The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
We have several 'James' in Mark.
Which one are you alluding to?
Which of the 'James' in Mark is the one that Paul alludes to?
Which of Mark's James is the one that Josephus alludes to?
Why does Josephus only allude to a James briefly? in passing?
as with his passing reference to Jesus?
Last edited:
Nonsense. You reject the evidnce as not probative. But [/b]it is there[/b]. Paul's statement that James was "The Lord's Brother", allied to the list of names of Jesus' brothers in the Synoptics, IS EVIDENCE. You may say, in spite of that, I don't accept the literal meanings of those words that contain the evidence, and perhaps you would be right, though I don't agree.
But these things are EVIDENCE, whether you like it to not.
Who is 'them'?
Are you begging-the-question? Appealing to 'authority'?
Ehrman has never fully explained the "numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life in the sources lying behind the Gospels".
Notice the double-speak? ie. "the sources lying behind the Gospels".
And the bare assertion - "the sources" lol
No.
The Issue is "there is no credible evidence".
If you think there is ----- state it.
re
Utter
TOSH
They are not 'extensive writings' - half are not Paul's anyway!!They are merely stories - unverified stories!
Unverified stories of unknown dates; and unknown editing or redacting.
Spell out the evidence! rather than merely assert "it, duh, is there" duh
wtf is "the the list of names of Jesus' brothers in the Synoptics" ??
You realise there are 3-4 different James in the Synoptics ???
Last edited:
I do not know what the earliest Christian biblical new testament writing about Jesus was. And neither do you, or anyone else.
In fact afaik the earliest writing was most probably destroyed or lost.
The closest we can come to a likely fact is that P46 circa 200 AD is probably the earliest relatively complete and readable set of texts that we have, and that apparently contains most of Paul’s letters.
It’s vital here to realise that we must always talk about relatively complete and mostly fully legible/readable extant texts. Because those are the texts which are actually used to provide the details of the Jesus story that are being quoted as evidence by both bible scholars and by everyone here (inc. all published sceptical authors such as Carrier). Any supposedly earlier fragments such as a credit-card sized fragment thought to be from g-John i.e. P52, is of course not remotely sufficient to provide any of the details which are commonly quoted & debated as coming from g-John (and from any other gospels).
What is actually quoted and debated as the details of the Jesus stories, on all sides, actually comes from the earliest extant relatively complete and more-or-less fully readable copies. And for the gospels, those are generally agreed to be from the 4th century and later (mostly after the 6th century).
So P46 is by far our earliest useable source. But in P46, i.e. the letters attributed to Paul, the author does not describe Jesus as a normal human man ever known to anyone on earth. In P46, although Paul says that upwards of 500 people had witnessed Jesus, inc. “the twelve”, Cephas, and also “James”, all of those people who “witnessed” Jesus were only ever said to have witnessed the risen spirit of Jesus in the heavens. And that apparently actually included “James”, who elsewhere in P46 was said, in one never again repeated ultra brief remark (apparently added as an afterthought), to be “the lords brother” ... so the only witnessing of Jesus that Paul describes there by James, is the witnessing by James of a spiritual Jesus of religious belief.
And that of course is the same James (afaik) who modern biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman take upon those few ambiguous words alone, to be quite certainly the actual blood-brother of Jesus such that James would have “witnessed” Jesus literally countless times whilst they were growing up together in the same family for 30 years .... and yet here, in P46, the only mention of James actually ever "witnessing" Jesus, is as a spiritual religious vision.
Now that is most definitely not a description of Jesus as a normal human person ever known to Paul, or ever as a human figure witnessed by any of those 500+ people in that claimed vision.
There is no human figure of Jesus ever clearly or unambiguously described anywhere in any of Paul's genuine letters, afaik.
It’s not a matter of me “thinking the scholars are wrong”, as you put it. But afaik, in the words written in P46 and in the earliest extant copies of any of the canonical gospels, inc. any versions of g-Mark, the fact of the matter is that Jesus most certainly was NOT described as a normal ordinary human person.
In all the gospels he was described, always, as a figure constantly displaying supernatural powers. Normal human people are not supernatural miracle workers who rise from the dead and appear to witnesses whilst communicating from the skies.
