Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Sorry, I've asked this before. Who is saying that the James who is "Brother of The Lord" was an Apostle?

Don't you even read the Bible? I have showed EXACTLY where the phrase James the Lord's brother is found.

James the Lord's brother is the Apostle James in Galatians 1.19 and it is found ONLY ONCE in the Entire NT.


Galatians 1:19 KJV

But other of the APOSTLES saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

There is NO attestation by any other writer in the ENTIRE NT Canon of an APOSTLE James as the Lord's brother.

Up to the end of the 4th century, Papias, Jerome and Rufinus ATTEST or CLAIM that James called the Lord's brother was NOT really the brother of Jesus or was ALIVE at least up to c 67-68 CE--SIX years after James in Josephus' was dead.

James the brother of the Anointed One called Jesus found in AJ 20.9.1 is NOT the apostle James the Lord's brother in the Bible.

It is completely erroneous and illogical that James the Lord's brother is far more attested that Jesus outside the Bible.

 

[Belz...]

How could you have forgotten what you wrote?

Seriously, STOP IT !

 

[dejudge]

Odd, isn't it.

The main point of course is going completely ignored.

dejudge is actually denying the existence of Clement, Papias, Hegesippus and Eusebius all at once.

Amazing.

I have already made references to Papias in the "Papias Fragments" and Clement in the "Recognitions" .

You are just making stuff up. Clement, Papias, Hegesippus and Eusebius could have lived and writings were FALSELY attributed to them.

In the fragments of Papias, the mother of James the Apostle was NOT Mary the mother of Jesus.

Papias' Fragments

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel.....

.

In the Recognitions it is claimed that Clement wrote to James the brother of Lord AFTER the death of Peter.

James the Lord's brother was ALIVE at least up to c 67-68 CE

Rufinus' Preface to the Recognitions

.... 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, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated....

It does NOT even matter whether or not James was an apostle because he could NOT be James in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 who was supposedly stoned to death c 62 CE.

Clement wrote to JAMES the Lord's brother and INFORMED him of the death of PETER.

James the Lord's brother was ALIVE c 67-68 CE.

James the Lord's brother is NOT James in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 and is NOT attested at all outside the Bible.

 

[Brainache]

I have already made references to Papias in the "Papias Fragments" and Clement in the "Recognitions" .

You are just making stuff up. Clement, Papias, Hegesippus and Eusebius could have lived and writings were FALSELY attributed to them.

In the fragments of Papias, the mother of James the Apostle was NOT Mary the mother of Jesus.

Papias' Fragments
.

In the Recognitions it is claimed that Clement wrote to James the brother of Lord AFTER the death of Peter.

James the Lord's brother was ALIVE at least up to c 67-68 CE

Rufinus' Preface to the Recognitions


It does NOT even matter whether or not James was an apostle because he could NOT be James in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 who was supposedly stoned to death c 62 CE.

Clement wrote to JAMES the Lord's brother and INFORMED him of the death of PETER.

James the Lord's brother was ALIVE c 67-68 CE.

James the Lord's brother is NOT James in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 and is NOT attested at all outside the Bible.

You are still reading all of this stuff at face value.

Will you please try to learn just a tiny bit about how to do History before you continue to embarrass yourself by trotting out this brainless tripe you endlessly repeat?

None of what you say has any bearing on my point. You continue to assume 100% accuracy from these ancients and assume every genealogy that excludes James must be genuine.

You aren't fooling anyone except yourself dejudge. We know you are totally ignorant on this subject and no one will take anything you say seriously. Because of all of the foolish things you have already said, even if you do say something sensible now, no one will believe it.

 

[dejudge]

You are still reading all of this stuff at face value.

Your statement is completely wrong and illogical . I do not take anything about Jesus Christ , the disciples and Paul at face value.

It is you who took AJ 20.9.1 at face value and claimed that James the Lord's brother is attested outside the Bible far more than Jesus.

Your FACE VALUE acceptance of AJ 20.9.1 and Galatians 1.19 has evaporated. It has been shown that there is really NO attestation of James the Lord's brother in or outside the Bible

I have emphasized over and over that you cannot merely take AJ 20.9,1 and Galatians at FACE VALUE you MUST FIRST do some proper research.

