Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

In fact, it isn't ambiguous at all. In all three of the extant versions of the Ascension of Isaiah, the Beloved (Christ) comes to earth and is found 'dwelling among men'. So Dr Carrier is wrong if he suggests otherwise. I go into this in detail on the Early Writings forum where I created a thread a couple of years ago on the topic:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4640

Jesus is crucified on earth according to the Ethiopic version, which has Jesus born to Mary and is crucified in Jerusalem. The Slavonic/Latin texts have the Beloved come to earth, to dwell among men. While the location of the crucifixion in the Slavonic/Latin texts is missing, it is clearly below the firmament, since the Beloved descends below the firmament before the story hits the fragmented sections. But the passages earlier in the text implies that the crucifixion takes place on earth, though Ben C Smith -- a man who knows much more than me! -- suggests in the thread that the original author possibly had Hades in mind. But it seems to be either earth or Hades, and not the firmament.

So in the three extant versions of the Ascension of Isaiah, we have:
1. the Beloved descending to earth and dwelling among men in all extant versions
2. No crucifixion in the firmament

That's clear in the extant texts. The text that Carrier refers to in his books and videos is a 'reconstruction', but people reading his book and viewing his videos on the topic come away with the idea that Carrier has actually found a variant text that supports a heavenly crucifixion. However, no such text exists outside of Carrier's imagination.

If anyone doubts this, read the link. I've cited all the pertinent passages so you can check this for yourself.

But, but, Carrier is a genius! Just ask him...

 

[IanS]

OK, well … all neutral readers can now see for themselves that we have reached the point in this thread where it is now openly being said that the reason we know Jesus was real is because it says so in the bible.

Thats' the level of pro-HJ argument that we are actually dealing with here.

And by the way (just for more objectively educated neutral readers here) – in checking a few “facts” before writing parts of my above posts, I listened to a YouTube interview with Bart Ehrman where he actually says (I'll paraphrase from memory, but I'll include the link below so you can listen yourself to exactly what he says) … “we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that people expected a Priestly Messiah preaching the apocalypse of End Times” … OK, so the point is – that is exactly what I have said here about 12 times now (eg taking it from the book by Hodge; full ref given earlier) …

… so here is a bible scholar (actually by far the THE most prominent bible scholar on this specific subject of Jesus Historicity), saying exactly what I had said from the Dead Sea Scrolls … namely (in case the point is not crystal clear) – the very same thing that Paul was preaching in those letters about a priestly messiah named Yehosua/Iesous (ie “Jesus” in 11th century English), was already being preached in the Dead Sea scrolls in that exact same tiny region from probably at least 200 years before Paul.

In that same interview, as proof that James was indeed the human brother of a human Jesus, Ehrman makes the same joke that he made in his public book-reading for the launch of his book Did Jesus Exist (and this is something that I have also mentioned here several times before) - namely, that when asked about the evidence for Jesus in the light of scepticism or “mythicism”, he says about James in that half-sentence in one of Paul's letters “you would think his own brother would know if Jesus was real! Ha ha!” …

… well, Ehrman may think that's an amusing remark, but as his main evidence of Jesus he is actually trying to tell people that the half-sentence show's Jesus was indeed real because his own brother would have certainly known that Jesus was real … so according to Ehrman that's effectively a proof of Jesus right there in the letter… and that's the standard of academic incompetence that people here are constantly appealing to as their “authority” in this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtOq-o-5Y6I

 

[GDon]

But, but, Carrier is a genius! Just ask him...

Dr Carrier is the living embodiment of the expression "Often wrong, never in doubt."

 

[Brainache]

Dr Carrier is the living embodiment of the expression "Often wrong, never in doubt."

I think I know the type.

 

[Jerrymander]

And by the way (just for more objectively educated neutral readers here) – in checking a few “facts” before writing parts of my above posts, I listened to a YouTube interview with Bart Ehrman where he actually says (I'll paraphrase from memory, but I'll include the link below so you can listen yourself to exactly what he says) … “we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that people expected a Priestly Messiah preaching the apocalypse of End Times” … OK, so the point is – that is exactly what I have said here about 12 times now (eg taking it from the book by Hodge; full ref given earlier) …

… so here is a bible scholar (actually by far the THE most prominent bible scholar on this specific subject of Jesus Historicity), saying exactly what I had said from the Dead Sea Scrolls … namely (in case the point is not crystal clear) – the very same thing that Paul was preaching in those letters about a priestly messiah named Yehosua/Iesous (ie “Jesus” in 11th century English), was already being preached in the Dead Sea scrolls in that exact same tiny region from probably at least 200 years before Paul.

