Layman

Actually, your post is an even better example of the double-standard rude out-of-context spatting that keeps most knowledgeable Christians away from sites like this.

Since you asked for examples of "echos" and I clearly listed it under "allusions" the only explanation for your desire to get an 'exact quote' is your hardnosed anti-Christian attitude.

No, all you actually think you see is that the teaching may have some measure of origins in the Old Testament. Which would be no surprise since that is what Jesus had to refer to and he based his many of his teachings on the Old Testament as well.

Even if this is derived from the OT (could you give WHERE you think it is derived from) that fact would not diminish the fact that we both have them teaching a similar belief derived from the Old Testament, but -- given the anti-Roman feelings of the time -- does not seem to have been highlighted by other Jewish groups at the time.

I don't recall ever having had this conversation with you or anyone.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Steven Carr

But all of Paul`s ethical teaching is presented as his own. Occasionally he uses a phrase suggesting he has received a revelation from the Lord, but nobody just looking at Paul would get the idea that Jesus had taught anything.

As Paul was supposed to be teaching about Jesus, this is astonishing.

The difference to the OT writers plagiarising from the OT, is that they deliberately wanted to back up claims that Jesus was a miracle worker , one greater than Elijah, Jonah etc. SO they had to have Elijah stories, but on a bigger scale.

If Paul wanted to portray Jesus as a great teacher, he would have said that Jesus taught.

godfry n. glad

ilgwamh did muse:

Thank heavens for the latter. I'd say you need to acquaint yourself a bit better with your sources. Raymond Brown dedicated his life to the Roman Catholic Church, which he served as a priest. I would expect that all his findings fell well within the Catholic creed he held when he started his investigations. The work of John P. Meier, another Catholic priest, has drawn heavily upon the work of Raymond Brown, who was his mentor. Both are excellent and diligent historians, and I respect their work, but, in my estimation, their Roman Catholicism should be kept in mind when evaluating their results.

Luke Timothy Johnson is a former Benedictine monk who teaches theology at a Christian seminary in the American south. If Johnson does not come off as conservative to you, then I presume you have not read his _The Real Jesus_, which is, in my estimation, the most ill-concieved public temper tantrum by a scholastic Christian apologist masquerading as a New Testament historian that I've ever read. After reading it, I lost all respect for Johnson as an historian.

godfry n. glad

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>

Layman

Instead of pigeon-holing people by their religion, perhaps you should look at their work. Although Catholics, Brown and Meier have shown absolutely no problem with reaching conclusions diametrically opposed to Catholic dogma. Meier, for example, concludes that Jesus was likely born in Nazareth, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, and that she in fact had other children, of whom were James and Jude.

That is why they are considered moderate scholars. That is also why so many people of different or no creeds respect their work.

Ted Hoffman

Ilgwamh
As Vorkosigan has pointed out, you DO NOT address the counter-arguments raised against the arguments you have rehashed. This is disingenuous and your article might mislead a poorly-informed person.

I will specifically refer to the James brother of Jesus reference.


1. Jesus never referred to James as his brother. In The Gospel of Thomas, he refers to him as James the Just. James too, is NOT known to have referred to Jesus as his brother. Why?
From the above, its clear that James' brotherhood to Jesus is a tradition that emerged after Jesus had died. The Gospels DO NOT state anywhere that Mary had another child called James NOR that Joseph had another son called James. While the parentage of some of the apostles and disciples is made quite clear in the NT. Why?

2. Pauls application of the word "brother" was synonymous to "strong" beleiver (we know James emerged as a great follower of christ after his alleged resurrection appearances - he (James) was the great leader of the Jerusalem church), and DID not entail blood-brotherhood. It is clear from Galatians (I think Gal. 1:4) that Paul espoused the idea of Jesus having a Davidic descent/lineage, how would it have been possible then for Paul to embrace the idea of a Historical Jesus (who would be Josephs son, or a bastard of some sort)? How do you reconcile this conflict?

