Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Bucky Ball]

That's not a retort, and you know it.

It's one you don't want to hear. He was clearly delusional. 

Mat 13:55 -56  Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas, and his sisters, are they not all with us? Then from where does this man have all these things? 

Mar 6:3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at Him.

Now, also here is something for you to think about:

Joh_7:3  Therefore His brothers said to Him, Move away from here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see the works that You do.

Joh_7:5  For His brothers did not believe in Him

So I have a question for you. If the word "brother" is only a reference to the "brotherhood of Christ," how then could this gospel entry have brothers who did not believe he was the Christ? After all, if they didn't believe he was the Christ, how then could the word "brother" in respect to "brotherhood of Christ" apply to those who didn't believe he was the Christ?

Oh, so now he has not only James, but also a whole bunch of other siblings as well. LOL. 

I know you see the logic, Bucky. And I know that YOU know I have a valid point here. There's simply no way the brotherhood of Christ applies to the brothers in John 7:5, therefore it can only refer to his natural brothers.

Nope. YOU don't get to tell me what I think ... are we regressing to our arrogant ways ? 

He means brother in the same way he uses the word in regards to other people in his works. Nowhere in Antiquities does Jospehus refer to a brother as meaning anything other than a physical relative. 

So ... now you're mind reading also. There was no other comparable situation for Josephus to use a similar word, thus your "no other" is meaningless, and invalid. 

And that- if true- somehow invalidates his mundane statement that James was the brother of Jesus? How?

He was untrustworthy and he damns himself with his own pen. 

That does not in any way invalidate any historical value they may have. They are two separate and distinct things.

Yes it does. They are reflections of BELIEF, not historical facts. Are you saying that 500 people rising also on Easter has historical value ? 
LOL
Maybe you are an apologist.

It has already been point out here, (as it also says in Galatians) 1:19, Paul says he met James, "the Lord's brother", and none other of the apostles except Peter, when Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion. 

James was an apostle. 
The James he is talking about IS AN APOSTLE, and we KNOW the two apostles names James had family lineages which were NOT Mary and Joseph ... thus you cannot claim James was a physical sibling.