The point is obvious, and it was spelt out for you - If you are talking about use of a word meaning “seed of” or “sperm of” or similar in any of the biblical writing, then afaik the usual claim in that respect is that Jesus was said to be the seed of David ... for which, please see what I just wrote about that in the previous reply.
Of course I am not “preaching” to you. Please do not write such silly untrue remarks. I am just pointing out to you (for what must be at least the 100th time, literally), that in P46 (which is what we actually have as “Paul’s letters”) that (i) Paul makes clear he had certainly never met any human person named Jesus, that (ii) he does not name anyone else as ever claiming they had ever met Jesus, that (iii) the description that Paul gives of Jesus is only that of a supernatural religious vision.
There is no description in P46 of Paul ever knowing a human Jesus, or ever claiming that anyone else had ever claimed to have met a human Jesus. The only people who were ever said to have actually “witnessed” Jesus, only ever witnessed him in a spiritual heavenly vision, and that apparently also included James!
As far as the remainder of your post is concerned, i.e. the long discussion of what is said to be the contents of Zechariah and the understanding which Paul and others may or may not have deduced from scripture such as Zechariah - this will require some very lengthy quotes from Carrier's book to explain what he is actually saying about how Paul and other early writers (such as Philo) may have interpreted that scriptural writing to mean the biblical Jesus as a dying and rising son of God. So I will deal with all of that in a separate subsequent post.
Last edited:
You're trying to verbal me?
Trying to imply that I might equivocate?
About words you haven't specified ??
Do you realise how despicable that is ?? what you are doing ??
What "THINGS" ??? What "EVIDUHNCE" ??
Good point/s.
Last edited:
However many Jameses there may or not be in the Synoptics, there is a "list of names of Jesus' brothers". Here it is:
Matthew 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. 54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
That is a list of names of Jesus' brothers. Duh to you too.
Please tell me what is "despicable" about me saying this.
You may say, in spite of that, I don't accept the literal meanings of those words that contain the evidence, and perhaps you would be right, though I don't agree.
I think it sounds not merely reasonable, but respectful and polite.
You claim is utterly false. The Synoptics state that Jesus is the Son of God born of a Ghost.
Matthew 1.20 .....the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1.35 ........The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Jesus cult Christians of antiquity have always DENIED that THEIR Jesus had a brother called James.
Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19
Galatians 1.19 does not state anywhere that James was the brother of Jesus.
Galatians 1.19 uses the NOMINA SACRA for the LORD who is the GOD of the Jews.
The GOD of the JEWS is the LORD in the Christian Bible.
1. Psalm 92.1 ----It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord, and to sing praises unto thy name, O Most High:
2. Psalm 106:1 Praise ye the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
3. Psalm 107:1 O give thanks unto the Lord for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
4. Psalm 118:1 O give thanks unto the Lord for he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever.
5. Psalm 118:29 O give thanks unto the Lord for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
6. Psalm 136:1 O give thanks unto the Lord for he is good...
When will Craig B stop his consistent absurdities?
Jesus of the Synoptics was some kind of Ghost/God/man.
LOOK, He is WALKING on WATER and TRANSFIGURING in gMark.
Last edited:
Remember what I wrote to you?
See, you are going to make your thousand times easily - yet you have the discourtesy to tell other people you won't let them re-run "dammed arguments". That's naughty. And very unfair.
I addressed this a LONG time ago.
Papyrus 46 is 150-250 CE with 95% confidence interval and some have suggested as far back as the 19th century that the James bother of the Lord in Paul was a gloss that was later woven into the text. Even in English the structure is odd:
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
The second passage reads like an after thought... or a kludgy way to add something that wasn't there to begin with. But for the sake of the argument let's assume this is the result of trying to transliterate the Greek
Our oldest complete versions of Mark all date from the 4th century and NONE of them mention James the Lord's brother as an apostle! Here is Mark's first list of apostles (Mark 3:16-19):
Simon he surnamed Peter;
James the son of Zebedee
John the brother of James
(he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder)
Andrew
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
Thomas
James the son of Alphaeus
Thaddaeus
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him
In fact, James, son of Alphaeus has a c62 CE death date which near as I can tell stems from Saint Jerome proposing James, son of Alphaeus was the "James, the brother of the Lord" referenced by Paul with 'brother' actually meaning 'cousin' with a tie into Josephus for good measure. But Mark doesn't identify James, son of Alphaeus as being the same James mentioned before and actually has Jesus state "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
The consensus of these early sources is that James the Just died near 70 CE; Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Caesarea are all cited for this date as late as the 19th century.
Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century states James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone): "The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching"
Christians scholars ONLY started going for the 62 CE date to make the passage in Josephus work and ignoring everything else that clearly showed James the Just living at least to 64 CE and seemingly every Church Father and his brother putting his death c69.
Never mind there the details are off as Josephus' James dies 62 CE just by stoning while nearly everybody else puts the death c69 CE by stoning, being thrown from top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by laundrymen (insert tasteless joke about clean death here ) and his successor Saint Simeon of Jerusalem is not appointed till after the siege of Jerusalem ie 70 CE
More over the tone of Josephus' James is wrong. gJohn and Acts have the followers of Jesus constantly running form Jews who want to kill them and yet when Ananus condemns Josephus' James the locals work to have him removed.
So here we seen another try to make things fit hand waving based on unsupported assumptions based on religious dogma rather then what the texts actually say.
Last edited:
Why is it "ridiculous"? What is "ridiculous" about it?
Instead of me taking many pages to explain it to you here, all you need to do is watch and listen (carefully) to how Richard Carrier explains it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo
And when watching and listening to the above lecture, keep in mind that all that he says in that lecture has now been published in much greater detail as a fully referenced 700 page "peer reviewed" book. So that book has (apparently) been checked and agreed as credibly valid, by expert academics in this field ... so it has more professional credibility than what is contained in other popular-level books, or in Wikipedia articles.
And here gDon might want to listen carefully to what Carrier says there from about 19.00 minutes onwards (i.e. about the book of Zechariah and the writing of Philo), because those are the passages that I am going to quote extensively from Carriers book (i.e. where Carrier explains why the book of Zechariah probably is the origin (or one origin) of what was later preached by Paul, and then later still preached in the extant copies of the canonical gospels ... all of which date later than P46, apparently).
I am not saying, and even Carrier himself is not claiming, that what he sets out there as a specific "Myth Theory" about (as you mention it) "Jesus crucified in a "sub lunar" level of the heavens", is definitely correct. What he is saying is that he believes that a very good case can be made by this particular theory which he sets out (which you say is ridiculous) to explain how Jesus was originally only a mythical figure alluded to in certain coded and vague prophetic passages of the OT beginning from around 500 BC and onwards into the 1st century, but centuries later it became interpreted by early Christian gospel writers perhaps as early as the late 1st century but more likely from 3rd century onwards, as if by that date Christians came to believe that those original messiah prophecies meant a real man who had human disciples on earth circa 30 AD.
When will the nonsense called the HJ argument cease??
The very same debunked claims are regurgitated day after day by those who argue for an HJ.
Let us remind them that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not say 'Christ' but "the anointed".
Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not use the NOMINA SACRA for 'Christ' but the Greek word Χριστοῦ. meaning "the anointed."
Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1----Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ.......Jesus called the anointed.....
The claim that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 mentions CHRIST of the NT is a clear example of CHINESE WHISPERS.
Papyri 46 is one of the earliest stories of CHRIST and they use the NOMINA SACRA 'XPY' for CHRIST.
Only Jesus the Christ has the NOMINA SACRA 'XPY'.
The NOMINA SACRA 'XPY' for Jesus the Christ is found HUNDREDS of times in Papyri 46.
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal.html
The Greek word 'Χριστοῦ' merely refers to a person who was PHYSICALLY anointed by oil like a Jewish High Priest or King.
Many Jewish persons were called Χριστοῦ [the aointed] AFTER they were PHYSICALLY anointed with oil.
Craig B Please, help us stop the Chinese Whispers!!!
It has been exposed that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does NOT refer to CHRIST 'XPY' of the NT.
