Vorkosigan

Really, does Paul say he met any companions of Jesus, other than the "Brother of the Lord" James (and goes on to mention 500 brethren in the same passage -- think they were all brothers of the Lord too?). I don't recall that offhand. Does Paul ever identify anyone he meets as a companion of Jesus, or just important people in the Jerusalem Church?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Bede

Vork,

Under a non strained reading James is certainly the brother of Jesus as backed up by the Gospels and letter of James, not to mention Josephus (or cousin if you are a conservative Catholic ). Peter and John were companions of Jesus too. That Paul is not specific in saying so is again, because he saw no need.

There is too much for you to explain away here. I have seen your heroic efforts with Josephus Ant22 but they strike me as similar to those Catholics who want James to be a cousin and other kinds of apologetics. There is no need to use anything other than a plain reading and no sources that contradict the plain reading, hence we must use the plain reading.

Any way, your counter work on methodology is keenly awaited.

Yours

Bede

Peter Kirby

Hi Bede,

How does the Letter of James suggest that James was a brother of Jesus?

"James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the dispersion, greetings." - James 1:1

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Any way, your counter work on methodology is keenly awaited.

Yours

Bede

It'll be November before I have the chance to write anything. I'm doing a paper now on caring in nursing, and editing two books, and....do I have kids? I don't know anymore.

Michael

RogerLeeCooke

I'd be interested in knowing who these people could be. Many people who reject Christianity accept a whole host of propositions that (to me) are just as absurd as Christianity. I don't call these people skeptics, whatever they call themselves. And I'm sure if you read the flagship journal The Skeptical Inquirer, you won't find any of its contributors defending Acharya.

Radorth

Graceland is not a good analogy because Elvis had many more millions of fans than Jesus (at the time), and it is far easier to get there now. (Not that I have the slightest desire to go to Calgary or Graceland).

clutch writes

He did not think Jesus was dead.

There are to many pilgimage sites to list which were ignored for too many decades to make this argument stick.

Clutch says the NT would be more believable if Paul had this to say:

When you have critics here complaining about vouching everywhere else in the Bible, why would this make any difference to you? Skeptics tell us Peter could not have wrtten II Peter because he says he was with Jesus "on the Holy mountain" etc and says "I, Simon Peter" or something. They call this suspicious vouching, and Paul's running on about a visit to calvary would just be more ammo.

And STILL we have no response to our challenge to explain the ironic, gory details in the Gospels and Acts; the silly and irreverent outbursts of the apostles, a writer saying "he could not work many miracles there," sayings of Jesus which would piss off 7/8 of his Jewish brethren, Mary's Magnificat, And while the skeptics are at it (if they ever get to it) explain the need for all the improbable detail in Acts such as Paul calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall" and having to apologize.

Sorry boys, inventors (from scratch) don't go that far. Eminent historians know THAT about human nature, which is why they believe the Gospels are "essentially history" except for perhaps the virgin birth and the ressurrection, where (Wells, Schonfield and Durant see embellishment apparently). And it's why they don't believe Homer or all the Wyatt Earp myths.

I wouldn't need that to spread the word when I had all nine gifts of the Holy Spirit.

It's a great marvel how skeptics are let off throwing out semi-plausible theories while they demand irrefutable proof from us. I think it shows most of them are either insincere, or inconsistent in their thinking. But as long as they have sincere Christians responding....

Radorth

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Bede

...Under a non strained reading James is certainly the brother of Jesus as backed up by the Gospels and letter of James, not to mention Josephus (or cousin if you are a conservative Catholic ). Peter and John were companions of Jesus too. That Paul is not specific in saying so is again, because he saw no need.

One of the greatest weaknesses of this clamour for James being the brother of Jesus is that Jesus himself never referred to James as his brother. James too, NEVER referred to Jesus as his brother.
Jesus referred to James as "James the Just" (in GThomas) and James was the leader of the first Jerusalem church and was referred as the Lords "brother" for his righteousness.

So even if Antiquities 20 was not interpolated (and this is arguable), its a passage whose use of the word "brother" is open to interpretation.

