aa5874

What about AJ 20.9.1 is credible?

Jerome claimed James was the cousin of Jesus, and the Church writers claimed Jesus had no earthly father, so AJ 20.9.1 cannot be used as a credible source to determine that Jesus of the NT had a brother named James.

It is clear that Jesus of the NT had a cousin called James according to the Church.


And what are you trying to do by repeating such statement?



What evidence are you talking about to support your proposition that Jesus existed?

There is one single sentence where the word Jesus is mentioned who had a brother called James, but Jesus of the NT had a cousin named James, so AJ 20.9.1 cannot help your proposition. You are busted.


You have information in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.

I have seen this trick too often now from those who have no evidence. They always claim that they have already presented evidence and it was ignored.

It wont work any longer.

You have not presented any evidence for your proposition except the failed AJ 20.9.1 where you tried to claim Jesus had a brother called James when the Church writer Jerome claimed Jesus of the NT had a cousin named James.

AJ 20.9.1 IS BUSTED.

You have nothing.

judge

Why not go and look. Whether it stands the test of real scrutiny is probably a matter of time IMHO. We have seen on threads here how very little peer reviewd work has been done in this area.
The thing about the peshitta is that it does have the potential to transform NT criticism, unlike your irrelevant "hobby horses" such as the 1 Corinthians nonsense.
Problem is that around here you get encouraged, and then you actually begin the believe your own crap (which is precisely what happened with that.)
You propose some ridiculous idea with no evidence, then get a few pats on the back (cos this is the right place to get that approval) and next thing you, like mountainman, are saying you actually believe it now.

Added in edit:
The last peshitta thread was over three years ago Spin and even then it was about the relationship between two Syriac texts not about Aramaic priority as such...you really need to move on.

Is the peshitta a revision of the old Syriac

Rather miraculously , there was no comment from your goodly self. You must have agreed with it.

The last thread by me proposing Aramaic priority was almost four years ago. Yes four years ago Spin...get over it.

Was Mark wriiten in Aramaic

spin

Dealing with evidence has never been a forte of yours, judge. I don't expect you to understand the notion too well.

You know you were on my ignore list.

There's nothing to get over. At one stage it seemed every time you opened your gob it was to dribble the stuff. I guess you don't realize the effect you had publicly falling on your sword about it so frequently. Have you renounced the position or have you just gone silent over it, knowing that you are likely to be treated badly every time you rehash a Younan boo-boo?


spin

judge

If I am having this powerful effect on you Spin, four years later, then you need to get over it. It is really saying something about you, not me. It kinda creeps me out.

I dont take what you say personally, and as you made so many blunders with the Aramaic language it seems best to weigh your "analysis" very carefully.

Chaucer

But not according to Mark and not according to Galatians and not according to Antiq. 20. And they're all earlier than any dumb church and certainly earlier than Jerome!

You say you're asking about evidence here. But I know you well enough now to know that you're really asking about proof. Well, there is no proof. All that we have is evidence, of a widely varied nature. It runs the gamut from Antiq. 20 to Pliny to Suetonius to Tacitus to Galatians to Mark to Q to Thomas (which never made it into the canon) to Matthew to Luke to Acts to John, etc. I don't trust much of what's in John at all, while some of the SEC-UL-AR Roman chronicles have -- sometimes -- pretty sound citations.

That's what we have. And assessing those texts takes us right back to the chemist's dilemma that I cited earlier.

And now I have a question for you: How come you've never addressed the distinction between evidence and proof?

Since Antiq. 20 agrees with the earlier Galatians and Mark against unscrupulous "gloss-iers" in an institutionalized church of a later vintage, I'll take a tripartite consensus of no less than three earlier texts over ad hoc "gloss-iers" any day of the week.

And you use no information at all. The array of evidence that I cited above WHICH IS NOT PROOF is preferable to no resources of info, questionable or otherwise, at all. That's what you and creationists have: Nothing.

Again, you're confusing evidence with proof. Why do you refuse to address the distinction?

Chaucer

spin

Wishful thinking. I merely refer to you having tarred yourself for so long with the same brush that you will appear that way for a long time to come, if you have indeed given up the folly.

You are talking rubbish again, but we expect that when you deal with this subject, projecting your own blunders onto others, knowing nothing tangible about Semitic languages.


spin

Toto

You are very wrong if you think that Zeitgeist the movie is the forefront of the JM movement.

The forefront would be Richard Carrier's upcoming book or some of the members of the Jesus Project.

aa5874

The author of gMark did not claim that Jesus of the NT, THE CARPENTER, had a brother named James. The author asked a question that was never answered by the CARPENTER.

