Historical Jesus

[GDon]

James, the Lord's Brother

The epistles have many examples of the use of the word 'brother' to mean a fellow believer - a 'brother in Christ' - rather than a literal brother :

That's true, but there are three formulations that use "brother":

1. "brother" (adelphos): used by itself, it means a fellow believer.
2. "brother of X" (adelphos + X): also see "son of X" in the example below.
3. "brother in X" (adelphos en X): as you yourself noted, "brother in Christ" seems to refer to a fellow believer.

Examples:

1. "Brother" - Examples as you've given them

2. "Brother of X"

Gal 1:19 James brother of the Lord1 Cor 9:5 ... as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
​

3. "Brother in X"

Phil 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds...
Other examples of "in X" in Paul:
Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
​

You can see the pattern:

1. Used singularly, "brother" means fellow believer
2. Used as "brother of X", it seems to mean literal or familial brother of X.
3. Used as "brother in X" or "in X", it seems to refer to membership of group X.

Does Jerrymander believe that Jesus had OTHER brothers?

I can't speak to Jerrymander's beliefs, but yes, it does imply that Jesus had other brothers. According to Mark (whether or not you believe Mark!), their names were Joses, Juda and Simon.

You've given a few examples of the use of "brother" used by itself. Would you like to examine the use of "brother of X" and "brother in X", and see if you come to the same conclusion that there is a pattern there?

I'm not saying that it is 100% certain. While an examination of the text seems to show a definite pattern, there may be examples that go against that pattern or other reasons to think the pattern doesn't hold in one particular case. But at least let's start with what the text suggests.

 

[Chanakya]

Emmanuel ******* Haroldson, this thread!

 

[pgwenthold]

The proposal without a real person (or two) behind the Jesus idea is that somebody made up a prophecy-fulfilling person who hadn't even existed

But don't we have Paul doing just that? He says that he got his information from no man. So either you believe that he got messages from God or he is making it up.

Yes, he says that he met James, but that is not where he got his information about Jesus, according to him. Is there any reason to think he met James before writing the other stuff? Given how it is mentioned mostly as an afterthought as part of his travels, it clearly isn't his basis for anything.

 

[Delvo]

Paul's visions weren't about the existence of Jesus; they were about what Jesus said and whether Paul should be for or against him. He was already aware of Jesus and Christians before that, and, although his descriptions of his previous self do talk about attacking & oppressing them, he doesn't say he ever thought they were incorrect about Jesus's existence.

 

[dejudge]

That's true, but there are three formulations that use "brother":

1. "brother" (adelphos): used by itself, it means a fellow believer.
2. "brother of X" (adelphos + X): also see "son of X" in the example below.
3. "brother in X" (adelphos en X): as you yourself noted, "brother in Christ" seems to refer to a fellow believer.

Examples:

1. "Brother" - Examples as you've given them

2. "Brother of X"

Gal 1:19 James brother of the Lord1 Cor 9:5 ... as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
​

3. "Brother in X"

Phil 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds...
Other examples of "in X" in Paul:
Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
​

You can see the pattern:

1. Used singularly, "brother" means fellow believer
2. Used as "brother of X", it seems to mean literal or familial brother of X.
3. Used as "brother in X" or "in X", it seems to refer to membership of group X.

Now, please tell us the Greek word used for LORD in Galatians 1.19.

Galatians 1.19--But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.[adelphos of KY]

GDon knows that the Lord is God "ΚΥ" not only in Galatians 1.19 but all over the OT and NT.

There are thousands of references to GOD as "KY' in the Greek Christian Bible.

Psalms 118 alone has more than 10 references to GOD as KY.

It is really a waste of time to use Galatians 1.19 to prove the supposed Jesus was human when it states the Pauline character saw God's brother.


Examine line 13 of the Galatians 1 in the Codex Sinaiticus.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=40&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0

Examine line 24 of NT Papyri 46 [Galatians 1]
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-2.html

The LORD in Galatians 1.19 is GOD[ a supernatural being].

 

[dejudge]

Here's what I don't understand. Why the desperate need to twist every text into 'proving' that Jesus was nothing more than a myth? As far as we can tell, Christians have believed he was the human founder of their church from day one....

What complete twisted rubbish you post. Even the so-called Pauline witer claimed he persecuted the Church before his resurrected Jesus was revealed to him.

It is most absurd to argue that Jesus existed but did not start the Jesus cult and was started by a character who claimed he persecuted the Church before he was converted.

What a load of crap you post [from day one].

 

[dejudge]

Paul's visions weren't about the existence of Jesus; they were about what Jesus said and whether Paul should be for or against him. He was already aware of Jesus and Christians before that, and, although his descriptions of his previous self do talk about attacking & oppressing them, he doesn't say he ever thought they were incorrect about Jesus's existence.

How ridiculous can you be!!! Do you expect a person who claims he heard and saw the resurrected Jesus to also state his Lord did not ever exist??
Jesus cult Christians believe their Gods, Devils, Demons, Angels and Ghosts actually exist.

The Pauline writer must have believed his LORD existed, was crucified, resurrected, ascended and would return to earth at the Second coming.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

16 For the Lord [KC] himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord[KY] in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord [KY]

The Lord is God in the so-called Pauline Epistles.


The HJ argument makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Brainache]

How ridiculous can you be!!! Do you expect a person who claims he heard and saw the resurrected Jesus to also state his Lord did not ever exist??
Jesus cult Christians believe their Gods, Devils, Demons, Angels and Ghosts actually exist.

The Pauline writer must have believed his LORD existed, was crucified, resurrected, ascended and would return to earth at the Second coming.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

The Lord is God in the so-called Pauline Epistles.


The HJ argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Possibly the stupidest argument I have ever read. Thank you.

 

[GDon]

But don't we have Paul doing just that? He says that he got his information from no man.

No, Paul never wrote that "he got his information from no man". Never! Never never! I wish that meme would die.

Paul wrote that he got his gospel message for the Gentiles "from no man" ("the gospel which was preached of me is not after man", Gal 1:11).

Here are the steps to what Paul claims in Galatians:

1. Previously, he had been persecuting the Jewish Christians ("churches of Judaea which were in Christ", Gal 1:22)
2. Then he had his revelation experience ("To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles", Gal 1:16),
3. And then he started to preach the same things as the Jewish Christians were preaching ("he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed", Gal 1:23).
4. Paul then eventually goes to Jerusalem to see James and Peter to discuss his own gospel message ("gospel which I preach among the Gentiles", Gal 2:2)
5. James and Peter sign off on Paul's gospel message ("they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter", Gal 2:7)

So it is important to distinguish between saying Paul got "his information from no man" and Paul got "his gospel message from no man". The first one is not correct. The second one is what the text tells us.

I would think that Paul would have known something about Jesus at the time he was persecuting the Jewish Christians, so he had some information before his revelation. But that revelation was about Paul going to the Gentiles to preach about Jesus's significance to the Gentiles. That's what the text says, regardless of whether the early Christians thought that Jesus was historical or mythical.

So, please guys! No more "Paul got his information from no man" on this board! It's simply wrong, and it confuses discussions around Paul from the get-go.

 

[GDon]

Looks like real life is trying to interfere with my internet time again, so I'll make this my last post here for a while. I'll leave you with a rant!

I'm just an amateur on this topic, with an amateur's interest. I've read all the early Christian literature many times in the English translation, and quite a bit of secondary literature. But I've never studied the topic, and I have no understanding of the ancient languages involved. So don't take my word for anything on the subject. I always try to argue from what I know, i.e. the texts in English translation version. (If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!)

But jeez guys! If you call yourself skeptics, you need to do more than just repeat stuff that you've heard from some fringe theorists or other posters. Because many of those things you'll find on these types of boards are misinformation:

1. Paul said "he got his information from no man"
2. "Brother of the Lord" = "Brother in the Lord"
3. "Seed of David" = from Cosmic Sperm Bank
4. There is a version of Ascension of Isaiah where Jesus is crucified in the firmament (there isn't, it's just part of Dr Carrier's imagination)
5. Paul doesn't call Jesus a "man"
6. There are other examples of gods being crucified in the firmament

That's just off the top of my head. Lots of other things that I've seen on this board and others, that are simply either wrong (not actually what is in the text) or not supported by the literature.

I know it is fun to make fun of the creationists and their support of nonsense, but what stops you from being the same as them? Where do you think they get their information from about evolution? From dedicated evolution boards, or from creationist boards? How do amateurs suddenly think they know more than scholars in the field who have dedicated their lives to the topic? Because all scholars are biased? Or there is a fringe scholar who writes what you believe, and that's good enough? You don't need to check him?

You need to at least understand what the texts say, and start from there. Don't start with what the texts DON'T say.

Why is this important to me? I'm not a Christian. I've never believed that the Bible is anything but a collection of old books. But all that ancient literature -- Bible, Tao Te Ching, Greek philosophers, ancient historians -- is humanity's heirloom. Criticize the content all you want, but don't make misinformation out of it. That's just disrespecting our forebears.

Bye for now!

 

[Brainache]

Looks like real life is trying to interfere with my internet time again, so I'll make this my last post here for a while. I'll leave you with a rant!

I'm just an amateur on this topic, with an amateur's interest. I've read all the early Christian literature many times in the English translation, and quite a bit of secondary literature. But I've never studied the topic, and I have no understanding of the ancient languages involved. So don't take my word for anything on the subject. I always try to argue from what I know, i.e. the texts in English translation version. (If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!)

But jeez guys! If you call yourself skeptics, you need to do more than just repeat stuff that you've heard from some fringe theorists or other posters. Because many of those things you'll find on these types of boards are misinformation:

1. Paul said "he got his information from no man"
2. "Brother of the Lord" = "Brother in the Lord"
3. "Seed of David" = from Cosmic Sperm Bank
4. There is a version of Ascension of Isaiah where Jesus is crucified in the firmament (there isn't, it's just part of Dr Carrier's imagination)
5. Paul doesn't call Jesus a "man"
6. There are other examples of gods being crucified in the firmament

That's just off the top of my head. Lots of other things that I've seen on this board and others, that are simply either wrong (not actually what is in the text) or not supported by the literature.

I know it is fun to make fun of the creationists and their support of nonsense, but what stops you from being the same as them? Where do you think they get their information from about evolution? From dedicated evolution boards, or from creationist boards? How do amateurs suddenly think they know more than scholars in the field who have dedicated their lives to the topic? Because all scholars are biased? Or there is a fringe scholar who writes what you believe, and that's good enough? You don't need to check him?

You need to at least understand what the texts say, and start from there. Don't start with what the texts DON'T say.

Why is this important to me? I'm not a Christian. I've never believed that the Bible is anything but a collection of old books. But all that ancient literature -- Bible, Tao Te Ching, Greek philosophers, ancient historians -- is humanity's heirloom. Criticize the content all you want, but don't make misinformation out of it. That's just disrespecting our forebears.

Bye for now!

It's a shame that you have to leave before IanS could get a chance to respond to your demolition of Richard Carrier. I'm sure it would have been, er, informative...

 

[dejudge]

1. Previously, he had been persecuting the Jewish Christians ("churches of Judaea which were in Christ", Gal 1:22)

Please, you very well know that the location of a church in Judaea does not mean that all converts are Jews.

In Acts, it is claimed Parthians, Medes, Elamites, people from Mesopotamia, Judaea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, parts of Libya about Cyrene, Rome, Jews and proselytes were in Jerusalem and heard the apostles preaching about Jesus, the resurrected and ascended son of a Ghost.

2. Then he had his revelation experience ("To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles", Gal 1:16),

Paul could not have received any historical information from a dead man or a non-existing God.

3. And then he started to preach the same things as the Jewish Christians were preaching ("he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed", Gal 1:23).

So the Galatians writer did not start the Jesus cult of Christians if he persecuted them and attempted to destroy the faith before he started to preach.

3
4. Paul then eventually goes to Jerusalem to see James and Peter to discuss his own gospel message ("gospel which I preach among the Gentiles", Gal 2:2)

The Galatian writer said no such thing. Events in Galatians 2 supposedly happened 14 years after those 1n Galatians 1.

35. James and Peter sign off on Paul's gospel message ("they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter", Gal 2:7)

Again, the claims in Galatians are not corroborated by other writers in and out NT.

Christians writers contradict the Galatians writer and state that Peter was preaching the Gospel in Rome for about 20 years before Saul/Paul arrived there as a prisoner.

3So it is important to distinguish between saying Paul got "his information from no man" and Paul got "his gospel message from no man". The first one is not correct. The second one is what the text tells us.

What you say does not make sense.

The Galatians writer specifically stated at the very beginning of the Epistle that he was not an apostle of man but of the RESURRECTED Jesus Christ and God.

Galatians 1.1--- Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

A resurrected being is not human.

