Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 03-16-2012, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, I think the issue is a much more uncomfortable problem than usual. If there is any question, the typical and reasonable way for historians to decide what Paul meant by calling James "the Lord's brother" would be to examine how other authors in the time period understood it. In this case, the question would be very clearly resolved in favor of the position that Paul meant a literal brother of Jesus, per Matthew, Mark and Josephus.

We are all ears.

Explain to us how Matthew, Mark and Josephus used the phrase 'the Lord's brother.'

How did people calling themselves James, or the brother of James use the phrase?

Josephus does not use exactly that same phrase. He writes, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," which would be sufficient to shed light on Paul's use of the phrase, "the Lord's brother." Paul always uses the title, "Lord," to refer to Jesus. Some mythicists have proposed that this is actually just a title of respected leaders in the Christian movement, which, in contrast, is not attested to any degree. Matthew and Mark list four brothers of Jesus, one of them named "James."

outhouse · 03-16-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

false

we know who wrote what, and what epistles were not attributed to paul. And can see the redactions.

Some of the epistles are not up for dispute by anyone.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? Would that be a sample of your run of the mill christian academics? The magic word of course is "christian" which helps confuse scholarship and (a better variety of) apologetics.

Sounds like you're again citing the views of your run of the mill christian academics. When you say "true" above you basically rule yourself out of the race to reclaim convenient untainted bits of the tainted passage. The academic who engages in the ad hoc reclamation of bits of the TF obviously has an ontology, but no coherent epistemology to support it.

While I would never call much of the gospel material myth, the gospel material certainly doesn't inspire any hope of extracting history from it. Your comment once again seems like more optimism based on christian academic apologetics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

the hellenized early writers often wrote mythically of mortal men not in question by anyone. mortal men were deified all the time that we know existed.

Unlike many of those writers you refer to the genre of the gospels evinces a religious core, rather than religious trimming. They are a different stuff from a lot of the early hellenistic and Roman writers. The gospels are also anonymous works whose dates of writing are unknown as are their provenances, unlike a lot of those hellenistic and Roman writers. Then look at just who are trying to extract history from the christian texts and why.

The gospels are rather irrelevant to history when you consider that the earliest christian writer known, Paul, never met the central figure of christianity, relying on the revelation by god of Jesus on which to base his religious message. (Gal 1:11-16) All other writings we have are after his time, so there is no evidence of a chain back to a real Jesus. It dies with Paul.

Forget the mythology stuff despite its popularity), if you're interested in trying to do history with early christianity. The major hurdles are purely historiographical.

you dont know the first thing about me to claim christian apologetics.

You do understand there is a difference between HJ and MJ??

and those with the education in the subject follow HJ first, that is the majority of all modern scholars.

I'll follow Bart on this one thank you, mythers hold way to much bias through ignorance for me

spin · 03-16-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

false

we know who wrote what, and what epistles were not attributed to paul. And can see the redactions.

Some of the epistles are not up for dispute by anyone.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? Would that be a sample of your run of the mill christian academics? The magic word of course is "christian" which helps confuse scholarship and (a better variety of) apologetics.

Sounds like you're again citing the views of your run of the mill christian academics. When you say "true" above you basically rule yourself out of the race to reclaim convenient untainted bits of the tainted passage. The academic who engages in the ad hoc reclamation of bits of the TF obviously has an ontology, but no coherent epistemology to support it.

While I would never call much of the gospel material myth, the gospel material certainly doesn't inspire any hope of extracting history from it. Your comment once again seems like more optimism based on christian academic apologetics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

the hellenized early writers often wrote mythically of mortal men not in question by anyone. mortal men were deified all the time that we know existed.

Unlike many of those writers you refer to the genre of the gospels evinces a religious core, rather than religious trimming. They are a different stuff from a lot of the early hellenistic and Roman writers. The gospels are also anonymous works whose dates of writing are unknown as are their provenances, unlike a lot of those hellenistic and Roman writers. Then look at just who are trying to extract history from the christian texts and why.

The gospels are rather irrelevant to history when you consider that the earliest christian writer known, Paul, never met the central figure of christianity, relying on the revelation by god of Jesus on which to base his religious message. (Gal 1:11-16) All other writings we have are after his time, so there is no evidence of a chain back to a real Jesus. It dies with Paul.

Forget the mythology stuff despite its popularity), if you're interested in trying to do history with early christianity. The major hurdles are purely historiographical.

you dont know the first thing about me to claim christian apologetics.

I know enough about the industry to see apologetics. But note, I made no claim that you were either christian or an apologist. However, when one relies on the work of christian academics, be they in universities or think tanks such as the Jesus Seminar, one is using material in which the scholarship and apologetic is irrevocably mixed.

Quote:

You do understand there is a difference between HJ and MJ??

I wasn't talking about this inadequate dichotomy. The subject is history and good historical practice. There is neither in either HJ or MJ research.

Quote:

and those with the education in the subject follow HJ first, that is the majority of all modern scholars.

This is certainly fourlegsgoodism.

Quote:

I'll follow Bart on this one thank you,

Follow whoever you like, ba-a-a. Bart got his qualifications in shitbox seminaries, is not a historian but a text scholar, and knows what his paying clients want.

Quote:

mythers hold way to much bias through ignorance for me

You don't substantiate one notion by merely repudiating another. Is old earth creation right because young earth creation is wrong?

outhouse · 03-16-2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

I know enough about the industry to see apologetics

but you would more then likely make this claim to anyone backing a HJ

Quote:

be they in universities or think tanks such as the Jesus Seminar, one is using material in which the scholarship and apologetic is irrevocably mixed.

Iuse every scholar out there to base my choices.

im roughly 55% for and 45% myth

crossan doesnt float my boat really, I do like Johnathon Green though

Quote:

The subject is history and good historical practice

the why avoid it?

or try and create your own version

Quote:

and knows what his paying clients want.

LOL

and I agree.

im more of a Carrier sort, but Bart has some great work if you take the time to weed it out.

Quote:

You don't substantiate one notion by merely repudiating another.

Understood

Sheshbazzar · 03-16-2012, 07:41 PM

FWIW I regard the phrase ...'the Lord's brother.' in Gal 1:19 to be a marginal explanatory gloss provided by a latter Christian hand, that inadvertently became incorporated into subsequent copies of the text.

In other words the original text would have simply read;

Quote:

19. But I saw none of the other apostles except James.

I believe the text was referring to the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus. Matt 10:3, Mk 3:18, Luk 6:15 & Acts 1:13

Jebus's brother James, was not one of the Apostles. -Matt 10:1-5, Mk 3:13-14 & Lk 6:13

But then people wouldn't be able to build their additions unto their magic castles out of horse shit.

We really ought to lose the stupid English 'James' moniker.
As the name properly would be 'Jacob' just like a hundred other Jacob's, one of the most common of Hebrew names.
King 'James' is long dead and we no longer need pander to his vanity.

.

aa5874 · 03-16-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...Josephus does not use exactly that same phrase. He writes, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," which would be sufficient to shed light on Paul's use of the phrase, "the Lord's brother." Paul always uses the title, "Lord," to refer to Jesus. Some mythicists have proposed that this is actually just a title of respected leaders in the Christian movement, which, in contrast, is not attested to any degree. Matthew and Mark list four brothers of Jesus, one of them named "James."

gMatthew and gMark cannot be PRESUMED to be historical accounts. Secondly there are QUESTIONS about Jesus in gMark and gMatthew. There is NO statement that Jesus had four brothers.

Look at the QUESTIONS.

Matthew 13:55 KJV

Quote:

Is not this the carpenter's son?

is not his mother called Mary?

and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mark 6:3 KJV

Quote:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?

and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

And in the very same Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a Human being.

Galatians 1:1 KJV

Quote:

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

All you do is promote propaganda and Chinese whispers continuously.

And further, you will NOT ever find in the Canon of the Church the HERESY that Jesus was FATHERED by a human being so you can STOP making your blatant erroneuos statements.

You must know that the CANON of the Church MUST reflect the teachings of the Church that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, was God the Creator, God Incarnate, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Please, just go find a history book for your OBSCURE Jesus.

The NT Jesus was called the KING of the JEWS.

Mark 15:26 KJV

Quote:

And the superscription of his accusation was written over , THE KING OF THE JEWS

outhouse · 03-16-2012, 11:03 PM

Most families back then were fairly large due to the extreme mortality rate of children under 5.

yes we know the unknown authors deified a man making claims to pit him against other mortal deities in hellenistic roman times. they could not write him in weaker then the other deities.

yes we know there is a difference between mj and HJ

aa5874 · 03-16-2012, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

....yes we know the unknown authors deified a man making claims to pit him against other mortal deities in hellenistic roman times. they could not write him in weaker then the other deities.

You DON'T know that unknown authors deified a man when there is NO credible evidence at all to support such a claim.

outhouse · 03-16-2012, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

....yes we know the unknown authors deified a man making claims to pit him against other mortal deities in hellenistic roman times. they could not write him in weaker then the other deities.

You DON'T know that unknown authors deified a man when there is NO credible evidence at all to support such a claim.

theres plenty

you just dont recognize it, because you dont understand the word evidence.

spin · 03-16-2012, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

I know enough about the industry to see apologetics

but you would more then likely make this claim to anyone backing a HJ

I know the available materials rather well, so I would make the same claim, unless someone brought some evidence to the table.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

be they in universities or think tanks such as the Jesus Seminar, one is using material in which the scholarship and apologetic is irrevocably mixed.

Iuse every scholar out there to base my choices.

Ultimately, scholars are beside the point: it's the evidence available that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

im roughly 55% for and 45% myth

First, I always such probabilities purely subjective. Second, does that mean you give the fictional Jesus 0%? Or do you equate "myth" as all forms of Jesus not being real?

At the moment I see Paul's writings as where christianity starts appearing out of the fog. It could have existed before Paul or it could have come into existence with Paul. There is no way to know. The gospels are functionally irrelevant, as they were developed later and cannot shed light in the fog. Was the notion of Jesus in existence before Paul? Or was the vision he had in Gal 1:11-12 the functional birth of Jesus? Obviously there were earlier messianic ideas, such as those of John the Baptist. Although we have no way to tell, did the pillars in Jerusalem know about Jesus or was their messianism somewhat like John's? Did Paul, as a conservative Jew, harrass nascent christians or Johannine messianists (or something else)? The fog doesn't allow for clarity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

crossan doesnt float my boat really, I do like Johnathon Green though

Quote:

The subject is history and good historical practice

the why avoid it?

or try and create your own version

History is done with source materials that have earned respect. We have no such source materials for the investigation of Jesus to my knowledge. If you have such sources, you're free to introduce them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2012, 11:03 PM	#147
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Most families back then were fairly large due to the extreme mortality rate of children under 5. yes we know the unknown authors deified a man making claims to pit him against other mortal deities in hellenistic roman times. they could not write him in weaker then the other deities. yes we know there is a difference between mj and HJ

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.