Doctor Steuss wrote:In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he makes reference to Jesus' brother (if one accepts the commonly accepted dating of Galatians).
All Christian males were considered to be brothers of Jesus during that time, much like all male Mormons are brothers in the priesthood.
I suppose that explains the frequency that Peter was referred to as the brother of Jesus.
huckelberry wrote:It makes a person wonder if there is any first century discussion of Jesus.
In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he makes reference to Jesus' brother (if one accepts the commonly accepted dating of Galatians).
Dr Steuss, I think your pointing out the relationship between Paul and James shows significant historical context indicating a real life person, Jesus.
I also think almost all of the New Testament qualifies as first century discussion of Jesus. There are also other documents, such as Barnabas or Didache which would qualify.
huckelberry wrote:I suppose that explains the frequency that Peter was referred to as the brother of Jesus.
Paul uses the phrase "brother(s) of the Lord", such as in 1 Cor. 9.5, to distinguish regular Christians from apostles. Therefore, he wouldn't have called Peter the brother of the Lord.
Besides, the point becomes moot when it is realized that a mythological Jesus wouldn't have had any literal, DNA related brothers, or any other relatives for that matter.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei