dongiovanni1976x

Who capitalized the "B" in brother...?
If you had to choose, who do you think knows this James better: Paul who not only met him but got into an argument with him or the anonymous author of GMark who speaks about all the events in the gospel in the third person, implying that he was not a part of any of the events described? You need a good reason to claim that this is a “title” and not just a simple statement about his kinship to Jesus. Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus as “the Lord” and he singles out James on a number of occasions. The burden is upon this “alternative explanation” as to why we need it and the putative need to reconcile James’ status as presented by the anonymous author of GMark is insufficient to fulfill such a burden.
What need do we have to posit that this was an interpolation unless it is the unwarranted desire to rid some embarrassing historical evidence for an HJ via his brother James? Anyone can make such suggestions but we need to hear reasons why this “might” have been an “innocent interpolation” when accepting the HJ makes entirely more sense.
Good points…Paul’s Christology is more akin to John’s but given that even Earl Doherty admits that Q, which was used by Mark, sprang independently from Paul we could easily be witnessing the evolution of Jesus to Christ in different communities- Paul having influence over the more “docetic” breed than his Markan counterpart as a result of never even seeing Jesus in the flesh versus the communities that developed under James who knew him to be a real person. This however is highly conjectural and not a very strong point unless independently supported by the other points I have raised.
I have to admit that I stated this from personal conversations with Pastors and preachers who stated that this was so and I have no independent literary sources to back it up. I simply assumed it was true since it makes sense that people who though Jesus was a myth and saw no records for Pontius Pilate anywhere outside the New Testament could easily argue that he was mythical as well. If this is untrue I apologize.
Why? If we have archaeological evidence of Pilate under Tiberius, and several Christian sources stating that he was the one who executed Jesus and Tacitus later recounts these events why is it unwarranted to have any confidence in the reliability of this account?

Clivedurdle

What other anti mythicist propaganda might be around that is poisoning this well?

Myth equals hoax?

aa5874

The HJ position is completely flawed, there is no criteria to determine who qualifies to be an historic Jesus.

Can we say that anyone whose name was Jesus at birth qualifies to be regarded as Jesus Christ?

If any person claim to be the 'Messiah' regardless of their names, can they qualify to be called Jesus Christ?

If more than one person named Jesus is crucified, are they elligible to be called Jesus Christ?

If a person, not named Jesus, was crucified and died and years later is said to be Jesus Christ, does that person qualify to be Jesus Christ?

Regardless of a person's name , if that person says anything that Jesus is reported to have said, does that person qualify as an historic Jesus?

If a person's mother was Mary and father was Joseph and was a common criminal, a deceiver and was crucified, does he qualify to be Jesus Christ?

If a person's parents were Mary and Joseph and was the leader of a cult, do they qualify to be Jesus Christ?

What is the criteria for an historical Jesus Christ?

Now, this is what one of the persons refered to as Jesus Christ, MJ or HJ, said in Matthew 24;5, 'For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many'.
So, I now ask those who claim an historical Jesus, are those the words of a deceiver an MJ or HJ. Does a deceiver qualify to called an historic Jesus Christ?

jjramsey

I apologize for <rules violation edited> ...

An assertion without evidence.

Roughly the same as the "criteria" for being the historical Davy Crockett as opposed to the legendary one, or, for a more pertinent example, the "criteria" for being the historical Apollonius of Tyana as opposed to the legendary one. Mostly, it's a matter of applying skepticism, knowledge of how humans tend to behave, and Occam's Razor.

aa5874

Who qualifies to be an historical Jesus Christ? Lay it down, put forward your criteria, no semantics. Get straight to the point.

jjramsey

Quite simply, it comes down to this: "What is the most parsimonius explanation for why the texts that we have relating to some personage are what they are?" In this case, the most parsimonious explanation is that a guy named Jesus, who was from Nazareth, gathered a small following, did some itinerant preaching, did what he thought were miracles, and got crucified. From there, his followers got it into their heads that Jesus resurrected, and it snowballed. If you want "criteria," that sums it up fairly well. It is unnecessary to posit "a person, not named Jesus" since that is additional, unsupported speculation and is sheared off by Occam's Razor.

This trivially explains the reference to "brother of the Lord" in the OP. It also trivially explains why Jesus would have been said to be from a town that wasn't in an OT prophecy. It also explains Mark 6:1-6, as I mentioned before on another thread.

aa5874

Have you concluded there was only one guy named Jesus, who thought what he did was miracles and then got crucified and this guy was the only person who got into someone's head that he was resurrected and he was declared to be Jesus Christ?

Where do you get your silly stories from? That is the most pathetic story I have come across. Incredible assumptions and blatant fabrications characterised as 'criteria'. I am completely disappointed.

Biff the unclean

No, that isn’t parsimonious at all. It’s taking a bunch of retold tales of Hellenistic gods(and I include all the Gnostic and various categories of early Christianity since discarded by Imperial Rome) that are all over the place (some actually had Jesus as a shape shifter, some his feet never touched the ground). You are adding to this mix, hundreds of years after the original versions, an historic figure. This addition of an assumed and un-needed historic character ends parsimony.

It isn’t necessary to posit a person at all. These same mythological fables work equally well without one, as they had worked well without historic figures when these same tales were the property of the Classical religions.
To have an historic Jesus you need, at the very least, somebody you can point to whose existence is verifiable.

Having been raised in “the church of Rome” I can tell you that calling church authorities “Brother”, “Sister” or even “Father” in no way implies a family relationship.

Clivedurdle

The above is all post enlightenment rationalisation of this jesusgod.

The most parsimonious explanation is that someone wrote a novel and or play about a jewish hero figure that is explicitly mythological - a godman, using classic hero and angel motifs - it fitted the place and time and a new superstitio was born, this one promising eternal life through partaking in alchemic gnostic rituals and everyone accepted it as such until some point in the enlightenment when the question what is historical got separated from an assumption that god was historical.

rlogan

There's a hell of a lot more to explain than that, such as the ridiculous TF sticking out like a sore thumb amidst the silence of contemporary historians with respect to the preacher who supposedly represented a threat to Roman or Jewish Church authority; the odd letter of Pliny in 116 or so where he does not know how to handle Christians, despite presumably the better part of a century in dealing with them; etc.




On the contrary, the explanation as to why Jesus is born in Bethlehem, comes out of Egypt, is a Naza-somethingorother, is rejected by his own people and so on is precisely explained by mining the OT.

This very "prophecy fulfillment" forms the basis for proof in the fundy crowd that Jesus was who they claim him to be.

What place are you saying specifically is not in prophecy?