The NOMINA SACRA 'XPY' [CHRIST] is found NOWHERE in ALL writings attributed to Josephus and Tacitus.
The very same debunked claims are regurgitated day after day by those who argue for an HJ.
Let us remind them that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not say 'Christ' but "the anointed".
Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not use the NOMINA SACRA for 'Christ' but the Greek word Χριστοῦ. meaning "the anointed."
Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1----Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ.......Jesus called the anointed.....
The claim that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 mentions CHRIST of the NT is a clear example of CHINESE WHISPERS.
Papyri 46 is one of the earliest stories of CHRIST and they use the NOMINA SACRA 'XPY' for CHRIST.
Only Jesus the Christ has the NOMINA SACRA 'XPY'.
The NOMINA SACRA 'XPY' for Jesus the Christ is found HUNDREDS of times in Papyri 46.
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal.html
The Greek word 'Χριστοῦ' merely refers to a person who was PHYSICALLY anointed by oil like a Jewish High Priest or King.
Many Jewish persons were called Χριστοῦ [the aointed] AFTER they were PHYSICALLY anointed with oil.
Craig B Please, help us stop the Chinese Whispers!!!
It has been exposed that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does NOT refer to CHRIST 'XPY' of the NT.
The NOMINA SACRA 'XPY' [CHRIST] is found NOWHERE in ALL writings attributed to Josephus and Tacitus.
Last edited:
No! And you have had that explained to you at least 20 times here. So you must now be guilty of deliberately misrepresenting it in the most disingenuous way (yet again, as you have done repeatedly throughout all these HJ threads).
There is all sorts of evidence than anyone might be able to produce for any such historical figure. E.g., any physical evidence of any kind? Any personal writing, a grave or skeletal remains, or any inscribed monuments from the time, or coins etc? Any such remains of personally known accompanying friends and "disciples"? Any writing contemporary with time of Jesus where the details can be independently checked? Any official ruling court records, or census records anything at all like, that? No? Nothing at all?
If all that exists is late anonymous religious writing of peoples beliefs in a figure unknown to any of the writers, then all that such writing can provide as evidence is evidence of the writers un-evidenced beliefs in a figure unknown to them (except "known" through religious faith) ... that's evidence of religious belief ... it's not evidence a human Jesus ever known to any of them.
And as far as going back and starting all over again from 9 years ago in these various related HJ threads (with many of the same participants) - NO! we are certainly not going to fall for that piece of nonsense. Far too much time has been wasted already (many years!), without you or anyone on the HJ side being able to produce any actual evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone whatsoever .... where is the blinking evidence???? .... just post the evidence of Jesus ever being credibly claimed as known to anyone at all who ever wrote about him? .... where is it? ... were is the evidence!
I was asked
and I answered that there is such a list in Matt 13:55. Now tell me if that is a list of names of Jesus' brothers or not. I was asked "wtf" the list of these brothers is. And I answered. Now you want to talk about other things. But first, the list is there.
You may not like it. You may not think it accurate. But it is a list of the names of Jesus' brothers, isn't it?
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
IanS, thank you for your thorough reply.
I quoted the above and below because after the post you replied to, I tried to get the thought better.
Thoughts?
What illogical absurdities you post, Craig B!!!
You have the audacity to use gMatthew as evidence of an historical Jesus??
Matthew 1:18 ---Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
When will this nonsense call the HJ argument come to and end?
In gMatthew Jesus was the son of a Ghost but Craig B will attempt to show that the son of the Ghost had brothers!!!
Craig B forgot that Matthew 13.55 is a LIST of QUESTIONS.
Craig B forgot that Matthew 1.18 LISTS and IDENTIFIES a Specific Ghost[the Holy Ghost] as the father of Jesus
Can someone please pull Craig B aside and tell him that in Roman/Greek mythology that Gods and Sons of Gods are claimed to have brothers??
Romulus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin in Roman mythology and had a brother called Remus.
In Jewish mythology Cain had a brother called Abel.
Please, help!!!
The repetitive logical fallacies from Craig B are reducing this thread to a comedy.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
No. So we can affirm that Heraclitus never existed and all the aphorisms attributed to him are worthless for the History of Philosophy.
Do we continue?
- Status