Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

6. I have already shown that there is NO brother of Jesus listed as an Apostle James in the Gospels and Acts.

Nobody here has said there was a brother of Jesus called James listed as an Apostle. You are refuting the existence of something produced from your own imagination.

 

[dejudge]

Nobody here has said there was a brother of Jesus called James listed as an Apostle. You are refuting the existence of something produced from your own imagination.

You obviously do not know that people have used Galatians 1.19.

You have already put forward the bizarre claim that Galatians 1.19 does not refer to James the Apostle but it was QUICKLY debunked when I showed you Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19.

James in Galatians 1.19 did have the title of an Apostle and was NOT the brother of Jesus.

Essentially your claim is irrelevant, whether or not James in Galatians 1.19 was an apostle, he was still NOT the brother of Jesus.

Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.`19

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.

You have no basis at all to claim Jesus Christ in the Bible is your HJ when you DENY your HJ was the Christ.

 

[Brainache]

You obviously do not know that people have used Galatians 1.19.

You have already put forward the bizarre claim that Galatians 1.19 does not refer to James the Apostle but it was QUICKLY debunked when I showed you Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19.

James in Galatians 1.19 did have the title of an Apostle and was NOT the brother of Jesus.

Essentially your claim is irrelevant, whether or not James in Galatians 1.19 was an apostle, he was still NOT the brother of Jesus.

Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.`19

You have no basis at all to claim Jesus Christ in the Bible is your HJ when you DENY your HJ was the Christ.

Why do you think Chrysostom knows more about James than Paul does? Did Chrysostom meet James?

 

[dejudge]

Why do you think Chrysostom knows more about James than Paul does? Did Chrysostom meet James?

Did you meet James?

Now, look at De Viris Illustribus

James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord.

James is NOT the brother of Jesus Christ.


Do you know more than Chrysostom and Jerome about James and Paul?

 

[Brainache]

Did you meet James?

Now, look at De Viris Illustribus

James is NOT the brother of Jesus Christ.


Do you know more than Chrysostom and Jerome about James and Paul?

I know that they wanted to believe that Mary was a virgin. That is why they changed the story from Brother, to half-Brother to Cousin.

You apparently just believe whatever these old charlatans tell you.

 

[Craig B]

... You have already put forward the bizarre claim that Galatians 1.19 does not refer to James the Apostle but it was QUICKLY debunked when I showed you Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19.

James in Galatians 1.19 did have the title of an Apostle and was NOT the brother of Jesus.

Essentially your claim is irrelevant, whether or not James in Galatians 1.19 was an apostle, he was still NOT the brother of Jesus.

That's right. The Apostle James was not the brother of Jesus. James the brother of Jesus was not an apostle. Chrysostom is not a contributor to this thread.

 

[Belz...]

None of us here are professionals in the field; the subject of this thread and other authors have actually used that phrase to write whole books on how it is evidence that the historical Jesus existed. So, in essence, it doesn't matter if no one in this thread has said "must".

Wait, what ? In response to Elagabalus' post about Joe Smith, IanS pops a neuron and laments "Oh, good grief ... not the same old claim that Paul's three words in a c.200AD Christian copy (P46) must have meant that someone called James was certainly the family brother of a miraculous Jesus.", and you think it doesn't matter if the claim comes from the poster he was replying to ?

Of course it matters. If you say "hi, Belz..." and I say "Aw, not another pedophilia supporter", I think it would matter to you and everyone involved in the conversation if you, in fact, had never made any claim of the sort.

 

[dejudge]

That's right. The Apostle James was not the brother of Jesus. James the brother of Jesus was not an apostle. Chrysostom is not a contributor to this thread.

Your statement is utterly erroneous. Christian writers did claim James called the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19 was an apostle.

Why do you refuse to even admit what is found written in Galatians and Apologetic sources?

You contribute nothing to the thread when you cannot even repeat what Chrysostom wrote.

You are posting in the 21st century and want me to reject what Chrysostom wrote around the 4th century.

Why do you think that you know more about early Christianity that Chrysostom?

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is utterly erroneous. Christian writers did claim James called the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19 was an apostle.

Why do you refuse to even admit what is found written in Galatians and Apologetic sources?

You contribute nothing to the thread when you cannot even repeat what Chrysostom wrote.

You are posting in the 21st century and want me to reject what Chrysostom wrote around the 4th century.

Why do you think that you know more about early Christianity that Chrysostom?

We have access to much more information than he had. We have developed methods for analysing texts that he would think were witchcraft.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is utterly erroneous. Christian writers did claim James called the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19 was an apostle.

Why do you refuse to even admit what is found written in Galatians and Apologetic sources?

You contribute nothing to the thread when you cannot even repeat what Chrysostom wrote.

You are posting in the 21st century and want me to reject what Chrysostom wrote around the 4th century.

Why do you think that you know more about early Christianity that [sic] Chrysostom?

Because Chrysostom was not a rational historian. He was a fourth century theologian, whose opinions on the church are described thus, here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

On the other side Chrysostom explicitly acknowledges as a rule of faith tradition as laid down by the authoritative teaching of the Church. This Church, he says, is but one, by the unity of her doctrine; she is spread over the whole world, she is the one Bride of Christ. As to Christology, Chrysostom holds clearly that Christ is God and man in one person, but he never enters into deeper examination of the manner of this union.

So if you want to accept regarding early Christianity that the Church was the Bride of Christ, who was God and man in one person, on you go; but you won't find me agreeing with such nonsense. Here is an account of what he has to say about Jews, by the way, in Sermon 1:6.