The James you talk about is argued to have been written by Jude.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Vorkosigan

And STILL we have no response to our challenge to explain the ironic, gory details in the Gospels and Acts; the silly and irreverent outbursts of the apostles, a writer saying "he could not work many miracles there," sayings of Jesus which would piss off 7/8 of his Jewish brethren, Mary's Magnificat, And while the skeptics are at it (if they ever get to it) explain the need for all the improbable detail in Acts such as Paul calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall" and having to apologize.

Sorry boys,

Please do not call us "boys."

inventors (from scratch) don't go that far.

Good point. I mean, nobody ever heard of a piece of fiction with true-to-life details about the life and behavior of the hero in it. That would just be too weird. Nobody would accept that. No, certainly throughout history, fiction writers have never constructed heroes whose lives were made real by the addition of details.

Eminent historians know THAT about human nature, which is why they believe the Gospels are "essentially history" except for perhaps the virgin birth and the ressurrection, where (Wells, Schonfield and Durant see embellishment apparently).

ROTFL. Here is some material from the passage from the intro to Njal's Saga (Penguin, 1960). The translator notes that Njal's Saga is indisputably considered fiction because, among other things:

-- the use of multiple sources, some traceable,
for the elaborate, confusing and sometimes incorrect legal formulas, genealogies and background material for many of the subsidiary characters
-- He used material from other sagas of the period
-- he used events from the 13th century and projected them into his novel of the tenth.
-- because he incorporated oral legends wholesale, the account contains internal contradictions
-- when present, the chronology is incoherent
-- it can be shown that he used his sources with considerable freedom and occasional mistakes, "credited to garbled oral tradition and the natural tendency of an author to manipulate material for aesthetic purposes."

The translator adds that whether or not the people were real, "they all have a vivid and unquestionable life of their own." Let me add personally that Njal's Saga is one of the best pieces of fiction ever written, full of powerful and interesting and very human characters, with a minimal supernatural overlay, and a story that slowly gathers tension, crackling suddenly into violence like river ice breaking in a spring thaw. But it is fiction.

Note how many of the comments above apply to the gospels. Of course, that is only a small taste; a real list of legendary indications in the NT could go on for quite some time. Talk about your special pleading; NT "historical methodology" is one long exercise in it. In any other field, these legends would long ago have been dismissed as the fictions they are.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

Vork's analogy and assertions fail for several reasons.

This is inconsistent with the latest fad theory that the Gospels have a single source, and inventor named Mark, and were "slavishly copied" with a few things thrown in.

This is again inconsistent with Doherty's premise which basically states that the Gospels are fiction because they are based on a single written source, that even Mark is a "come lately." He actually says a TRUE story should come from many older sources. Ironically, ED expects true sources to be "more divergent" in nature. Maybe you didn't read the subject material, or else your thinking is inconsistent.

Of course if you want to admit one of Ed's main premises is wrong, your anaolgy gets better.

Apparently you still miss the whole point above- that while historians like Durant and Klausner do not believe Njal, they date Mark in the 60's and call it 'in essentials "genuine history." The Jewish Klausner expresses jealousy over it, as compared to other ancient works.

If you want to throw these thoughtful skeptics in your "special pleaders" box, go ahead. I'd read up on them first though. Their rationale hardly qualifies as special pleading.

But there is another problem. Njal's Saga was done by one writer and is patently fiction. There is no proof at all that the Gospels come from one original writer, in spite of Doherty's gratuitous assertions. We have no reason at all to doubt Luke. There were several if not many separate witnesses who chipped in details, and then over a very short period of time. (This period grows ironically shorter, if the skeptic's theories of late dates are adopted). It is possible they got a few details wrong, especially if the sources were oral, but the inventing of such a story in a tiny period of time would require the greatest colusion to tell the greatest lie in history. Or simply the greatest story.

That's what Durant says of course, saying it is either true, or "a greater miracle than anything recorded in the Gospels." That is not special pleading. It is simply rational thinking. His skepticism is not simply one-dimensional, you see.

Radorth

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>