Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 04-01-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Funny that no one -- including the scribes who in Mk. 2:1-11 are said to witness Jesus "forgiving sins" -- take this as such a sign. In fact, as Mk nores in 2:11, they are delighted to see it and on account of it, glorify god (note the PAS).

Yeah, yeah, Hosanna ! Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord !

Quote:

It's only when Jesus begins to ride roughshod over such national badges of identity such as sabbath, clean and unclean, etc. that they begin to turn on Jesus. And even then, and especially later when scribes once more come onto the scene -- in 3:22 no less -- they do not charge him with, or regard any of his objectionable actions or teachings as being due to, unsoundness of mind.

Is that so ?

Mk 3:22-30 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

And he called them [unto him], and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

I'll leave that without further comment.

Jiri

TedM · 04-01-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

1.
I have a relatively complete list of the fragments on my site. That page combines all references to any of the so-called Jewish-Christian gospels, but you can see only those that are specifically attributed in antiquity to the gospel of the Hebrews by clicking on the link under text(s) available.

Ben.

Thanks Ben. I'll take a look whenever my server will connect. For some reason it can't go there just now.

ted

jgibson000 · 04-02-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Yeah, yeah, Hosanna ! Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord !

Is that so ?

Mk 3:22-30 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

And he called them [unto him], and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

I'll leave that without further comment.

Besides asking why you quote the KJV in your attempt to make your point, might I suggest that you test what appears to be your untested assumption here -- namely, that the scribal charge that Jesus "has Beezebub" is a charge that Jesus has lost his mind and that it is, in the eyes of the scribes, an honest and guile-less evaluation of Jesus -- against the argument that I have set out on the content and nature of this charge in my (horn toot) soon to be published article on Mk 3:22 that can be found here.

Please note, though, that will have to join the "group" which hosts the article in order to read it.

Jeffrey Gibson

TedM · 04-02-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...brews-ogg.html

This would seem to incontrovertibly establish that James the Just was James son of Zebedee, or at least an apostle, since the only people said to have drunk of the cup of the Lord were the apostles. Again , "my brother" does not mean relative.

Maybe, but isn't it interesting that Jesus says "my brother". How many other times does he address someone with those exact words? I might point out too that the historian Hegessipus wrote about James the Just as being the biological brother of Jesus, detailing his death. And he also wrote about relatives of Jesus, cousins, etc..who became prominent in the early churches. Note that he, according to Eusebius was familiar with the Gospel to the Hebrews and came to the faith "out of the Hebrews". Maybe he knew a bit more about who James the Just was than we do:

From Ben's site:

Quote:

From Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.8 (de Santos 10; Lagrange 14):

Εκ τε του καθ Εβραιους ευαγγελιου και του Συριακου, και ιδιως εκ της Εβραιδος διαλεκτου, τινα τιθησιν [Ηγησιππος], εμφαινων εξ Εβραιων εαυτον πεπιστευκεναι· και αλλα δε ως αν εξ Ιουδαικης αγραφου παραδοσεως μνημονευει· ου μονος δε ουτος, αλλα και Ειρηναιος και ο πας των αρχαιων χορος, παναρετον σοφιαν τας Σολομωνος παροιμιας εκαλουν.

[Hegesippus] sets out something from the gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac, and likewise from the Hebrew dialect, making apparent that he himself had come to faith out of the Hebrews. And other things also he records, as if from the unwritten Jewish tradition.

Malachi151 · 04-02-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Maybe, but isn't it interesting that Jesus says "my brother". How many other times does he address someone with those exact words? I might point out too that the historian Hegessipus wrote about James the Just as being the biological brother of Jesus, detailing his death. And he also wrote about relatives of Jesus, cousins, etc..who became prominent in the early churches. Note that he, according to Eusebius was familiar with the Gospel to the Hebrews and came to the faith "out of the Hebrews". Maybe he knew a bit more about who James the Just was than we do:

From Ben's site:

Well, sort of. If you look at all the early literature, they all call James the Just "the Lord's brother". None of them say the brother of Jesus and none of them elaborate. I think it is implied, but the exact usage that we see in Paul is what we see in all of the early descriptions of James the Just.

Quote:

Galatians 1:
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Quote:

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woolen garment, but fine linen only. ... Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defense of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.
- Commentaries on the Acts of the Church; Hegesippus, 165-175

Quote:

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 of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority. Hegesippus, who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James, says
- Jerome; On Illustrious Men

There are more examples as well, but it is interesting that they all dance around this phrase, never elaborating on it, nor changing it.

As for the words "my brother" being put in the mouth of Jesus:

Quote:

Mark 3:
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

It's not hard to see how someone trying to elevate that status of a real James who was a leader of the church in the community would write a gospel where Jesus says "my brother" to him.

TedM · 04-02-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, sort of. If you look at all the early literature, they all call James the Just "the Lord's brother". None of them say the brother of Jesus and none of them elaborate. I think it is implied, but the exact usage that we see in Paul is what we see in all of the early descriptions of James the Just.

There are more examples as well, but it is interesting that they all dance around this phrase, never elaborating on it, nor changing it.

Jerome doesn't seem to "dance around the phrase" one bit.

Quote:

As for the words "my brother" being put in the mouth of Jesus:

It's not hard to see how someone trying to elevate that status of a real James who was a leader of the church in the community would write a gospel where Jesus says "my brother" to him.

Yes, that is possible.

ted

Malachi151 · 04-02-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Jerome doesn't seem to "dance around the phrase" one bit.

True. I had the earlier sources in mind when I was talking about that. I think its clear that Hegesippus meant literal brother, but he never explicitly says that. I find it interesting that so many of the early mentions of James the Just call him "the brother of the Lord", they don't just freely talk about him being the brother of Jesus. Again, this leads me to think that "the Lord's brother"/"brother of the Lord" was a title.

That phrase is very well preserved in all the mentions of him.

TedM · 04-02-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

True. I had the earlier sources in mind when I was talking about that. I think its clear that Hegesippus meant literal brother, but he never explicitly says that.

Yes, I was just about to post from Ben's site. The mention of Jesus' relatives coming to succeed James does give some credence to the idea that Hegesippus believed that James too was a relative of Jesus:

Quote:

From Eusebius, History of the Church 3.11.1-2 (using the numeration available from the online Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; in my Loeb edition all of chapter 11 is considered a single section):

Ιωμεν δ επι τα εξης. μετα την Ιακωβου μαρτυριαν και την αυτικα γενομενην αλωσιν της Ιερουσαλημ λογος κατεχει των αποστολων και των του κυριου μαθητων τους εις ετι τω βιω λειπομενους επι ταυτον πανταχοθεν συνελθειν αμα τοις προς γενους κατα σαρκα του κυριου· πλειους γαρ και τουτων περιησαν εις ετι τοτε τω βιω· βουλην τε ομου τους παντας περι του τινα χρη της Ιακωβου διαδοχης επικριναι αξιον ποιησασθαι.

But let us go on with the rest. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh, for the majority of them also were still alive, to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

Και δη απο μιας γνωμης τους παντας Συμεωνα τον του Κλωπα, ου και η του ευαγγελιου μνημονευει γραφη, του της αυτοθι παροικιας θρονου αξιον ειναι δοκιμασαι, ανεψιον, ως γε φασι, γεγονοτα του σωτηρος, τον γαρ ουν Κλωπαν αδελφον του Ιωσηφ υπαρχειν Ηγησιππος ιστορει.

They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Quote:

I find it interesting that so many of the early mentions of James the Just call him "the brother of the Lord", they don't just freely talk about him being the brother of Jesus. Again, this leads me to think that "the Lord's brother"/"brother of the Lord" was a title.

That phrase is very well preserved in all the mentions of him.

It just doesn't seem odd to me, since Jesus is called "the Lord" throughout the gospels by his disciples, and in several places by Paul also. It is a title showing their respect for him. Something like "James, the Lord's Jesus' brother in the flesh" would have been much clearer, of course.

ted

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.