• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Historical Jesus II

Status
Not open for further replies.
But Paul says: I met James; and he says: James is the Brother of The Lord. That is what is being discussed. It suggests that Paul believed in the physical humanity of Jesus. Moreover other sources, or at least one other source, tells us that Jesus had a brother of that name, even assuming Matthew picked it up from Mark, and supposing the Josephan reference to be interpolated, which it may well not be.


If you had watched the film of Carrier (as linked above), you will find there Carrier giving an explanation of what "brother of the lord" meant as someone baptised into the faith.

You may or may not accept Carriers explanation. But does give there a perfectly logical explanation of what was meant by "brother of the Lord". Through appropriate baptism, the baptised all became sons of God like Jesus, and hence all brothers of the lord. No doubt if you get a copy of the book then Carrier will explain that in more detail with references.

But either way, as discussed here many hundreds of times, it is by no means clear that Paul thought James was anything other than a "brother" in the faith. And what's more, that same James never claimed to be an actual brother of Jesus. In fact neither James, nor Paul, nor any of them ever claimed even to have met any human Jesus.
 
If you had watched the film of Carrier (as linked above), you will find there Carrier giving an explanation of what "brother of the lord" meant as someone baptised into the faith.

You may or may not accept Carriers explanation. But does give there a perfectly logical explanation of what was meant by "brother of the Lord". Through appropriate baptism, the baptised all became sons of God like Jesus, and hence all brothers of the lord. No doubt if you get a copy of the book then Carrier will explain that in more detail with references.

But either way, as discussed here many hundreds of times, it is by no means clear that Paul thought James was anything other than a "brother" in the faith. And what's more, that same James never claimed to be an actual brother of Jesus. In fact neither James, nor Paul, nor any of them ever claimed even to have met any human Jesus.

More over as pointed out we seem to two to three James mentioned in the NT: James the son of Zebedee brother of John, James the son of Alphaeus, and this James 'brother of the lord' (assuming that is not a refrence to the other two James.

As I stated before compare Acts 1:13 (KJV):

Peter
James (unknown)
John
Andrew
Philip,
Thomas
Bartholomew
Matthew
James the son of Alphaeus
Simon Zelotes
Judas the brother of James.

with Luke 6:12-16:

Simon, (whom he also named Peter)
Andrew his brother
James (unknown)
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
Thomas
James the son of Alphaeus
Simon called Zelotes,
Judas the brother of James
Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

and Matthew 10:2–4 (KJV):

Simon, who is called Peter
Andrew his brother
James the son of Zebedee
John his brother;
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew the publican
James the son of Alphaeus
Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him

You notice as expected the Judas' don't match up BUT (and this is where it gets interesting) the identity of the James here would seem to be James the son of Zebedee but given he dies in Acts 12 why not clarify which James you are talking about when Paul meets a James later on (Acts 21)?

If you had James the biological brother of the Lord as well as a James the son of Zebedee and James son of Alphaeus about certainly you'd want to keep them straight. But Paul doesn't do this and as far as we can tell the James Paul met had to be James son of Alphaeus ie NOT the biological brother of Jesus.

The "entirety of Luke-Acts mentions only two men by the name of James, yet identifies neither at the brother of Jesus. To the contrary , it specifically distinguishes both of them from his brother (Acts 1.13-14). One of them is indeed one of the three pillars name by Paul (Peter, James and John: Gal 2.9, in light of Mk 3-16-17; 5.37; 92; 14.33; Lk. 5.10; 8.51; 9.28; etc,; see Chapter 11 § 3) who was clearly not the brother of Jesus (as all the Gospels agree), but the brother of the other pillar, John. Acts says this James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa (12.1-2). The only other James in Luke-Acts is James the son of Alphaeus (Lk. 6.15, Act 1.13), who therefore be the James still around after the first one is killed,..." - OHJ pg 373

We have yet to see anything that even remotely disproves this; just ad hominid attacks of Carrier being a guru.
 
If you had watched the film of Carrier (as linked above), you will find there Carrier giving an explanation of what "brother of the lord" meant as someone baptised into the faith.

