Agreed. Human nature isn’t good enough for the job.Julius_Caesar:
Not good enough.
For you, maybe. I also wrote a whole lot that you choose to ignore.
Sigh… That might be relevant if Paul wrote in Hebrew. But he did not.
Hmm. So now I am confused what your point is. I thought you were saying they were different people.
You wouldn’t. And he didn’t. Which is why the quirks of Hebrew linguistics cannot explain what Paul wrote. You are the one who is suggesting otherwise.
Yes, that is what the Catholic Church teaches. We need to bear in mind that the historical facts may perhaps be different.
The first word of v. 34 is λέγοντας, “saying.” It is a present participle in the accusative masculine plural, agreeing with the object of the verb εὗρον, “they found,” in the previous verse. That object is τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς, “the eleven and those with them.”
Sorry, that makes no sense. It seems to me the argument is that in Aramaic the word brother was used idiomatically to also refer to cousins. Why would a native Greek speaker writing in Greek use a translated Aramaic idiom, and do so just in this one instance to refer to James?
This is a complete non-sequitur. What is your point?
Ah, but Scripture can teach history. Do you want to see evidence? Try this. The name James occurs 27 times in the Gospels. In 17 of those occurrences, it clearly designates James the son of Zebedee, known as James the Greater, and in eight of them it clearly designates James the son of Alphaeus, known as James the Less. That leaves two verses unaccounted for:
I didn’t say that it didn’t teach history. I said the purpose wasn’t to teach history. I could list history myself. What the Catholic Church teaches is truth.
The unbelievers in Jesus’s family are unnamed. If it’s James the Less who is this James, we have doubting James.