you and your hermeneutic. There are many unexplained variables. Depending on the reasons for writing and to whom, what the author wants them to know and what he thinks they already know, certain facts may be excluded or expanded upon.

None of the New Testament is written as a text book for a class of high school students learning the basics of early Christian theology or history, on which they will later be quizzed.

A great part of scholarship involves constructing the audience, context (ect.) by the imprint they leave in the authors emphasis, exclusions and adjustments.

 

[Oberon]

No, but what are you suggesting, that all those that do are in agreement as to how 'brother/s of the Lord' is to be interpreted?

Now that I have answered your question, how about pointing to the "division in scholarship" you refer to? Or just admit you made it up.

 

[logician]

One thing for certain, Greek and Roman gods were a lot more interesting than Christian and similar gods.

 

[Oberon]

One thing for certain, Greek and Roman gods were a lot more interesting than Christian and similar gods.

Excellent contribution to the thread. You really added a great deal with this one.

 

[dogsgod]

Now that I have answered your question, how about pointing to the "division in scholarship" you refer to? Or just admit you made it up.

Yes, I just made it up. Everyone is a believer.

Origen writes: "Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine." (Contra Celsum 1.47)

Except Origen.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, I just made it up. Everyone is a believer.

Origen writes: "Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine." (Contra Celsum 1.47)

Except Origen.

Yes you made it up.


You're citing Origen to support your "division of scholarship?" You can't be serious. Origen is not a scholar. Also, Origen is writing over a century after James. Finally, he never says that James isn't Jesus' actual brother. Actually, he specifically states he was, shortly before your quote: Iakobou tou kidaiou, hos en adelphos Iesou tou legomenou Christou/ James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus being called Christ. Now, it could be argued that Origen is just quoting Josephus, except Josephus does not refer to James as "James the Just." Furthermore, your quotation does not indicate that James was not a literal brother of the Jesus, or that Origen believed that Paul thought he wasn't, but rather that he was a more than just a blood brother because he believed.

Your quote indicates that Origen believed Paul thought that James was not a brother just because they were related by blood and had been brought up together, but more because of James beliefs.

It does not say they were not brothers, and were not brought up together.

And, even if, for the sake of argument, we read more than what the text says, and assumed that Origen believed James was not an actual brother, so what? That Jesus had no actualy brothers is a central part of catholic theology, because they believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Even if Origen was, for the sake of argument, saying that, in that case he clearly reports that Josephus believed James was Jesus' brother (and Josephus was alive while James was). Additionally, Origen is writing a century later. Why should we take his word over Paul, who specifically calls James Jesus' brother?

And you once more you have failed to point to this "division in scholarship" you refer to. Try again.

 

[dogsgod]

Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrigénēs, or Origen Adamantius, 185c. 185–254[1]) was an early Christian scholar, theologian, and one of the most distinguished of the early fathers of the Christian Church.wiki


I'm pointing out how Origen provides for more than one interpretation of brother in the Lord, regardless of his beliefs.

 

[Oberon]

Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrigénēs, or Origen Adamantius, 185c. 185–254[1]) was an early Christian scholar, theologian, and one of the most distinguished of the early fathers of the Christian Church.wiki


I'm pointing out how Origen provides for more than one interpretation of brother in the Lord, regardless of his beliefs.

This is perhaps your most pathetic move yet. You are using Origen, a 2nd-3rd century theologian, as evidence for your "division of scholarship"!???

1. Origen cannot possibly represent a division of "scholarship" because critical scholarship didn't arrive onto the scene until more than a 1000 years later.

2. Origen does not explicitly say, in your quote, that James wasn't Jesus literal brother. He does say explicitly that James WAS Jesus' brother just before, according to Josephus.

3. There have been, and continue to be, numerous catholic theologians who don't believe Jesus had any siblings, because they believe that Mary was perpetually virginal, and therefore he couldn't have had any. But so what? Those beliefs are based on a priori theological conceptions, not on scholarship or the texts.

Nice try.

Now how about pointing to that division of scholarship you mentioned?

 

[dogsgod]

This is perhaps your most pathetic move yet. You are using Origen, a 2nd-3rd century theologian, as evidence for your "division of scholarship"!???

1. Origen cannot possibly represent a division of "scholarship" because critical scholarship didn't arrive onto the scene until more than a 1000 years later.

2. Origen does not explicitly say, in your quote, that James wasn't Jesus literal brother. He does say explicitly that James WAS Jesus' brother just before, according to Josephus.

3. There have been, and continue to be, numerous catholic theologians who don't believe Jesus had any siblings, because they believe that Mary was perpetually virginal, and therefore he couldn't have had any. But so what? Those beliefs are based on a priori theological conceptions, not on scholarship or the texts.

Nice try.

Now how about pointing to that division of scholarship you mentioned?

Regardless of all that, Origen provides more than one interpretation for brother of the Lord.

 

[Oberon]

Regardless of all that, Origen provides more than one interpretation for brother of the Lord.

First, he doesn't. Your quotation does not say that Origen doesn't think that James was Jesus' actual brother. It doesn't even say that Origen believed that Paul didn't think James was Jesus' actual brother. All it says is that Origen believed that Paul thought that James was not just a brother because he was a literal brother, but more so because of James' belief.

In other words, your quotation is hardly explicit in its support of your position.

And quoting later theologians whose interpretation of scripture (OT and NT) is theologically based hardly supports your view.

You have failed to support your claim of a "division of scholarship"

Your one quotation hardly explicitly supports your view.

And even if it did, a quoting a theologian, whose belief on these matters is based on church theology, and who lived a over a century after the fact, and who quotes a contemporary (Josephus) as saying that James was a literal brother, is hardly any type of support for your view.

Try again.

 

[dogsgod]

First, he doesn't. Your quotation does not say that Origen doesn't think that James was Jesus' actual brother. It doesn't even say that Origen believed that Paul didn't think James was Jesus' actual brother. All it says is that Origen believed that Paul thought that James was not just a brother because he was a literal brother, but more so because of James' belief.

In other words, your quotation is hardly explicit in its support of your position.

And quoting later theologians whose interpretation of scripture (OT and NT) is theologically based hardly supports your view.

You have failed to support your claim of a "division of scholarship"

Your one quotation hardly explicitly supports your view.

And even if it did, a quoting a theologian, whose belief on these matters is based on church theology, and who lived a over a century after the fact, and who quotes a contemporary (Josephus) as saying that James was a literal brother, is hardly any type of support for your view.

Try again.

I'm aware that Origen believes that Jesus was Jame's brother. Do you understand what "regardless" means? The point I'm making is that Origen gives more than one interpretation for "brother in the Lord." Please try to comprehend that my point is made about how "brother of the Lord" can be interpreted. It's not restricted to one meaning, Origen's statement demonstrates this.