You may or may not accept Carriers explanation. But does give there a perfectly logical explanation of what was meant by "brother of the Lord". Through appropriate baptism, the baptised all became sons of God like Jesus, and hence all brothers of the lord. No doubt if you get a copy of the book then Carrier will explain that in more detail with references.

Does he explain why that particular term wasn't used for anyone else? There are plenty of people baptised into the faith in the Pauline corpus, but only James is called the Lord's brother. Although there was more than one brother of the Lord, James is the only one mentioned by name. Peter wasn't one though, even though he was definitely someone baptised in the faith:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+9
1 Corinthians 9 said:
I am free. I am an apostle. I have seen the Lord Jesus and have led you to have faith in him. 2 Others may think that I am not an apostle, but you are proof that I am an apostle to you.

3 When people question me, I tell them 4 that Barnabas and I have the right to our food and drink. 5 We each have the right to marry one of the Lord’s followers and to take her along with us, just as the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Peter do. 6 Are we the only ones who have to support ourselves by working at another job? 7 Do soldiers pay their own salaries? Don’t people who raise grapes eat some of what they grow? Don’t shepherds get milk from their own goats?
...

Paul even acknowledges that some people are saying that he isn't a real Apostle, because he never met Jesus. The Apostles were the ones who met Jesus.

But either way, as discussed here many hundreds of times, it is by no means clear that Paul thought James was anything other than a "brother" in the faith. And what's more, that same James never claimed to be an actual brother of Jesus. In fact neither James, nor Paul, nor any of them ever claimed even to have met any human Jesus.

Why would James need to claim to be Jesus' brother in his epistle, when people as far away as Corinth in Greece and Galatia in northern Turkey already knew of him as "The Lord's Brother"? That would be like George W Bush telling people he was the son of George H. W. Bush during his "State Of The Union" address...

Paul claims to have met Jesus after he died. I don't believe that Paul actually did meet the risen Christ, but I do believe that Paul believed that Jesus was alive on earth before he died - Being alive is kind of a necessary prerequisite for getting dead.
 
More over as pointed out we seem to two to three James mentioned in the NT: James the son of Zebedee brother of John, James the son of Alphaeus, and this James 'brother of the lord' (assuming that is not a refrence to the other two James.

As I stated before compare Acts 1:13 (KJV):

Peter
James (unknown)
John
Andrew
Philip,
Thomas
Bartholomew
Matthew
James the son of Alphaeus
Simon Zelotes
Judas the brother of James.

with Luke 6:12-16:

Simon, (whom he also named Peter)
Andrew his brother
James (unknown)
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
Thomas
James the son of Alphaeus
Simon called Zelotes,
Judas the brother of James
Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

and Matthew 10:2–4 (KJV):

Simon, who is called Peter
Andrew his brother
James the son of Zebedee
John his brother;
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew the publican
James the son of Alphaeus
Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him

You notice as expected the Judas' don't match up BUT (and this is where it gets interesting) the identity of the James here would seem to be James the son of Zebedee but given he dies in Acts 12 why not clarify which James you are talking about when Paul meets a James later on (Acts 21)?

If you had James the biological brother of the Lord as well as a James the son of Zebedee and James son of Alphaeus about certainly you'd want to keep them straight. But Paul doesn't do this and as far as we can tell the James Paul met had to be James son of Alphaeus ie NOT the biological brother of Jesus.

The "entirety of Luke-Acts mentions only two men by the name of James, yet identifies neither at the brother of Jesus. To the contrary , it specifically distinguishes both of them from his brother (Acts 1.13-14). One of them is indeed one of the three pillars name by Paul (Peter, James and John: Gal 2.9, in light of Mk 3-16-17; 5.37; 92; 14.33; Lk. 5.10; 8.51; 9.28; etc,; see Chapter 11 § 3) who was clearly not the brother of Jesus (as all the Gospels agree), but the brother of the other pillar, John. Acts says this James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa (12.1-2). The only other James in Luke-Acts is James the son of Alphaeus (Lk. 6.15, Act 1.13), who therefore be the James still around after the first one is killed,..." - OHJ pg 373

We have yet to see anything that even remotely disproves this; just ad hominid attacks of Carrier being a guru.

