Posted: May 07, 2012 6:36 pm
by IgnorantiaNescia
Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Okay... Do you think that "brother of the Lord" has some different meaning then, like Carrier's fictive kinship?

Note: I didn't assume much in my previous post aside the (attested) existence of the phrase "brother of the Lord" and the hypothetical existence of Jesus' brother (and thus Jesus).

What I am asking you is for the context in which that phrase is notable for any reason at all. It's notable in a context where one is inquiring as to whether or not Jesus is historical, prior to any reason to believe that the bible contains history about people and events.

If Carrier promotes a theory about 'fictive kinship', does it imply to you that Carrier does not believe James is a fictional character? In point of fact, the only reason you might not yourself believe James is fictional is because Josephus refers to him, but Josephus (if not interpolated) might simply be parroting early xian dogma about the characters of James and Jesus.

You don't fucking know, do you? You don't really know what reason Josephus had to believe that there was a person executed thirty years before he wrote Antiquities. So you are forced to trust that he had his sources. Nobody else reports anything about this event. It's not a very-well-documented event. And from that, you want to ask me questions about what 'brother of the Lord' means in the context of Galatians. I walk away, realising that you've assumed your conclusion.

Considering how poorly-documented are the subjects of this tale, the amount of fuss over them is disproportionate to the data. Two guesses as to why there is so much fuss, and the first one does not count.

Much in your post is disagreeable, but let me state that your accusation of me assuming my conclusion is beyond bizarre. As you said, what I simply want to know is what you think "brother of the Lord" means. In any case, we have a chap claiming in a letter to have met a certain James, "the brother of the Lord". I can tell you that Carrier believes that the kinship relation between James and Jesus is fictive, but that he does not believe that James was a fictional person.

However, if you think it is all too much fuss, perhaps you should not contribute to this topic. But then you should also not expect that this belief of yours in a mythical Jesus becomes respectable any time soon.

So the option for you is: do you want me to treat your Mythicism seriously or not? If you would want me to take it seriously, I would like to ask you to say how the relation is between tòn adelphòn toû kuríou (Gal 1:19) and Mythicism according to you and where you get the meaning of these words from, if you reject word research.