Show were Hodge talks about an early belief in an executed messiah or that Jesus was a myth. Otherwise you're wasting your time.

 

[IanS]

Show were Hodge talks about an early belief in an executed messiah or that Jesus was a myth. Otherwise you're wasting your time.

I do not have to do any such thing. And you are still waaaaay overdue for producing your proof of how you showed James to be the human brother of a human Jesus.

But I already told you that the book by Stephen Hodge (see link below to buy a copy, or just borrow a copy from your local library) is NOT a book about Jesus, or about any so-called "mythicism" or anything whatsoever like that. It's book entirely about the Dead Sea Scrolls ... but unusually amongst those books on the Scrolls, it does explain in one chapter that what we see in the Scrolls is belief in an apocalyptic priestly messiah (just as Bart Ehrman himself agrees is true), and that such preaching was by then quite commonplace and was replacing the earlier preaching/teaching where traditional OT preaching had for hundreds of years previously believed that the messiah would be a princely royal or military leader who would save the fortunes of the people of Israel (God's chosen people) in battle by leading them to great victories over all those who they saw as their enemies ...

... but that later preaching, and different variations of that, which was (according to Hodge) becoming commonplace by the time of the Scrolls circa 200BC onwards, is exactly what you find being preached by Paul over 200 years later ...

... so in other words, it seems very likely indeed from that background, that whilst before his vision Paul was still "old school" in preaching the traditional OT messianic beliefs, his vision suddenly convinced him that such newer preaching was right and that God had now revealed to him that the messiah had already been upon the Earth and that his message was indeed that of apocalyptic warning where the faithful would be risen even from death unto heaven ... and all of that is really unarguably clear in Paul's letters (in fact, that was Paul's entire gospel message, for which he actually says "for if Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain").

Here's a link to the book, so you can get a copy -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Sea-S...ead+sea+scrolls&qid=1594638541&s=books&sr=1-1

 

[Brainache]

I do not have to do any such thing. And you are still waaaaay overdue for producing your proof of how you showed James to be the human brother of a human Jesus.

But I already told you that the book by Stephen Hodge (see link below to buy a copy, or just borrow a copy from your local library) is NOT a book about Jesus, or about any so-called "mythicism" or anything whatsoever like that. It's book entirely about the Dead Sea Scrolls ... but unusually amongst those books on the Scrolls, it does explain in one chapter that what we see in the Scrolls is belief in an apocalyptic priestly messiah (just as Bart Ehrman himself agrees is true), and that such preaching was by then quite commonplace and was replacing the earlier preaching/teaching where traditional OT preaching had for hundreds of years previously believed that the messiah would be a princely royal or military leader who would save the fortunes of the people of Israel (God's chosen people) in battle by leading them to great victories over all those who they saw as their enemies ...

... but that later preaching, and different variations of that, which was (according to Hodge) becoming commonplace by the time of the Scrolls circa 200BC onwards, is exactly what you find being preached by Paul over 200 years later ...

... so in other words, it seems very likely indeed from that background, that whilst before his vision Paul was still "old school" in preaching the traditional OT messianic beliefs, his vision suddenly convinced him that such newer preaching was right and that God had now revealed to him that the messiah had already been upon the Earth and that his message was indeed that of apocalyptic warning where the faithful would be risen even from death unto heaven ... and all of that is really unarguably clear in Paul's letters (in fact, that was Paul's entire gospel message, for which he actually says "for if Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain").

Here's a link to the book, so you can get a copy -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Sea-S...ead+sea+scrolls&qid=1594638541&s=books&sr=1-1

I think you'll find that the Sectarian Scrolls which contain the descriptions of the "Priestly Messiah" (still a real flesh and blood human BTW) are more likely 1st Century CE, just based on the internal evidence.

The margin of error for the carbon dating that has been done so far as I know has a margin of error greater than the time the Qumran site was occupied.

I could be wrong.

 

[Delvo]

...interview with Bart Ehrman where he actually says (I'll paraphrase from memory, but I'll include the link below so you can listen yourself to exactly what he says) … “we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that people expected a Priestly Messiah preaching the apocalypse of End Times”... the very same thing that Paul was preaching in those letters

...more likely 1st Century CE, just based on the internal evidence.