Or maybe there was only one James and all of these other Jameses were invented to minimise the importance of Jesus' biological brother by later writers who believed in the Virgin Mary bollocks.

Zebedee was another name for the devil, so I doubt Jesus had a disciple called "James the son of Satan". It looks like Roman anti-semitism aimed at James The Just (the brother of Jesus) whose death at the hands of the corrupt Roman puppet authorities was one of the causes of the Jewish revolt.

Read all about it here:
http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesus-Unlocking-Christianity/dp/014025773X

Carrier isn't the only one with radical ideas about early Christianity.
 
You notice as expected the Judas' don't match up BUT (and this is where it gets interesting) the identity of the James here would seem to be James the son of Zebedee but given he dies in Acts 12 why not clarify which James you are talking about when Paul meets a James later on (Acts 21)?
Explain your point here please. It seems to me there is no reason for anyone at the time to clarify that. The other James was dead. The other James was not described as The Lord's brother.

Why should Paul write, "When I say I met James the Lord' s brother, I mean I met the one who is alive and who is the Lord's brother. I don't mean the one who is dead and who wasn't the Lord's brother."?
We have yet to see anything that even remotely disproves this; just ad hominid attacks of Carrier being a guru.
I have never accused him of being a chimpanzee, so ad hominem is probably a better term.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe there was only one James and all of these other Jameses were invented to minimise the importance of Jesus' biological brother by later writers who believed in the Virgin Mary bollocks.

Except as pointed out before term "brother" here could mean "cousin" given there wasn't a term in Hebrew to distinguish between the two. So simply saying James the Just was a cousin would have worked. No need to create more James.

Zebedee was another name for the devil, so I doubt Jesus had a disciple called "James the son of Satan". It looks like Roman anti-semitism aimed at James The Just (the brother of Jesus) whose death at the hands of the corrupt Roman puppet authorities was one of the causes of the Jewish revolt.

First I ever heard of Zebedee being "another name for the devil" and a quick trip to Biblegateway shows this claim to be total garbage.

I have replaced Zebedee with Satan in the 11 passages in which the name appears to show just how idiotic this claim is (KJV):

And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Satan, and John his brother, in a ship with Satan their father, mending their nets; and he called them. - Matthew 4:21

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Satan, and John his brother; - Matthew 10:2

Then came to him the mother of Satans children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. - Matthew 20:20

And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Satan, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. - Matthew 26:37

Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Satans children. - Matthew 27:56

And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the son of Satan, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. - Mark 1:19

And straightway he called them: and they left their father Satan in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him. - Mark 1:20

And James the son of Satan, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: - Mark 3:17

And James and John, the sons of Satan, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. - Mark 10:35

And so was also James, and John, the sons of Satan, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. - Luke 5:10

There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Satan, and two other of his disciples. - John 21:2

Read all about it here:
http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesus-Unlocking-Christianity/dp/014025773X

Carrier isn't the only one with radical ideas about early Christianity.

Carrier's views are peer reviewed and published by one of the top academic university publishers in the world. Eisenman above had to go to Penguin Books to get his ideas published.

That is like saying stuff published by Oxford University is equal to stuff out of the Enquirer and about as nonsensical.

I know about Asmodeus, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, Dickens, Hobbs, Lucifer and the infernal names article over at wikipedia cranks out several I never saw before but I have never heard Zebedee referred as being a name for the devil.

Show me a work published by a university press that states Zebedee is another name of the devil as this doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
Explain your point here please. It seems to me there is no reason for anyone at the time to clarify that. The other James was dead. The other James was not described as The Lord's brother.

You keep on making the same bizarre arguments.

Over 1600 years ago People of antiquity have already denied that James in Galatians 1.19 was the brother of the Lord from heaven.

Craig B said:
Why should Paul write, "When I say I met James the Lord' s brother, I mean I met the one who is alive and who is the Lord's brother. I don't mean the one who is dead and who wasn't the Lord's brother."? I have never accused him of being a chimpanzee, so ad hominem is probably a better term.

Why would a delusional person [an auditory hallucinator] make claims that are not historically accurate?

You have been shown the evidence from antiquity MULTIPLE times.

Christian writers DENIED that James in Galatians 1.19 was the brother of the Lord Jesus.

John Crysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1
But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him the Lord's brother, although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed.

We are interested in the EVIDENCE from antiquity NOT what you speculate.

Galatians 1.19 and the discredited Christian Bible are completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

Your 21st century heresy is of no use.
 
Last edited:
Does he explain why that particular term wasn't used for anyone else?

But is IS used for someone else as Carrier points out on pg 582:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

My defense to those who are putting me on trial is this: Do we have no right to eat and to drink? Do we not have the right to take along a sister as a wife, as also the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas do? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to to give up working for our keep. (1 Cor. 9:1-6)

Some bibles hide the hilited part buy fiddling with the translation. For example in KJV it is "brethren of the Lord" and in NIV it is "Lord’s brothers" but it is clear that Paul is using brothers of the Lord to refer to followers of Jesus and NOT Jesus actual family.

Carrier spends the next 10 pages just on this matter showing how "brothers of the Lord" does NOT "single out the family of Jesus as some sort of specially privileged groups never elsewhere mentioned by Paul ... Rather Paul is talking about all Christians..." (pg 583)

1 Cor. 9:1-6 and the some 10 pages Carriers spends on the issue it raises takes the idea that 'brothers of the Lord' MUST refer only to Jesus family and beats it up, takes its lunch money, shoves it in a garbage can, and kicks it down a flight of stairs.
 
Last edited:
Except as pointed out before term "brother" here could mean "cousin" given there wasn't a term in Hebrew to distinguish between the two. So simply saying James the Just was a cousin would have worked. No need to create more James.



First I ever heard of Zebedee being "another name for the devil" and a quick trip to Biblegateway shows this claim to be total garbage.

I have replaced Zebedee with Satan in the 11 passages in which the name appears to show just how idiotic this claim is (KJV):

And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Satan, and John his brother, in a ship with Satan their father, mending their nets; and he called them. - Matthew 4:21

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Satan, and John his brother; - Matthew 10:2

Then came to him the mother of Satans children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. - Matthew 20:20

And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Satan, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. - Matthew 26:37

Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Satans children. - Matthew 27:56

And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the son of Satan, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. - Mark 1:19

And straightway he called them: and they left their father Satan in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him. - Mark 1:20

And James the son of Satan, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: - Mark 3:17

And James and John, the sons of Satan, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. - Mark 10:35

And so was also James, and John, the sons of Satan, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. - Luke 5:10

There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Satan, and two other of his disciples. - John 21:2
...

I know about Asmodeus, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, Dickens, Hobbs, Lucifer and the infernal names article over at wikipedia cranks out several I never saw before but I have never heard Zebedee referred as being a name for the devil.

Show me a work published by a university press that states Zebedee is another name of the devil as this doesn't make sense.

OK, Zebedee is not exactly the same word as "Satan". Even if it was, it would only be an indication of some later writer of the bible using an insult against James The Just. But the form of ZeBeDee is reminiscent of "Zebel" a hebrew word for "Dung" an the second half of "BeelZebub/Beelzebul":
It is unknown whether Symmachus was correct in identifying these names, because we otherwise know nothing about either of them. Zeboul might derive from a slurred pronunciation of zebûb; from zebel, a word used to mean "dung" in the Targums; or from Hebrew zebûl found in 1 Kings 8:13 in the phrase bêt-zebûl, "lofty house".

In any case, the form Beelzebub was substituted for Beelzeboul in the Syriac translation and Latin Vulgate translation of the gospels, and this substitution was repeated in the King James Version of the Bible, the resulting in the form Beelzeboul being mostly unknown to Western European and descendant cultures until some more recent translations restored it.

So basically the writers were calling James "Son of the dung-heap", or words that sounded like that. The later Christians really didn't like James, or Jews in general...

Carrier's views are peer reviewed and published by one of the top academic university publishers in the world. Eisenman above had to go to Penguin Books to get his ideas published.

That is like saying stuff published by Oxford University is equal to stuff out of the Enquirer and about as nonsensical.