There is no material in these sermons for a study of contemporary Jewish life. Events and beliefs of centuries earlier are quoted as though still accepted. On the strength of Psalm xcvi, 37, he states that they ' sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils: they outraged nature; and overthrew from their foundations the laws of relationship. They are become worse than the wild beasts, and for no reason at all, with their own hands they murder their own offspring, to worship the avenging devils who are the foes of our life"

Yes, I want you to reject Chrysostom.

 

[dejudge]

We have access to much more information than he had. We have developed methods for analysing texts that he would think were witchcraft.

Your statement is void of logic. How in the world can you determine that you have access to more information than Chrysostom WTHOUT evidence?

In "Did Jesus Exist" the methodology used by Ehrman was far worse than witchcraft.

 

[dejudge]

Because Chrysostom was not a rational historian. He was a fourth century theologian, whose opinions on the church are described thus, here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

And who are you in the 21st century? Are you a theologian or a historian? What do you know about James and Paul?

So if you want to accept regarding early Christianity that the Church was the Bride of Christ, who was God and man in one person, on you go; but you won't find me agreeing with such nonsense. Here is an account of what he has to say about Jews, by the way, in Sermon 1:6. Yes, I want you to reject Chrysostom.

You agree with Paul who had hallucinations or was a Liar?

You want to REJECT the Pauline Corpus?

The Pauline writers claimed Jesus was the Son of God, God Creator and was made a Spirit--the Last Adam.

You think I will agree with pack of lies of Paul when he claimed he was seen of a resurrected dead.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is void of logic. How in the world can you determine that you have access to more information than Chrysostom WTHOUT evidence?

From the material I have cited above. C was a dogmatist. My sources agree that he didn't collect rational information. Look at the comment on the anti-Jewish sermons

There is no material in these sermons for a study of contemporary Jewish life.

He didn't examine factual material even of his own day, let alone centuries before. Bigoted moral homily and religious speculation were his specialities. Look at the copious material about him on the internet, and you will see this time after time.

In "Did Jesus Exist" the methodology used by Ehrman was far worse than witchcraft.

Are you sure you mean that? In what sense, "worse"? That really is a most remarkable thing to write.

 

[Craig B]

Tell me of an unknown person who you know exist wthout evidence?

I don't know any unknown people. I only know known people. Nobody knows any unknown people.

 

[dejudge]

I don't know any unknown people. I only know known people. Nobody knows any unknown people.

Tell that to Brainache. He may not know.

How come you talk about an HJ?

HJ is a nobody--an unknown!!

 

[Craig B]

Tell that to Brainache. He may not know.

You mean, he may not know he doesn't know any unknown people. He may not know that he only knows known people, and that nobody knows any unknown people. Perhaps he doesn't know that, but perhaps he does.

 

[clayflingythingy]

I see the pro J side is still screaming "consensus" while offering up no evidence.

When I first started lurking these threads I had no problem with the scenario that J was a rabble rousing preacher who got himself whacked by the Roman's and his followers came to believe he was the messiah.

Pigward was going to prove the existence of HJ but he disappeared. The PRO HJ group keep shouting "consensus" at the top of their lungs but that's all they got as far as I can tell.

I've moved into the we can't know camp.

James, the Lord's Brother seems to be referring to a sibling to me, but the phrase is in dispute.

It really is no use to lurk these threads any longer as nothing new has been said for ages.

And Stone, Dejudge, and others are quite uncivil and their posts not worth reading.

If any pro HJ evidence is ever offered here someone send me a PM.

 

[Foster Zygote]

See the highlighted part of your own words (above) - what that actually says is that everyone does believe that the JESUS STORIES do have a historical core. And if that statement means anything at all, then it means you are saying that everyone believes the Jesus stories themselves, that is the stuff about Jesus, does have some basis in historical fact.

No, it doesn't. In order to force such an inference as yours, you have to attempt to eliminate the second part of my statement that makes clear that I am not asserting that the historical origins of Christianity can only have been a corporeal Jesus. You did this at first by actually omitting the text. Now that you've been caught, you are insisting the the text is simply irrelevant and that it be ignored.

You are deliberately quote mining my post, and it is a dishonest debate tactic. So have fun with your strawman.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I thank you for your polite response.

You are most welcome. And thank you.

 

[dejudge]

I see the pro J side is still screaming "consensus" while offering up no evidence.

When I first started lurking these threads I had no problem with the scenario that J was a rabble rousing preacher who got himself whacked by the Roman's and his followers came to believe he was the messiah.

Pigward was going to prove the existence of HJ but he disappeared. The PRO HJ group keep shouting "consensus" at the top of their lungs but that's all they got as far as I can tell.

I've moved into the we can't know camp.

James, the Lord's Brother seems to be referring to a sibling to me, but the phrase is in dispute.

It really is no use to lurk these threads any longer as nothing new has been said for ages.

And Stone, Dejudge, and others are quite uncivil and their posts not worth reading.

If any pro HJ evidence is ever offered here someone send me a PM.

This is EXACTLY what I expect to happen.

People will move from the HJ camp AFTER it is noticed that they have nothing to offer for their UNKNOWN dead HJ.

There are only two viable options--either agnosticism about the historicity of Jesus or that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

The unofficial poll on this very forum so far shows that about 80% of those who took part are NOT in the HJ camp.

This is my SPECIFIC goal to expose the utter weakness of the HJ argument which will ultimately make people run away from HJ.

So far I have been able to DEBUNK every logical fallacy of the HJ argument.