Also not the claimed content. Ehrman's words are either "a great, mighty priest" or "a great and mighty priest". (If the "and" is there, he dropped the A and D, so the N sort of merges with the adjacent M.) No apocalypse, no end-times, no losing. A priestly messiah would have been somebody who lived to unite & lead all Jews and convert the world, not a wandering heretical loudmouth with distinctly un-Jewish ideas that most Jews would reject and a few thousand followers who would get killed or scattered by a Roman riot squad.

But this idea of Jesus being made up to fulfill an old prophecy of a priestly messiah has another oddity built in too: the idea of claiming that a prophecy had already been fulfilled by something that nobody noticed because nothing changed, and having that claim actually believed by other people. I'm familiar with claims of fulfilled prophecy that involve creative reinterpretation of either the prophecy itself or real well-known events or both, like the siege of Tyre, but is there any precedent anywhere else for a popularly-accepted prophetic story being "oh, it already happened, but it just wasn't a big deal; you've never heard of the fulfilling event because it just didn't change anything and nobody noticed"? Or is this just another example of the MJ case hinging on sociological unrealism, requiring people to accept something that people wouldn't really have accepted?

 

[dejudge]

Also not the claimed content. Ehrman's words are either "a great, mighty priest" or "a great and mighty priest". (If the "and" is there, he dropped the A and D, so the N sort of merges with the adjacent M.) No apocalypse, no end-times, no losing. A priestly messiah would have been somebody who lived to unite & lead all Jews and convert the world, not a wandering heretical loudmouth with distinctly un-Jewish ideas that most Jews would reject and a few thousand followers who would get killed or scattered by a Roman riot squad.

But this idea of Jesus being made up to fulfill an old prophecy of a priestly messiah has another oddity built in too: the idea of claiming that a prophecy had already been fulfilled by something that nobody noticed because nothing changed, and having that claim actually believed by other people. I'm familiar with claims of fulfilled prophecy that involve creative reinterpretation of either the prophecy itself or real well-known events or both, like the siege of Tyre, but is there any precedent anywhere else for a popularly-accepted prophetic story being "oh, it already happened, but it just wasn't a big deal; you've never heard of the fulfilling event because it just didn't change anything and nobody noticed"? Or is this just another example of the MJ case hinging on sociological unrealism, requiring people to accept something that people wouldn't really have accepted?

Christian writings do state that their Jesus and his actions were products of supposed prophecies found in Hebrew Scripture.
The book of gMatthew alone have multiple references to the supposed prophecies from conception to crucifixion.

Matthew 1:22
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet
Matthew 2.5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
Matthew 2:15
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet
Matthew 2:17
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

Matthew 2.23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareththat it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Matthew 3:3
this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias
Matthew 4.14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Matthew 8.17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.


Matthew 12.17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Matthew 13.35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 21:4 All this was donethat it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,
Matthew 24.15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Matthew 26.56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.


You are just posting a load of nonsense.

Christians of antiquity and even today believe all the events about their Jesus were indeed fulfilled prophecies and worship him as the Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But this idea of Jesus being made up to fulfill an old prophecy of a priestly messiah has another oddity built in too: the idea of claiming that a prophecy had already been fulfilled by something that nobody noticed because nothing changed, and having that claim actually believed by other people.

It depends on how willing those people are to believe it. If a purported messiah needs to have fulfilled an old prophecy then there is an incentive for his followers to believe that he has - and if he hasn't, to make up stuff. Other possibilities include mundane events being mistaken for fulfillment of a prophecy, or actions being taken to (purportedly) fulfill it.

Making up stuff or twisting facts to make it look like your leader is great is not confined to religions, and in no way indicates that the leader is imaginary. For example,

Donald J. Trump

His campaign slogan for President was, “Make America Great Again,” and that is exactly what he is doing.

 

[GDon]

Making up stuff or twisting facts to make it look like your leader is great is not confined to religions, and in no way indicates that the leader is imaginary. For example,

Donald J. Trump

And also Trump is the self-declared "Chosen One" (12 secs video).

From this article: "“He's the chosen one to run America: Inside the cult of Trump, his rallies are church and he is the Gospel"
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...p-his-rallies-are-church-and-he-is-the-gospel

Many followers deploy a familiar Christian-right formula for justifying abuses of power, declaring Trump a modern King David, a sinner nonetheless anointed, while others compare him to Queen Esther, destined to save Israel—or at least the evangelical imagination of it—from Iran.

Still others draw parallels to Cyrus, the Old Testament Persian king who became a tool for God’s will. “A vessel for God,” says former congressman Zach Wamp, now a member of The Family, the evangelical organization that hosts Trump every year at the National Prayer Breakfast.​

If any group started to believe that the "vessel for God" ascended to heaven after death, and started to pray to him, then he would become a full-blown divine figure.