Did he have to go to Penguin books? He's published a few things with Brill in the past:
wiki said:
Islamic Law in Palestine and Israel E. J. Brill, Leiden (1976).
Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran: A New Hypothesis of Qumran Origins E. J. Brill, Leiden (1984).
James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher E. J. Brill Leiden (1986).
A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (with James Robinson), Biblical Archaeology Society (1991).
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Eisenman

Carrier is not the only one with radical ideas about early christianity to be published by Brill...
 
Some bibles hide the hilited part buy fiddling with the translation. For example in KJV it is "brethren of the Lord" and in NIV it is "Lord’s brothers" but it is clear that Paul is using brothers of the Lord to refer to followers of Jesus and NOT Jesus actual family.
In what way does "brethren" or "the Lord's brothers" "fiddle with the translation"?
Carrier spends the next 10 pages just on this matter showing how "brothers of the Lord" does NOT "single out the family of Jesus as some sort of specially privileged groups never elsewhere mentioned by Paul ... Rather Paul is talking about all Christians..." (pg 583)
Why not tell us how he shows it? What arguments or evidence?
1 Cor. 9:1-6 and the some 10 pages Carriers spends on the issue it raises takes the idea that 'brothers of the Lord' MUST refer only to Jesus family and beats it up, takes its lunch money, shoves it in a garbage can, and kicks it down a flight of stairs.
Are these words metaphorical? If so, what are Carrier's specific modes of reasoning?
 
In what way does "brethren" or "the Lord's brothers" "fiddle with the translation"?

You are just repeating the same nonsense when Apologetic sources have already admitted James the Apostle was not the brother of Jesus.

We are dealing with evidence from antiquity not what you imagine in the 21st century.

There is no history of James the Apostle as the brother of Jesus the son of God.

Examine the "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.


2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem.

This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph[/i], and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

There is NO history of Jesus born through a human father and no history of James the Apostle as the brother of the LORD from heaven.

How long can you continue with your bizarre claims?

The Gospel shows that Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father.

Multiple manuscripts of the Gospels have been found and they do actually state that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin EXACTLY like it is claimed in "Church History"

It is the evidence from antiquity that matters not what you imagine in the 21st century.
 
But is IS used for someone else as Carrier points out on pg 582:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

My defense to those who are putting me on trial is this: Do we have no right to eat and to drink? Do we not have the right to take along a sister as a wife, as also the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas do? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to to give up working for our keep. (1 Cor. 9:1-6)

Some bibles hide the hilited part buy fiddling with the translation. For example in KJV it is "brethren of the Lord" and in NIV it is "Lord’s brothers" but it is clear that Paul is using brothers of the Lord to refer to followers of Jesus and NOT Jesus actual family.

Carrier spends the next 10 pages just on this matter showing how "brothers of the Lord" does NOT "single out the family of Jesus as some sort of specially privileged groups never elsewhere mentioned by Paul ... Rather Paul is talking about all Christians..." (pg 583)

1 Cor. 9:1-6 and the some 10 pages Carriers spends on the issue it raises takes the idea that 'brothers of the Lord' MUST refer only to Jesus family and beats it up, takes its lunch money, shoves it in a garbage can, and kicks it down a flight of stairs.

That doesn't make sense. The line says: "...also the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas... "

So there are Apostles, who are followers of "the Lord", there is "Cephas" who is a follower of "the Lord" and there are "brothers of the Lord" who are also followers (otherwise they wouldn't be on the list). "Brothers of the Lord" are not the same as "Apostles", they are a separate category (to which "Cephas" apparently doesn't belong).

Maybe, as Craig says, you could give us an example of how the mighty Carrier defeats this argument, rather than expect us to take it on faith...
 
That doesn't make sense. The line says: "...also the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas... "

So there are Apostles, who are followers of "the Lord", there is "Cephas" who is a follower of "the Lord" and there are "brothers of the Lord" who are also followers (otherwise they wouldn't be on the list). "Brothers of the Lord" are not the same as "Apostles", they are a separate category (to which "Cephas" apparently doesn't belong).

Maybe, as Craig says, you could give us an example of how the mighty Carrier defeats this argument, rather than expect us to take it on faith...


When were there followers of "the Lord"? When did "the Lord" come down from heaven? The Christian Bible is the very worst source to use for historical events.


