Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Jesus Mythicism 2: "James, the Brother of the Lord" - History for Atheists
Source: historyforatheists.com
Article summary:
1. Paul of Tarsus wrote a letter to the Jesus Sect community in Galatia, expressing concern that they had been contacted by people from the Jesus Sect community in Jerusalem who had undermined his authority.
2. Paul mentions meeting two of the Jerusalem elders: Cephas and James, the brother of the Lord. This is seen as strong evidence for a historical Jesus, as non-existent beings cannot have flesh and blood siblings.
3. Mythicists try to get around this reference by arguing that “brother” here is figurative rather than literal, but this requires contorted and contrived argumentation.
Article analysis:
The article presents a compelling argument for the existence of a historical Jesus based on references to his brother James in early Christian sources. The author provides evidence from Paul's letter to the Galatians, which mentions meeting two of the Jerusalem elders: Cephas and James, the brother of the Lord. The author also cites other early Christian sources which mention Jesus having four brothers (and some sisters), with the eldest being called James and being a leader of an early Jesus Sect community in Jerusalem.
The article does not present any counterarguments or explore any alternative explanations for these references to James as being figurative rather than literal. It also does not provide any evidence for its claims about other early Christian sources mentioning Jesus' four brothers and sisters, nor does it address any potential biases or partiality in these sources. Furthermore, it does not consider any possible risks associated with relying solely on these sources for evidence of a historical Jesus.
In conclusion, while this article provides an interesting argument for a historical Jesus based on references to his brother James in early Christian sources, it fails to consider alternative explanations or explore potential biases or partiality in these sources. As such, it should be read with caution and further research should be done before drawing any conclusions about its trustworthiness and reliability.