The difference is that Trump is wildly popular/infamous at the moment. Jesus probably became notable only after death, and that was tied into what was happening around Christianity.

 

[dejudge]

It depends on how willing those people are to believe it. If a purported messiah needs to have fulfilled an old prophecy then there is an incentive for his followers to believe that he has - and if he hasn't, to make up stuff. Other possibilities include mundane events being mistaken for fulfillment of a prophecy, or actions being taken to (purportedly) fulfill it.

Making up stuff or twisting facts to make it look like your leader is great is not confined to religions, and in no way indicates that the leader is imaginary. For example,

Donald J. Trump

What a ridiculous statement.
What absolute nonsense.

There are perhaps millions of made up characters in fiction novels and the writings of religious cults all over the world


The very fact that people [Christian or not] believe Gods, Devils, Demons, Angels and Holy Ghosts exist is evidence that made up characters are accepted as real beings.

 

[Delvo]

If a purported messiah needs to have fulfilled an old prophecy then there is an incentive for his followers to believe that he has - and if he hasn't, to make up stuff. Other possibilities include mundane events being mistaken for fulfillment of a prophecy, or actions being taken to (purportedly) fulfill it.

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 and made up prophecy-fulfilling events that hadn't even happened in any form at all. That's different from saying that some real person was a prophecy-fulfiller or some real event was a prophecy-fulfillment.

Has it (the former) ever happened in any (other) cases we know of? It seems like it wouldn't because normally, new religious ideas that actually gain much acceptance from people who weren't raised on them do so by being emotionally compelling, and "some guy whom nobody you can meet ever met did this thing a while ago that nobody you know ever heard of because it made no difference" scores zero on the emotional compellingness scale.

 

[dejudge]

...The difference is that Trump is wildly popular/infamous at the moment. Jesus probably became notable only after death, and that was tied into what was happening around Christianity.

What you say is baseless. A blatant mis-representation of the Jesus stories

You have no historical evidence at all - none whatsoever, that NT Jesus lived or died.

The stories of the Jesus of Nazareth in the fables called the NT specifically state that the character was famous with thousands of people following him sometimes for days without even eating.

Matthew 8.34--- And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.


Mark 1.28 And his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
Mark 8.1In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them,
2-9 I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat...…………And they that had eaten were about four thousand.
It is most disturbing that you claim Carrier is wrong about the place of the crucifixion but is now openly mis-representing the fact that it is claimed Jesus, the water-walker, was extremely well-known in the region before his death.

 

[dejudge]

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 and made up prophecy-fulfilling events that hadn't even happened in any form at all. That's different from saying that some real person was a prophecy-fulfiller or some real event was a prophecy-fulfillment.

Has it (the former) ever happened in any (other) cases we know of? It seems like it wouldn't because normally, new religious ideas that actually gain much acceptance from people who weren't raised on them do so by being emotionally compelling, and "some guy whom nobody you can meet ever met did this thing a while ago that nobody you know ever heard of because it made no difference" scores zero on the emotional compellingness scale.

What you assume is irrelevant.

If the NT authors wanted to write about a human being it would make no sense for them to claim their Lord and Savior Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father.

The author of gLuke even stated that his story about Jesus the son of a Ghost was gotten from witnesses.

Luke 1:2---Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word.

Acts 2.32 32 --This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Jesus of Nazareth was always a Ghost story from conception to ascension.

Superstitious people believe Ghosts are real and even mundanely talk to them on earth.

 

[Tassman]

No! Absolutely not. Have read the book by Hodge? No. Why not? Get a copy and educate yourself about what he says there about the contents of Dead Sea Scrolls and the belief that the messiah would not be a Kingly military leader as previously thought & taught from 800 years or more before the Scrolls, but instead it was by then, 200BC to 70AD, being widely preached that the true meaning of OT messiah prophecy was that the promised messiah would be a priestly preacher of "end times" ... I have explained that to you at least 10 times here now.

And that's exactly what Paul was preaching 200 years later in 35 to 60AD.

And you present it as a fact that certain claims about Jesus were "retro fitted" on to a human Jesus of the 1st century ... OK, so you also need to produce a proof of how you ascertained that as a factual certainty ...

Please provide the proof of your claimed fact that such claims were merely "retro fitted" on to a human Jesus.

One scholar (Hodge) does not a convincing argument make.