Whether Carrier is wrong or right there is NO credible and NO contemporary evidence of an historical Jesus.

All the stories of Jesus in the existing manuscripts depict Jesus of Nazareth as a myth/fiction who originated from a Ghost or was God from the beginning.

In fact, some Christians of antiquity even admitted their Jesus existed WITHOUT birth.

We are dealing with the evidence from antiquity NOT opinions from the 21st century.

What did Tertullian write about Jesus?

Writings attributed to Tertullian state Jesus was born of a Ghost.

If people here want to argue that there was an historical Jesus then they should have FIRST found at least some credible and contemporary sources--NOT the discredited Bible and forgeries in Josephus.

The Christian Bible is a major source of fiction and mythology.

The historical Jesus was derived from the Christian Bible.

The argument for an historical Jesus cannot be maintained by myth/fiction fables and no contemporary sources.

In effect, even if Carrier's opinion is flawed there would still be no evidence from antiquity of an historical Jesus.
 
When were there followers of "the Lord"? When did "the Lord" come down from heaven? The Christian Bible is the very worst source to use for historical events.


Whether Carrier is wrong or right there is NO credible and NO contemporary evidence of an historical Jesus.

All the stories of Jesus in the existing manuscripts depict Jesus of Nazareth as a myth/fiction who originated from a Ghost or was God from the beginning.

In fact, some Christians of antiquity even admitted their Jesus existed WITHOUT birth.

We are dealing with the evidence from antiquity NOT opinions from the 21st century.

What did Tertullian write about Jesus?

Writings attributed to Tertullian state Jesus was born of a Ghost.

If people here want to argue that there was an historical Jesus then they should have FIRST found at least some credible and contemporary sources--NOT the discredited Bible and forgeries in Josephus.

The Christian Bible is a major source of fiction and mythology.

The historical Jesus was derived from the Christian Bible.

The argument for an historical Jesus cannot be maintained by myth/fiction fables and no contemporary sources.

In effect, even if Carrier's opinion is flawed there would still be no evidence from antiquity of an historical Jesus.

Well, unfortunately for you, History isn't a list of facts from ancient texts, its an ongoing debate about plausibilities.

If you want to convince people of your view of history you have to produce a plausible scenario for what you think happened, why and how. Publish a book that convinces educated people and you might sway the debate.

Posting obnoxious internet diatribes isn't going to change the commonly held opinion that a HJ is the most plausible explanation for the origin of Christianity.

Carrier has published his book, but he hasn't managed to convince too many experts yet.

Maybe your book will cause a revolution in Jesus scholarship, hop to it...
 
Well, unfortunately for you, History isn't a list of facts from ancient texts, its an ongoing debate about plausibilities.

You have no idea how history is done.

You have argued that Paul was a Liar and a conman and then turn around use and the same Lies of Paul in Galatians 1.19 as history without corroboration.

Virtually every Christian writers of antiquity have DENIED that James the Apostle was the brother of the Lord from heaven.

In addition, the Pauline writers state that Jesus is the LORD GOD from heaven, a Spirit and God's Own Son.



Brainache said:
If you want to convince people of your view of history you have to produce a plausible scenario for what you think happened, why and how. Publish a book that convinces educated people and you might sway the debate.

You don't know how history is done. I have NO obligation to invent imaginative fiction stories like you do.

You believe what you IMAGINE.

I am OBLIGATED to SHOW EXACTLY what Christians of antiquity claimed about their Jesus.

The Jesus in the writings of antiquity is a MYTH/FICTION character described as an Ascending, Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water walking Son of a God, born of a Ghost and God from the beginning.


Brainache said:
Posting obnoxious internet diatribes isn't going to change the commonly held opinion that a HJ is the most plausible explanation for the origin of Christianity.

Your statement is directly applicable to you. You must be obnoxious with massive amount of diatribe and logically fallacious arguments because you have NO evidence for your HJ argument.

Your source is the very same discredited Bible which is used by Christians who claim Jesus of the NT EXISTED as GOD INCARNATE.

Your statement that HJ is the most plausible explanation is most laughable.

Billions of people actually BELIEVE it is extremely plausible that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

The Historical Jesus was NOT Plausible at all. In fact, the historical Jesus was considered fiction and heretical in antiquity.