3. The nature of the brotherhood between James and Jesus is NOT clear. For example, Jerome, an early church father,(thanks to perpetual virginity of Mary) said that James was a kid of Mary's sister. Other christians beleive that Joseph married earlier before being betrothed to Mary. So you ilgwamh, need to tell us, on what basis was James the brother of Jesus? who was the father and mother of James? Provide relevant references too.

4. Why didn't Paul ever bother to visit Calvary or even Jesus' empty tomb as a memorial of his great Lord if a historical Jesus indeed got crucified? Why does Paul show total ignorance of Jesus place of resurrection and burial/entombment? This of course applies to all the apostles, evangelists and (ex-)disciples.

In addition, you mention some teachings Paul taught that touched on Jesus then claim:
This is NOT correct.

• apostles are NOT evidence of a historical Jesus. Apostles are evidence of belief in Jesus, NOT evidence of existence of a historical Jesus
• Descendsnt of Abraham and David are ideas Paul Got from the OT, specifically Micah, who prophesized from whence the Messiah would be born etc. NOT historical.
• Jesus teachings "I am meek" etc, are of NO historical evidentiary value.

Lastly, you say:
Since you've mentioned this, dont you find it inconsistent to beleive in God and not beleive in claims of supernatural nature?
Why dont you beleive in such claims?

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Although Catholics, Brown and Meier have shown absolutely no problem with reaching conclusions diametrically opposed to Catholic dogma.

One word: imprimatur.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Do you think that a Catholic scholar denying Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and affirming the full-brother blood relationship between Jesus and James is taking a "conservative" position?

MortalWombat

Yeah, but you wouldn't know it by how they describe themselves:

First sentence of the Epistle of James:
From James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Greetings to the Twelve Tribes dispersed throughout the world.

First sentence of the Epistle of Jude:
From Jude, servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those whom God has called, who live in the love of God the Father and in the safe keeping of Jesus Christ.

Notice that they both call themselves servants of Jesus Christ, not brothers of Jesus, even when Jude goes out of his way to identify himself as a brother of James. Not that I think the actual James and Jude wrote these epistles, but whoever did, didn't seem to think that James and Jude were Jesus' brothers.

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Do you think that a Catholic scholar denying Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and affirming the full-brother blood relationship between Jesus and James is taking a "conservative" position?

Whatever kind of position it is, it must not be in clear contradiction with Catholic dogma, or else the books of Meier (and Brown) should not have received the "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur."

I do not have Meier's first volume with me. Does Meier say "I personally believe that Mary had children with Joseph other than Jesus, such as his full brother James"? Or does Meier say, "the historical evidence points to James being a full brother," or "most scholars think that James was a full brother." These last two claims would not contradict the dogma of perpetual virginity because they attribute the claim to "evidence" or "scholars" and not to the writer himself.

That said, I would rank Meier a 6 or a 7 with a perfect 10 going to an inerrantist fundamentalist young earth creationist. Some say "moderate." I do take Meier's work seriously and do not dismiss it by applying ideological labeling.

best,
Peter Kirby

ex-preacher

Wow, the following statement certainly jumped out from your article:

First, an aside is necessary on the virgin birth: I do not accept the historicity of the Matthean and Lukan infancy narratives and it is irrelevant to my Christian faith as to whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not.

I think every one of the scholars you quote would disagree with you on this one. As conservatives note, when you start dismissing parts of the Bible as uninspired, the question soon becomes: Where do you stop?

Questions for ilgwmwh:

1. How did you come to the conclusion that the Lukan and Matthean birth narratives are not historical and that the factuality of a virgin birth is irrelevant?

2. Why do you think most (all?) conservative scholars have come to the opposite conclusion? Do you know more about this than them?

3. On what basis does someone decide which parts of Scripture are historical, relevant or inspired? Why do so many Christians disagree about these matters?

4. Suppose a Christian scholar (such as Marcus Borg) announces that the resurrection was not historical. Does this bother you at all? Why?

5. What kind of a cruel and/or incompetent God would allow a book which purports to be from him to be open to so many different and contradictory interpretations by people who are honest followers of his?