dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The brothers of Jesus were listed as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas
We're discussing Paul's writings and his reference to James, brother of the Lord.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The brothers of Jesus were listed as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas
Nonsense. Anybody can see that early Christians referred to each other as brothers, but we're talking about a much more specific phrase, "the Lord's brother." That phrase occurs exactly once in the Bible, and refers to James. Paul never calls himself, or Peter or John, "the Lord's brother." Paul also uses the phrase "brethren of the Lord" exactly once, in a context that clearly shows he does not mean all the faithful, or even all the apostles:The above posts supply just a fraction of Jesus' brothers for those that take Brothers of the Lord to mean literal brothers, rather than members of a brotherhood of believers, or In James' case, a leader of a Christian brotherhood.
Nonsense. Anybody can see that early Christians referred to each other as brothers, but we're talking about a much more specific phrase, "the Lord's brother." That phrase occurs exactly once in the Bible, and refers to James. Paul never calls himself, or Peter or John, "the Lord's brother." Paul also uses the phrase "brethren of the Lord" exactly once, in a context that clearly shows he does not mean all the faithful, or even all the apostles:"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor. 9.5)Paul considered all Christians his brothers, but only Jesus' brothers were "brothers of the Lord."
I'm sorry to have wasted my time discussing it with someone so obviously uninterested in coming to a rational conclusion.If only Paul had wrote, "James, brother of Jesus." But he didn't.
I'm sorry to have wasted my time discussing it with someone so obviously uninterested in coming to a rational conclusion.
Your dogmatic commitment to your historical fantasy is no more or less rational than the dogmatic commitment of Christians to theirs. However, I do find intellectual dishonesty even more contemptible in one who fancies himself a skeptic.I'm sorry too, but I'm not as well indoctrinated by the church as you are.
Your dogmatic commitment to your historical fantasy is no more or less rational than the dogmatic commitment of Christians to theirs. However, I do find intellectual dishonesty even more contemptible in one who fancies himself a skeptic.
Believers point to Galatians 1:19 "I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother" as evidence for Jesus' literal brother in spite of the fact that the Epistle writers refer to brother/s and brethren dozens of times as if in reference to a brotherhood.
The gospels don't refer to Jesus' brother as a disciple or of any importance. He's mentioned once in Mark 6:3 in passing and is never mentioned again. Luke/Acts doesn't even name James as a brother of Jesus.
Where does the idea come from that Jesus' brother James became a leader of a Christian community if not from the gospels and Acts?
It's doubtful that a real "Paul"existed (probably 2 different men, or 2 fictitious creations), since the one represented in the NT seemed to have a bad case of schizophrenia. SInce, of course, there is no evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus, the existence of a supposed brother James is a moot point.
The brother (real brother via Mary and her husband Joseph) of Jesus was written about by several writers of that time. Josephus being the most important;
Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Death of James
dogsgod said:I think he is James, son of Zebedee. Paul refers to James, Peter, and John as "pillars". They are portrayed as the three main disciples in the gospels. James is the first disciple introduced. Luke/Acts doesn't even so much as name any of Jesus' brothers, so how can we ever assume that a James referred to in Acts is Jesus' brother?
dogsgod said:How do you draw the conclusion that James is the brother of Jesus? Acts doesn't name Jesus brothers, so we can't get that information from Acts.
"Isn't he the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simon and Judas his brothers? Aren't all his sisters living here here? Where did he get all this?"
:no: You're confusing the several James in the NT. As Smoke pointed out, James, brother of John and the son of Zebedee, clearly died in the Acts, and the brother of Jesus appeared later in Acts. So I think it is safe to say that James son of Zebedee is not the same as James the brother of Jesus.
Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, both named James as one of Jesus' brothers.
Clearly the carpenter is Joseph. Anyway, the references to other members of the family, other than Mary, clearly indicated that Jesus had siblings, even sisters.
Could James, the leader of church in Jerusalem be that brother of Jesus? It is a possibility.
dogsgod said:No it's not a possibility. James, brother of John dies in Acts 12:2.
dogsgod said:The brother of Jesus is not so much as named anywhere in Luke or Acts, so the reader can't assume that the James mentioned after Acts 15 is Jesus' brother.
dogsgod said:Before that, in Acts 9, Paul visits James, brother of John, in Jerusalem.
Galatians 1:19 said:...any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother.
Galatians 1:19 said:...any other apostle; the only other person I saw was James, the Lord's brother.
My mistake, the first visit is referred to in Acts 9 and the second is Acts 21. They are the two visits. Where does the notion come from that Paul visited Jesus' brother James from reading Acts?Sorry, but the Acts give 3 visits, not 2, to Jerusalem.
I see your point with Acts 9 and with Acts 15, which you have already pointed out, but what about the 3rd visit, where he met James the brother of Jesus (Acts 21:17-26), shortly before he was arrested.
As to Galatians 1, which correspond to Acts 9, there are several different translations:
or