You seem not to understand the NT is a massive compilation of forgeries, fiction and mythology.

The Pauline Corpus alone may have been compiled by at least SEVEN different authors at different times and all the Gospel and Non Pauline authors are FAKES.

The NT is not history. It was not derived from history.

The NT was compiled just to be BELIEVED.

Effectively, the NT reflects PLAUSIBILITY--NOT history.

Jesus the Son of God born of a Ghost was PLAUSIBLE 1800 years ago.

There was NEVER EVER any historical Jesus in the history of mankind who was worshiped as a God and Savior by James the Lord's brother.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is completely wrong and illogical . I do not take anything about Jesus Christ , the disciples and Paul at face value.

It is you who took AJ 20.9.1 at face value and claimed that James the Lord's brother is attested outside the Bible far more than Jesus.

Your FACE VALUE acceptance of AJ 20.9.1 and Galatians 1.19 has evaporated. It has been shown that there is really NO attestation of James the Lord's brother in or outside the Bible

I have emphasized over and over that you cannot merely take AJ 20.9,1 and Galatians at FACE VALUE you MUST FIRST do some proper research.

You seem not to understand the NT is a massive compilation of forgeries, fiction and mythology.

The Pauline Corpus alone may have been compiled by at least SEVEN different authors at different times and all the Gospel and Non Pauline authors are FAKES.

The NT is not history. It was not derived from history.

The NT was compiled just to be BELIEVED.

Effectively, the NT reflects PLAUSIBILITY--NOT history.

Jesus the Son of God born of a Ghost was PLAUSIBLE 1800 years ago.

There was NEVER EVER any historical Jesus in the history of mankind who was worshiped as a God and Savior by James the Lord's brother.

So, Clement, Papias, Hegesippus and Eusebius don't exist?

Is this what you are telling me?

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is completely wrong and illogical .

You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

 

[dejudge]

So, Clement, Papias, Hegesippus and Eusebius don't exist?

Is this what you are telling me?

You seem to imagine every "mundane" character in Apologetic sources existed at FACE VALUE without doing any research and that is why you assume that Jesus existed at face value without evidence.

Now, why are diverting attention away from your erroneous claim that James the Lord's brother was far more attested than Jesus outside the Bible?

By the way, the writings attributed to Clement, Papias, Hegesippus and Eusebius do not support the MULTIPLE MODERN versions of your UNKNOWN DEAD Jesus.

Jesus the Son of God and God Creator is MULTIPLE attested outside the Bible FAR MORE than your UNKNOWN DEAD HJ.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, what does the fact that the Jesus stories were written in Koine Greek have to do with whether or not there was an historical Jesus?

What about the sources for you claims regarding Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius?

 

[Foster Zygote]

That has nothing to do with anything that I wrote.

But... You weren't supposed to notice that!

 

[Brainache]

You seem to imagine every "mundane" character in Apologetic sources existed at FACE VALUE without doing any research and that is why you assume that Jesus existed at face value without evidence.

Now, why are diverting attention away from your erroneous claim that James the Lord's brother was far more attested than Jesus outside the Bible?

By the way, the writings attributed to Clement, Papias, Hegesippus and Eusebius do not support the MULTIPLE MODERN versions of your UNKNOWN DEAD Jesus.

Jesus the Son of God and God Creator is MULTIPLE attested outside the Bible FAR MORE than your UNKNOWN DEAD HJ.

Still, just denying the evidence which is right before your face looks pretty stupid dejudge.

Are you sure you want to go on doing that?

 

[Craig B]

Don't you even read the Bible? I have showed EXACTLY where the phrase James the Lord's brother is found.

You misunderstand me. YOU keep saying that there is no evidence for the existence of an APOSTLE James who was called the Lord's Brother. Who in this thread ever said that James the Lord's Brother was an APOSTLE?

 

[dejudge]

Still, just denying the evidence which is right before your face looks pretty stupid dejudge.

Are you sure you want to go on doing that?

Where is the stupid TERRIBLY weak evidence for your unknown dead HJ?

Which book is in your face with evidence?

The Bible is a stupid book to use for history.

 

[dejudge]

You misunderstand me. YOU keep saying that there is no evidence for the existence of an APOSTLE James who was called the Lord's Brother. Who in this thread ever said that James the Lord's Brother was an APOSTLE?

You are still stuck on that "Who in this thread ever said that James the Lord's Brother was an APOSTLE?"

I have already responded that it does not really matter if James the Lord's brother was NOT an apostle because he was still ALIVE c 67-68 CE and James the brother of the Anointed One in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 was stoned to death c 62 CE when Albinus was about to become procurator of Judea.

Clement wrote an Epistle to James the Lord's brother in the Recognitions after Peter's death in the 14th year of Nero.

Rufinus' Preface to the Recognitions

.... 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, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated....

Jerome's DeViris Illustribus

Simon Peter .........pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.

 

[Craig B]

You are still stuck on that "Who in this thread ever said that James the Lord's Brother was an APOSTLE?"

Indeed I am because you are going on about the non-attestation of something called the Apostle James the Lord's Brother, and I'm asking you who ever said there was such a person.

I have already responded that it does not really matter if James the Lord's brother was NOT an apostle

Then why do you keep saying there never was an Apostle James the Lord's Brother, when nobody is saying that James the Lord's Brother was an Apostle?

Of course I know why. To people who don't read too closely between the lines, it'll look as if you are rightly denying the existence of "James the Lord's Brother" when in fact you are correctly denying the existence of a creature of your own imagination called "The Apostle James the Lord's Brother" that only you called into existence in the first place.

 

[Belz...]

The Bible is a stupid book to use for history.

And there you have it. Your chief argument against the evidence presented is that it's a poopy head.

 

[dejudge]

Of course I know why. To people who don't read too closely between the lines, it'll look as if you are rightly denying the existence of "James the Lord's Brother" when in fact you are correctly denying the existence of a creature of your own imagination called "The Apostle James the Lord's Brother" that only you called into existence in the first place.

What utter absurdity!! I have already showed you that there is a claim about an Apostle James the Lord's brother in Galatians.

PAUL claimed that there was an Apostle called James the Lord's brother.

Galatians 1:19 KJV

But other of the APOSTLES saw I none, save JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER..

People who argue for an HJ TYPICALLY claim Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 refers to Galatians 1.19.

If you do not use Galatians it does NOT matter because James the Lord's brother , whether he was an apostle or not, was ALIVE c 67-68 CE but James the brother of the Anointed one was stoned to death c 62 CE in Antiquities 20.9.1

 

[Brainache]

If you do not use Galatians it does NOT matter because James the Lord's brother , whether he was an apostle or not, was ALIVE c 67-68 CE but James the brother of the Anointed one was stoned to death c 62 CE in Antiquities 20.9.1

What makes you think this is true?

 

[Craig B]

What utter absurdity!! I have already showed you that there is a claim about an Apostle James the Lord's brother in Galatians.

PAUL claimed that there was an Apostle called James the Lord's brother.

Galatians 1:19 KJV

Then argue with Paul, not with anyone here. In fact Paul probably didn't say what the KJV's inattention to punctuation makes him appear to say. Here is NIV

19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

which indicates that he saw no other apostles (at all); he saw only James the Lord's brother. Here's a commentary from "Bible Hub" trying to make sense of Paul's words. As I state (in implicit agreement with NIV), I think its a punctuation issue. Anyway, here goes.

19. - But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother (ἔτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εϊδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου); but no one besides of the apostles saw I, unless it were James the Lord's brother. The words, "unless it were," are here proposed as a rendering of εἰ μή, as betokening a certain degree of hesitancy on the apostle's part as to the perfect justness of the exception which he makes. The reason of this will appear if we consider that "James the Lord's brother" was not really one of the apostles; but nevertheless, through the position which he held in the Church of Jerusalem, and through various circumstances attaching to him, stood in general estimation so near to the revered twelve, that St. Paul felt he was required, in connection with his present statement, to make this reference to him, when affirming so solemnly that Cephas was the only apostle that he then saw.

 

[Belz...]

What utter absurdity!!

How generous of you.