In writings "Against Heretics" the historical Jesus [ a mere man] was a Falsehood.

Brainache said:
Carrier has published his book, but he hasn't managed to convince too many experts yet.

Have you managed to convince anyone that Paul was an Herodian?

Have you managed to find any historical data for your Jesus?

Why are you using a Bible as a history book in the 21st century?

Brainache said:
Maybe your book will cause a revolution in Jesus scholarship, hop to it...

Why don't you mutilate or interpolate the Christian BIBLE with YOUR plausible Jesus story and cause a revolution in the Church?

What is the name of the father of your Plausible Jesus??

Where was the birth place of your plausible Jesus? Bethlerhem.

You can't remember??
 
...
I am OBLIGATED to SHOW EXACTLY what Christians of antiquity claimed about their Jesus.

No you're not. Anybody can read translations of those things and see the crazy things those people believed. The rational thing to do is to try and understand why they wrote those things and understand the historical and cultural context in which they were written. It isn't just saying: "Look St So-and-so says Jesus was a god, therefore he couldn't have been a man"...

The Jesus in the writings of antiquity is a MYTH/FICTION character described as an Ascending, Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water walking Son of a God, born of a Ghost and God from the beginning.

Jesus is all sorts of things in those ancient stories, that isn't the point. Historians try to work out where the stories came from, why they were written as they were and what culture produced them.

Your statement is directly applicable to you. You must be obnoxious with massive amount of diatribe and logically fallacious arguments because you have NO evidence for your HJ argument.

Your source is the very same discredited Bible which is used by Christians who claim Jesus of the NT EXISTED as GOD INCARNATE.

Your statement that HJ is the most plausible explanation is most laughable.

It isn't laughable, it is the opinion shared by the vast majority of experts in this field of History. If you want them to say otherwise, you'll have to be more convincing than you have been so far.

Billions of people actually BELIEVE it is extremely plausible that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

That is the gospel Jesus of the Christian Faith, not the HJ. They are different things.

The Historical Jesus was NOT Plausible at all. In fact, the historical Jesus was considered fiction and heretical in antiquity.

In writings "Against Heretics" the historical Jesus [ a mere man] was a Falsehood.

That doesn't mean that the author of "Against Heretics" was right. I'm sure he'd think just about everyone alive today is some sort of Heretic. I'm an Atheist, he'd probably want to burn me alive. I'm not going to lose sleep over not conforming with the beliefs of a 2nd or 3rd century religious fanatic...

Have you managed to convince anyone that Paul was an Herodian?

It's not my Hypothesis, it belongs to Robert Eisenman, but he has written several books about it and I'm pretty sure he has convinced some people.

Have you managed to find any historical data for your Jesus?

What do you mean by "historical data"?

Why are you using a Bible as a history book in the 21st century?

I don't. I use it as a collection of ancient stories that contains stories, letters and ancient beliefs. I also use Josephus, the Talmud, Mishnah and other ancient historical writings.

Why don't you mutilate or interpolate the Christian BIBLE with YOUR plausible Jesus story and cause a revolution in the Church?

The idea of a minimal HJ has been around for over a hundred years, I doubt it will cause a revolution any time soon.

What is the name of the father of your Plausible Jesus??

Cleophas. (possibly)

Where was the birth place of your plausible Jesus? Bethlerhem.

You can't remember??

More likely somewhere in Galilee, not necessarily Nazareth though.
 
That doesn't make sense. The line says: "...also the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas... "

So there are Apostles, who are followers of "the Lord", there is "Cephas" who is a follower of "the Lord" and there are "brothers of the Lord" who are also followers (otherwise they wouldn't be on the list). "Brothers of the Lord" are not the same as "Apostles", they are a separate category (to which "Cephas" apparently doesn't belong).

Maybe, as Craig says, you could give us an example of how the mighty Carrier defeats this argument, rather than expect us to take it on faith...

It makes perfect sense in context of the paragraph.: "It's important to note this context" (OHJ 582)

You have the Apostles ("Any important early Christian teacher, especially St. Paul." --Oxford dictionary), then you have "Brothers of the Lord" (followers of Jesus who are NOT early Christian teachers), and then you have "Cephas".