A resurrected being is a Ghost!!!

I would think that Paul would have known something about Jesus at the time he was persecuting the Jewish Christians, so he had some information before his revelation. But that revelation was about Paul going to the Gentiles to preach about Jesus's significance to the Gentiles. That's what the text says, regardless of whether the early Christians thought that Jesus was historical or mythical.

Just say it.

The Pauline writers were liars.

They heard and read stories about the Lord Jesus, the son of God and a woman, who was crucified, buried and rose again on the third day who ascended to heaven and would return for the dead in Christ and claimed they received their Gospel from no man!!

What Liars!!! What deceivers!!!

So, please guys! No more "Paul got his information from no man" on this board! It's simply wrong, and it confuses discussions around Paul from the get-go.

The Pauline writer was known as a liar for at least 1700 years.

The Pauline writer did not need any revelation or hear a voice to preach his Gospel he most likely read the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Tassman]

Why would Jews re-cast a known dead man as Jesus the Messiah decades after his death

Because Jesus wasn’t dead as far as they were concerned, he was resurrected.

The Jews expected a Messianic ruler not a suffering servant

Indeed. Which is why I said that “In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah was a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who was expected to be anointed with oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come”. Numerous scholars attest to this as you indicate.

NT Jesus was God the Creator from the beginning.

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one".

In the earliest Greek manuscripts of the NT writings the Lord Jesus is God.

The earliest Greek texts, including John 10.30 which you referenced, were all composed many decades after Jesus’ death. What we get in them is the all new ‘messiah’ concept. The Jesus-followers had little choice other than to reinvent their messiah given that their expected all conquering king had been executed by the very people he was supposed to conquer. So, he became a different kind of messiah – a humble spiritual one whose conquering takes place in the spiritual world. And this is the messiah we get in the Greek manuscripts.

 

[dejudge]

It's a shame that you have to leave before IanS could get a chance to respond to your demolition of Richard Carrier. I'm sure it would have been, er, informative...

It's a shame that GDon has left because he admitted HJ arguments from Ehrman and Sanders are disappointingly based on assumptions that have not been backed up.

In any event GDon cannot leave this thread.

GDon will not allow the HJ argument to be crucified.

GDon will attempt the impossible- to raise HJ argument from the dead.

 

[dejudge]

Because Jesus wasn’t dead as far as they were concerned, he was resurrected.

But that would be a lie if Jesus actually lived and was dead and buried for three days.

The Pauline writer could not have been a witness that God raised his Jesus from the dead.

The Jews expected a Messianic ruler not a suffering servant

Indeed. Which is why I said that “In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah was a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who was expected to be anointed with oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come”. Numerous scholars attest to this as you indicate.

So, Jesus the Messianic ruler of the Jews in the time of Pilate is indeed a fiction character. No such Messianic ruler ever existed.

If Jesus of Nazareth did live and was never believed or known to be the prophesied Messianic ruler before his death then he would never ever be called their Messianic ruler decades after his death.

The Jewish Messianic ruler must be living and be an actual ruler to be called or believed to be their Messiah.

Jews do not look in graveyards for their Messianic ruler.

The earliest Greek texts, including John 10.30 which you referenced, were all composed many decades after Jesus’ death. What we get in them is the all new ‘messiah’ concept. The Jesus-followers had little choice other than to reinvent their messiah given that their expected all conquering king had been executed by the very people he was supposed to conquer. So, he became a different kind of messiah – a humble spiritual one whose conquering takes place in the spiritual world. And this is the messiah we get in the Greek manuscripts.

But what you say does not make any sense since the Jews were expecting a living Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE around the time of the Jewish War with the Romans which is confirmed by writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

This expected Messianic ruler was based on Hebrew Scripture so your story about a spiritual Jewish Messiah is just baseless nonsense.

We know your spiritual Jewish Messiah is baseless nonsense because around c 133 CE the Jews believed Simon bar Cocheba was their Messianic ruler because he was able to defeat the Romans.

What must not be forgotten is that after Simon bar Cocheba was captured and killed by the Romans he was no longer regarded as the Messianic ruler of the Jews.

Instead of calling him the Son of the Star he was later called the Son of the Lie.

What you don't seem to realise is that the Jesus of Nazareth story never originated with Jews. The propaganda was fabricated by non-Jews after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Now, NT writings introduced their Jesus as the Son of God not just gJohn.

Examine gMatthew, gMark,gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and Revelation and you'll see that Jesus was always a supernatural being - the son of God, born of a Ghost, God Creator or a water-walking transfigurer who was raised from the dead.

 

[Brainache]

It's a shame that GDon has left because he admitted HJ arguments from Ehrman and Sanders are disappointingly based on assumptions that have not been backed up.

In any event GDon cannot leave this thread.

GDon will not allow the HJ argument to be crucified.

GDon will attempt the impossible- to raise HJ argument from the dead.

I stand corrected...

 

[dejudge]

After wasting time on every conceivable meaning of "brother" GDon completely forgot to tell us who the" Lord" was .

It is the character called the Lord in Galatians 1.19 whose nature must be confirmed.

Galatians 1:19----But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Who is the Lord in the Christian Bible??

There are thousands upon thousands of references to the Lord in the Christian Bible.

Exodus 6.2----And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:

Now Examine gMark 1.3 The author of gMark claimed John the Baptist was preaching about the coming of the Lord and made reference to passages in the book of Isaiah.

Mark 1.3--- The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Examine Isaiah 40.3 In the book of Isaiah the Lord is God.

Isaiah 40.3---- The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Anyone who knows Greek will immediately see that the Greek Nomina Sacra for the "Lord" in the NT is the very same Greek Nomina Sacra for the "Lord" [the God of the Jews] in the OT.

The Greek Nomina Sacra for the Lord [KY] in Galatians 1.19 is the very same Greek Nomina Sacra the Lord[KY] in Isaiah 40.3.

The "Lord" [KY] in Galatians 1.19 is God.

The "Lord" [KY] in Galatians 1.19 and the Christian Bible is a figure of mythology.

 

[Tassman]

But that would be a lie if Jesus actually lived and was dead and buried for three days.

Well Jesus’ followers were wrong, obviously, in believing that Jesus rose from the dead - not so much lying. Human psychology tells us that people readily adapt what they want to believe to fit the reality.

The Pauline writer could not have been a witness that God raised his Jesus from the dead.

Paul never refers to an empty tomb. Paul’s Jesus was raised in a spiritual sense and appeared to his followers in a way similar to that of Paul’s Damascene vision. This is in contrast to the Jesus of the gospels.

If Jesus of Nazareth did live and was never believed or known to be the prophesied Messianic ruler before his death then he would never ever be called their Messianic ruler decades after his death.


But what you say does not make any sense since the Jews were expecting a living Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE around the time of the Jewish War with the Romans which is confirmed by writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

No. Josephus says that “it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers”. Jesus was just but one of many “pseudo messiahs”.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12416-pseudo-messiahs

This expected Messianic ruler was based on Hebrew Scripture so your story about a spiritual Jewish Messiah is just baseless nonsense.

The story was adjusted to meet reality of the situation, namely that Jesus was executed instead of freeing the Jews from the yoke of Roman power. Hence, he became a different kind of messiah – a humble spiritual one whose conquering takes place in the spiritual world. And this is the messiah we get in the gospels.

 

[dejudge]

At this point, as already said, the HJ argument is dead in the water.

The Greek Nomina Sacra [KY] for the Lord Jesus is the very same for the Lord God of the Jews

The Lord in the NT is God.

The Lord is a figure of mythology.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

At this point, as already said, the HJ argument is dead in the water.

The Greek Nomina Sacra [KY] for the Lord Jesus is the very same for the Lord God of the Jews

What a ridiculous argument.

Kyrios

Kyrios or kurios (Ancient Greek: κύριος, romanized: kýrios) is a Greek word which is usually translated as "lord" or "master"... In Classical Athens, the word kyrios referred to the head of the household, who was responsible for his wife, children, and any unmarried female relatives...

The term "κύριος" is still in use in the Modern Greek language and is the equivalent to the English terms "mister" (title conferred on an adult male), "master" (someone who has control over something or someone), and "sir" (an address to any male)...

The Gospel of John seldom uses kyrios to refer to Jesus during his ministry, but does so after the Resurrection, although the vocative kyrie (meaning sir) appears frequently. The Gospel of Mark never applies the term kyrios as a direct reference to Jesus, unlike Paul who uses it 163 times. When Mark uses kyrios (e.g., in 1:3, 11:9, 12:11, etc.) it is in reference to YHWH/God.

Nomina Sacra