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. Jesus is presented throughout the NT as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David.

But Jesus manifestly didn’t deliver the goods. Hence the recasting of the messiah as the ‘suffering serving’ based upon a few passages in Isaiah by those, such as Paul, determined to promote the Jesus story.

 

[Kapyong]

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 :

1 Cor. 9:5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Does Jerrymander believe that Jesus had OTHER brothers?
Or does it only apply when it supports his beliefs ?


1 Cor 1:1 Sosthenes is "brother" - not literal.

Col. 1:1 Timothy is "brother" - not literal.

1 Cor 15:6 500 "brothers" - not literal.

Phil 1:14 "brothers in the Lord" - not literal.

1 Cor 6:5 "brothers" and "brethren" - not literal.

Eph. 6:21 Tychicus "dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord" - not literal.

Heb 2:11-12 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,

“I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”

Paul is happy to call fellow believers "brothers".
But they are not literal brothers.

Claiming that the ambiguous phrase 'Lord's brother' means a physical, literal brother in exactly ONE place, and NOT in others - is simply special pleading aimed at supporting a faithful belief that faithful believers all faithfully believe and repeat endlessly with out any basis.

Kapyong

 

[dejudge]

One scholar (Hodge) does not a convincing argument make.

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. Jesus is presented throughout the NT as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David.

But Jesus manifestly didn’t deliver the goods. Hence the recasting of the messiah as the ‘suffering serving’ based upon a few passages in Isaiah by those, such as Paul, determined to promote the Jesus story.

Your proposition doesn't make any sense!!

Why would Jews re-cast a known dead man as Jesus the Messiah decades after his death when according to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Jews expected their Messianic ruler sometime around the Jewish War c66-70 CE.

The Jews expected a Messianic ruler not a suffering servant and this is confirmed c 133 CE when Simon Bar Cocheba was regarded as the Messianic ruler of the Jews after the short-lived defeat of the Romans.

Simon Bar Cocheba was not re-cast as a suffering servant after he was captured and killed by the Romans.

In addition, the Ascension of Isaiah was supposedly written long after the Gospels were already composed and used by early Jesus cult Christians.

No NT writer mentioned anything from the Ascension of Isaiah or that their Jesus was a suffering servant.

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.

 

[dejudge]

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 :



Does Jerrymander believe that Jesus had OTHER brothers?
Or does it only apply when it supports his beliefs ?


1 Cor 1:1 Sosthenes is "brother" - not literal.

Col. 1:1 Timothy is "brother" - not literal.

1 Cor 15:6 500 "brothers" - not literal.

Phil 1:14 "brothers in the Lord" - not literal.

1 Cor 6:5 "brothers" and "brethren" - not literal.

Eph. 6:21 Tychicus "dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord" - not literal.



Paul is happy to call fellow believers "brothers".
But they are not literal brothers.

Claiming that the ambiguous phrase 'Lord's brother' means a physical, literal brother in exactly ONE place, and NOT in others - is simply special pleading aimed at supporting a faithful belief that faithful believers all faithfully believe and repeat endlessly with out any basis.

Kapyong

James, the son of Damneus, in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is not James the brother of God [the Lord] in Galatians 1.

James the son of Damneus was stoned to death in c 62-63 CE and James the brother of God[the Lord] was alive up to c 68-69 CE in Christian writings.

See the 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..

Jerome' De Viris 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.

In Christian writings Peter was executed under Nero in the 14th year of his reign c68-69 CE when Clement and James were still alive.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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 :

Not at all the same as 'the Lord's brother'. if every follower of Jesus was a 'brother', why say that James was 'the' Lord's brother - as if he was the only one? It doesn't compute.

But we don't need Paul to tell us that Jesus (if he existed) was a flesh and blood person. Does Paul deny the accounts of a human Jesus as described in the Bible? Or is there any evidence that these accounts did not exist when Paul was around?

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. Why should we believe that they just made it all up, when the normal behavior of cults is to deify their leader not invent him? Why should this time be different? What are the mythicists so afraid of that they have to swap skepticism for a conspiracy theory?

Christ myth theory

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory) is the view that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no substantial claims to historical fact. Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." It is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view...

Maurice Casey has criticized the mythicists, pointing out their complete ignorance of how modern critical scholarship actually works. He also criticizes mythicists for their frequent assumption that all modern scholars of religion are Protestant fundamentalists of the American variety, insisting that this assumption is not only totally inaccurate, but also exemplary of the mythicists' misconceptions about the ideas and attitudes of mainstream scholars.