Now, the author of Matthew asked the same question and this time Jesus became the CARPENTER'S SON, and again the CARPENTER'S SON did not answer the question.


Mt 13:55 -
Mr 6:3 - So, it is not true that the author of Mark claimed Jesus had a brother named James.

Now, once Jerome contradicts the Pauline writer then it cannot be concluded that "Paul" was right. "Paul" is known to be a fiction writer, he claimed Jesus a fictitious character in the Jesus stories revealed that he was betrayed in the night and broke bread with his disciples. That is all fiction. Jesus of the NT had no briother. Jesus of the NT did not exist. Paul's Jesus is the Jesus of the NT, the offspring of the HolyGhost of God, resurrected and ascended.

Jerome claimed James was a cousin and Paul claimed he met the Lord's brother called James, now in order to resolve the matter tell me who was the father of James and Jesus in AJ 20.91?

You have no evidence only unsubstantiated claims.

People were called Christians before the Jesus stories were written. Simon Magus was called a Christian during the time of Claudius before the Gospels were written.

Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus wrote about Christians and never mentioned Jesus.


It is simply false to claim AJ 20.9.1 agrees with Galatians or gMark. when you KNOW that Jesus of the NT was claimed to have no earthly father, that he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God. Jesus of the NT was God and man..

Jesus of the NT, including gMark and Galatians, agrees with AJ 18.3.3 where Jesus was claimed to have resurrected.


You call an ambiguous sentence an array of evidence. One sentence in AJ 20.9.1 that tell us nothing about James except he was killed and had a brother Jesus called Christ.

Please tell me who was the father of Jesus of the NT and the father of the Jesus in AJ 20.9.1?

You are the one who cannot support your proposition that Jesus existed as human. The NT and the Church writers do not support your proposition and the non-apologetic sources do not make reference to Jesus even when mentioning christians.

I never did ask you for proof but for sources of antiquity that can show that Jesus of the NT was human.

And none can be found except for forgeries in Josephus.

lpetrich

True, many of them may have doctrinal commitments that may get in the way, especially when it seems like they are making Jesus Christ in their likeness.

But there is no shortage of purely secular speculation where such problems are less apparent, if present at all.

So I think that we ought to try to evaluate historical-Jesus and mythical-Jesus scenarios on their merits, not on how mainstream they supposedly are or whether their advocates have doctrinal axes to grind.

ApostateAbe

• "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend", by Bart D. Ehrman, Reviews in Religion & Theology
• "Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet," BD Ehrman - Perspectives in religious studies, 2000
• "The Origin of the Son of Man Concept as Applied to Jesus," WO Walker Jr - Journal of Biblical Literature, 1972.
• "Apocalypse Then and Now: Apocalyptic and the Historical Jesus Reconsidered", WII Herzog - Pacific Theological Review, 1984.
• "Prolegomena to reconstructing the eschatological teaching of Jesus," NH Taylor - Neotestamentica, 1999.
• "Abba and 'Father': Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions," MR D'Angelo - Journal of Biblical Literature, 1992
• "Apocalyptic Traditions in the Lukan Special Material: Reading Luke 18:1-8," F Bovon - The Harvard Theological Review, 1997.
• "The apocalyptic rhetoric of Mark 13 in historical context," AY Collins - Biblical research, 1996.
• "Apocalyptic, Wisdom and the historical Jesus Debate," S Freyne - Revista Catalana de Teologia, 2008.
• "Matthew's Portrait of Jesus the Judge with Special Reference to Matthew 21-25," AI Wilson - TYNDALE BULLETIN, 2003.
• "The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions," JA Colombo - The Journal of Religion, 1992.
• "Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology," E Fahlbusch - Journal of Early Christian Studies, 1999.
• "Mark, Christology and Discipleship," P Foster - The Expository Times, 2006.
• "The Composition of Mark IX 1," N Perrin - Novum Testamentum, 1969.
• "The Son of Man in Mark 2:10 and 2:28," LS Hay - Journal of Biblical Literature, 1970.
• "The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Response to John S. Kloppenborg," R Cameron - The Harvard Theological Review, 1996.
• "An Authentic Saying of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas?," EK BROADHEAD - New Testament Studies, 2000.
• "Whose Apocalypse? The Identity of the Sons of God in Romans 8:19," S Eastman - Journal of Biblical Literature, 2002.
• "The Baptism of Jesus and the Son of Man Idea," P GARNET - Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 1980.