(January 19, 2010 at 6:56 pm)LEDO Wrote:(January 19, 2010 at 12:42 am)chatpilot Wrote: I don't doubt that James was an actual person but I refuse to accept that he was the "brother of Jesus" since by doing so I would admit the existence of Christ in history. As you all know that will never happen. But hypothetically accepting that he was the brother of Christ in the physical sense actually creates several problems for Christianity and some of the Catholic churches core beliefs. It would imply that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of the messiah. Some have said that he was only a half brother to Christ maybe being the son of Joseph from a previous relationship, but this is not implied anywhere in the scriptures. Aplogists like to say that he was a brother in the spiritual sense.
My personal opinion is that James was not the brother of Jesus since that would be impossible considering that in my view Jesus was not an historical figure. Not to mention when it says James is the brother of Jesus there is still the matter of sorting out which James they are referring to in the text. Since as is pointed out in the article I have posted there were several people called James during that time period.
Chat, you sound like an atheist apologist with this one.
When you reply with no refutation of any of his claims you give the impression you can't refute them.
.
