Ktotwf

I think it is strange that we live in a world where doubting the existence of a Jewish man-god who supposedly performed miracles 2000 years ago makes you a "crank" alongside those who believe in UFOs and Atlantis.

Juststeve

KTOTWF:

Read the book and you will find that Erhman doesn't argue for the existence of a Jewish man-god who supposedly performed miracles 2000 years ago. To suggest he does to to erect a straw-man, easy to burn down.

So many opinions about a book by people who haven't read it.

Steve

PhilosopherJay

Hi Juststeve,

I haven't read Erhman's book yet. I am busy teaching six courses and I recently had a death in my family (my mother died three weeks ago), so I haven't had a chance. I intend to read it after the semester ends this month.

I am basing the idea that "brother of the lord" is the best argument on what I read in Carrier's blog and his exchange with McGrath. I have been thinking a lot lately about this particular argument and I find it a rather poor one. If McGrath and Carrier has it wrong and it is not Ehrman's best argument then I apologize to him.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Diogenes the Cynic

Even that section of the book doesn't rest on that passage, but discusses the totality of independent attestations that Jesus had a brother. He also addresses and refutes a number of mythicist arguments for a non-literal reading of that word, including several by Price and Wells.

Chili

He needs a brother because he cannot go both to heaven and to hell and I think he send his brother to hell in Matthew and Mark. Wouldn't you?

Juststeve

Jay:

Sorry about your mother. It was tough when I lost my own.

When you do read the book you will find that Erhman has a lot of reasons for believing in an historical Jesus, and that he has reasons for thinking the reference to James was a reference to a real brother, not just a member of some fellowship. I find his reasons persuasive. You should at least consider them.

Again, condolences.

Steve