The Bishop

That long quote from rationalrevolution.net has a massive flaw in it:I believe the context made it clear that the objections were the over-zealous reaction of Ananus in putting James to death, not that James was innocent of what he had been condemned for. Regardless, it is hardly likely that the response would be to make the deceased man's (criminal) brother the new High Priest. Having mentioned the high incidence of Jesus as a given name, the author then undermines that evidence by claiming against all sense that the Jesus who is the brother of James is the same Jesus given the high priesthood. The High Priest of the Temple was the most highly prized role in the whole religion, not a post to be handed out as some kind of misguided compensation. This is not to say that Jesus the brother of James is identical with Jesus of the Gospels, but he certainly is not identical with Jesus son of Damneus. In all likelihood Jesus the son of Damneus was a high placed person whose family was not stained by association with some revolutionary movement, and probably someone who had personally impressed Herod Agrippa.

Malachi151

There is nothing that James was a criminal, it says "when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law".

This certainly implies a fabricated charge.

Nor did I intend to infer that Jesus son of Damneus was given the priesthood purely because of this incident. Perhaps Ananus had a vendetta or something else, who knows, it doesn't say.

Malachi151

Yeah, your right they didn't make things up, we just have tons of stories about things like Mary ascending into heaven, various miracle workers, and stories galore about the various apostles doing this that and the other, sometimes different church fathers making up stories about the same apostles doing different things in totally different places at the same time, etc. How many church are there that were founded by each of the apostles? Too many to count...

Sorry, but the whole of Christian history is just a series of fabrications...

mountainman

If the whole if "christian history" is just a series of fabrications
then the logical consequence of this is that the fabrications
must necessarily have been "implemented" across the top of
a history of antiquity that knew no Jesus and no christianity.

Secondly, this implementation could not have been earlier than
the time of the author of the "christian history". This is the
second the logical consequence that
whole of Christian history is just a series of fabrications...

Will noone address logic in this discussion group?

Ideologist

You have yet to prove that the idea of a miracle is inherently impossible and therefore inherently false. You need to do this before you can say that these are outright fabrications.

Like?

Here are the cities and/or regions I'm aware of them as being held either undertaking mission to or being the Bishops thereof;

Simon Peter: Rome, Antioch, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, Samaria and possibly Corinth
Andrew: Byzantium, Asia Minor, Scythia (including Romania and Russia) and Achaea
James the Just: Spain and Portugal
John: Samaria, possibly Asia Minor, traditionally Patmos (though that may be a different man)
Philip: Galilee, Greece, Azota, Syria and Phrygia
Bartholomew: Armenia and India
Thomas: Syria and India
James the Less: Lower Egypt
Matthew: Ethiopia
Simon (Zealot): Jerusalem, traditionally Egypt and Armenia, speculatively England
Judas Iscariot: None.
Matthias: Judea, then Georgia
Jude: Mesopotamia

There's a whole host of later legends associated with them, but these are King Arthur-esque fantasies. In fact, some of the missions I mentioned above are of that character. But none of them have an implausibly enormous mission.

spin

Perhaps the rhetoric is a little strenuous, but the onus is certainly to show that any miracles have ever happened, before one can posit the veracity of a specific one.

Bits of the true cross made it to all sorts of diverse places as well. And ya know the Topkapi palace has the hand of John the Baptist!


spin

Amaleq13

I appreciate your honesty.

I would think that the standard Roman practice would be the default assumption absent any evidence to the contrary. Preferring that Luke's Gospel not be in error does not constitute evidence.

You need evidence to lift your unsubstantiated speculation to the level of "possible".

For synonyms, one should consult a thesaurus. Whether one uses "indicate" or "suggest", the fact remains that you clearly recognize that it is entirely reasonable to conclude from Luke's story that Joseph owned no property in Bethlehem.

Talk about games. Being required to travel to Bethlehem because one is descended from David and being required to travel to Bethlehem because one owns property in Judea are clearly different reasons even if your entirely strained assumptions are accepted.

No, the text is clear. That you apparently feel compelled to speculate because of your faith is irrelevant to what the text actually states.

The author is "remarkably consistent" with his own plot and the speculation is that his story is true. This is no point at all.

One might so theorize if one felt compelled to apologize for the apparent error but one would need evidence to lift one's theory from the realm of unsubstantiated speculation. As it stands, the story does not suggest that Joseph owned any property in Bethlehem and gives a different reason for him to be there.

It seems rather obvious and it has already been explained by more than one person in this thread (including myself). The Egyptian document does not support the claim that a Roman census might be conducted according to one's several-generations-removed lineage. That fact, however, has not stopped numerous apologists from claiming that it does. Go figure. :huh: One can only assume that some folks allow their faith to overwhelm their capacity for rational thought.

aa5874

The fabrication of Gods are not unusual, whether it is Jesus, Zeus or any other God. These fabrications are then believed to be true by the followers.

Mountainman, if you could expound on the hypothesis that Eusebius fabricated Marcion and the Marcionites, perhaps on another thread, then maybe I would be able to review the logics of 4th century conception of Christianity.

aa5874

In order to resolve the historicity of a person, it is not necessary to prove that the person actually performed real miracles, what is needed is evidence that the person actually existed.

For example, there are persons who call themselves 'faith healers', promising deliverance of all manner of health problems through the blood of Jesus the Christ, and it is known that no amputee have been able to receive a new limb by faith, however the historicity of the faith healer is still in tact, even thoiugh the faith healer has a misguided belief in miracles.

In the case of Jesus the Christ, whether he actually did real miracles or fabricated them is of very little importance, since no historian or writer in the 1st century has recorded any one bearing that name, Jesus the Christ, or his thousands of followers that were actually doing or faking miracles.

Not even Flavius Josephus recorded any use of the Messiah's healing power, even though the book of Acts claimed a Pharisee was blinded by Jesus the Christ from heaven while sitting on the right hand of God.

Ideologist

I've been asking you this same question every time you bring up Josephus; please answer;

Why would Jesus be notable enough to warrant mention by Josephus? If we assume that the numbers of Christians in the Acts is somewhat exaggerated (which is an entirely reasonable suggestion) then Jesus would not be an eminently notable figure, any more than the other messianic groups that existed in the region at the time. It was only a hundred years later, after it had time to build, that it was large enough to warrant attention (and at which point it did warrant attention, from numerous historians).