"It must be noted as well Paul does not say here (or anywhere) 'brothers of Jesus', but 'brothers of the Lord', which can only be a cultic title. One does not become the brother of 'the Lord' until the person in question is hailed 'the Lord', thus the phrase 'brother of the Lord' is a creation of Christian ideology" - OHJ 584

I showed with Schweitzer how taking something out of context can change it entire meaning so this let's grab a snippet and twist it into a pretzel nonsense isn't going to work.
 
It makes perfect sense in context of the paragraph.: "It's important to note this context" (OHJ 582)

You have the Apostles ("Any important early Christian teacher, especially St. Paul." --Oxford dictionary), then you have "Brothers of the Lord" (followers of Jesus who are NOT early Christian teachers), and then you have "Cephas".

"It must be noted as well Paul does not say here (or anywhere) 'brothers of Jesus', but 'brothers of the Lord', which can only be a cultic title. One does not become the brother of 'the Lord' until the person in question is hailed 'the Lord', thus the phrase 'brother of the Lord' is a creation of Christian ideology" - OHJ 584

Except that throughout the Pauline corpus, Jesus is "the Lord". That is what Paul calls him. Again, Carrier's objection doesn't make sense.

I showed with Schweitzer how taking something out of context can change it entire meaning so this let's grab a snippet and twist it into a pretzel nonsense isn't going to work.

It wasn't twisted or out of context at all, so I have no idea what you are talking about here.
 
Well, unfortunately for you, History isn't a list of facts from ancient texts, its an ongoing debate about plausibilities.

Right and things like John Frum and Ned Ludd show it is quite plausible Jesus didn't exist in any meaningful way.

As I have pointed out before there is this region between Carrier's minimal historical Jesus and minimal mythical Jesus where you have a flesh and blood Jesus (ie NOT "mythical") but also have "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense".

I have presented several hypothetical Jesuses that fall into this region as well presented the Jesuses of other writers that also fall into this region:

1) In the time of Pontius Pilate some crazy ran into the Temple trashing the place and screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before some guard ran him through with a sword. Right place right time...and that is it. No preaching, no followers, no crucifixion, nothing but some nut doing the 1st century equivalent of suicide by cop.

2) Paul's teachings ala John Frum inspired others to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their spin on Paul's visions with one of them getting crucified by the Romans by his troubles whose teachings are time shifted so he is before Paul. (John Robertson actually came up with a variant of this in 1900 with this Jesus being inspired by Paul's writings rather then teachings)

3) You could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of Jewish wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50.

4) The idea expressed by Remsberg that there was a Jesus but his following wasn't an identifiable movement until Paul and later the writers of the Gospels got a hold of it also fails Carrier's criteria: "Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."

5) G. A. Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) on with its mythical Paul Jesus + 1st century teacher who was not executed fails point 2 (they are not the same Jesus) so by Carrier's criteria is NOT a "historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" (This does explain Carrier's classification of this work as 'ahistoricitical')

6) Dan Barker's "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (2006 Losing Faith in Faith pg 372) would also fail Carrier's criteria as Baker's first century personality need not be named "Jesus" or if he was his movement was not identifiable until much later.

We must remember Paul is writing some 15 to 20 years after he had his vision. The churches he is writing to would be ones he either founded or believers in some other 'christ' that he turned to his way of thinking.

Sure you can use the out of Jesus being in his time an obscure nobody that just happened to get noticed by somebody who was really aggressive in promoting them (or any movements they inspired) decades later to the point they got noticed by history but that argument is no less hypothetical then the above.

You could argue the same is true of Robin Hood, King Arthur, John Frum, Ned Ludd, and many others and in terms of plausibilities the argument is a step up form the sci-fi idea that Jesus was actually a spaceman and his miracles were super science but at the end of the day it just comes off as an attempt to salvage what is a very weak position.
 
Last edited:
Except that throughout the Pauline corpus, Jesus is "the Lord". That is what Paul calls him. Again, Carrier's objection doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect if you READ the 10 pages Carrier spends on the matter. Perhaps doing that might be a good idea. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom