How did a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus Christ) end up to be "son" of God?

[Carcano]

James was allegedly the BROTHER of Jesus - he should know the MOST POSSIBLE details about Jesus - but he says NOTHING.

Not only the brother (along with Jude) of Jesus, but also the leader of Christian community in Judea.

There are writings by both James and Jude squirreled away in the back of the new testament, where hardly anyone looks, and its evident there was some controversy about including them when the NT was compiled.

They were eventually accepted with great reluctance for two reasons. First, James does not accept Paul's principle of 'faith alone'. And second, he upholds adherance to the Torah.

So its clearly a more Jewish form of Christianity, and some would say not Christianity at all, as Jesus himself and his immediate followers were Jews who thought they were merely fulfilling the prophesy of their ancestors...not creating a new religion.

 

[Carcano]

Note that Carcano insists on the faithful date of G.Mark.
Scholars do not agree.
Typically G.Mark is dated to 65-80.
But faithful believers place it as early as possible.

Typically dated to circa 70...not by faith alone, but by careful research, by objective scholars.

 

[Woody]

Greetings,



I told you.
Paul, and the author of Mark, and later Christians.
You ignored it all.

ok if you want to believe that you just go right ahead. I find it a lot more rational to believe a man called Jesus Christ started Christianity. That's easy enough. Why make it complicated?

Lot's of people believe the same and they have no vested interest in it one way or another. For atheists, I guess it's a little tougher dealing with reality. You know those religious undertones that go with the account -- like there might actually be a real live God --- OOHHHHH MMYYYYY GOD. NOPE, it's clearly denial time. We're getting too far out of the comfort zone.

 

[rrram2]

Everyone brace yourself here.
Jesus Christ is NOT GOD. He was Never GOD.
And concerning Divine. Based on the 8 definitions for Divine at Dictionary.com
Christ can be considered divine but not in the cases where Divine refers to God himself.

Again Jesus Christ is NOT GOD. He is the Son of God. He may be a rabbi.
And thosed that Worship Jesus Christ as God are Idolators who secretly worship the devil.

And if you are going to worship the devil, you might as well worship him outright and openly, the short term rewards are greater.

Ignorance is Bliss!

 

[Woody]

Not only the brother (along with Jude) of Jesus, but also the leader of Christian community in Judea.

There are writings by both James and Jude squirreled away in the back of the new testament, where hardly anyone looks, and its evident there was some controversy about including them when the NT was compiled.

They were eventually accepted with great reluctance for two reasons. First, James does not accept Paul's principle of 'faith alone'. And second, he upholds adherance to the Torah.

So its clearly a more Jewish form of Christianity, and some would say not Christianity at all, as Jesus himself and his immediate followers were Jews who thought they were merely fulfilling the prophesy of their ancestors...not creating a new religion.

Nice bit of juggling there Carcano. Actually James is heavily quoted out of context by the arminians to sound more works-like:

But you will find the BL on James in verse 23:

James 2:23

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

James said Abraham did a lot of good things, but his faith is what made him righteous.

And this agrees with Paul's assessment in Romans Chapter 4:

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

 

[Carcano]

Actually James is heavily quoted out of context to sound more works-like:

James 2:23

James said Abraham did a lot of good things, but his faith is what made him righteous.

Lets look at the whole passage:

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which sayeth Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for rightousness, and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

What he describes here is a relationship between faith and works being like the two wings of a bird, working together...one being incomplete without the other.

This is why it contradicts the teaching of Paul, who is famous for affirming 'justification by FAITH ALONE'.

What did Jesus himself preach? I would imagine that his brother James, who grew up with him, was by his side throughout his ministry, and who was the head of his community in Judea would know better than anyone.

Certainly more than a man whom Jesus had never even met.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Not only the brother (along with Jude) of Jesus, but also the leader of Christian community in Judea.

Yes, so Jesus must have passed on teachings and sayings to James.

So,
what did this leader and brother James write of Jesus' teachings?
What did this leader and brother James write of Jesus' life?

They were eventually accepted with great reluctance for two reasons. First, James does not accept Paul's principle of 'faith alone'. And second, he upholds adherance to the Torah.

And what does James say about Jesus' view on 'faith alone' ?

And what does James say about Jesus' view on adherence to the Torah ?



Iasion

Typically dated to circa 70...not by faith alone, but by careful research, by objective scholars.

Not so.
The current scholarly consensus is 65-80 :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

A general range of dating for the Gospel of Mark can be suggested with reference to the external evidence. If the tradition of Markan authorship is accepted, Irenaeus implies that the Gospel of Mark was written after the death of Peter, traditionally set in Rome c. 65 CE. If the tradition is not accepted, as Nineham states (op. cit., p. 41), "Those who are cautious about accepting the Papias tradition can hardly put the lower limit much earlier, for they must allow time for the oral tradition to have developed in the way described above." The terminus ad quem is set by the incorporation of Mark into the Gospel of Matthew and into the Gospel of Luke. If the Gospel of Matthew was written in the last two decades of the first century, the most probable range of dating for the Gospel of Mark is from 65 to 80 CE.

It's still all speculation,
but only faithful believers insist on the earlier date.


Of course, you never addressed the issue of why no Christian writer mentioned the Gospels or their stories, until a CENTURY or so after the alleged events.

If G.Mark was written in 60-70 - why was it not mentioned until over 60 years (a few generations) later ?


Iasion

ok if you want to believe that you just go right ahead.

I gave detailed evidence, and reasoned argument, for my views.
You ignored it all, but just keep preaching without any facts to back up your beliefs.

I find it a lot more rational to believe a man called Jesus Christ started Christianity. That's easy enough. Why make it complicated?

Believing ancient myths is not rational.

Lot's of people believe the same and they have no vested interest in it one way or another.

Rubbish.
They have the most vested interest possible, otherwise it means admitting they were wrong - and one thing that is clear about believers is that they never, ever admit they were wrong.

For atheists, I guess it's a little tougher dealing with reality.

More silly name-calling.
I am not an atheist.

You know those religious undertones that go with the account -- like there might actually be a real live God --- OOHHHHH MMYYYYY GOD. NOPE, it's clearly denial time. We're getting too far out of the comfort zone.

Um, pardon?


Iasion

Greetings,

What did Jesus himself preach? I would imagine that his brother James, who grew up with him, was by his side throughout his ministry, and who was the head of his community in Judea would know better than anyone.Certainly more than a man whom Jesus had never even met.

Indeed,
James would know exactly what Jesus taught - James would be exactly the person who would record the specific details of Jesus' teachings - he would have heard the speeches of Jesus 1st hand.

So,
exactly what does James tell us about Jesus' view on these matters?


Iasion

And,
what does Jude's epistle tell us about Jesus' teachings?

Iasion

What about Peter?

The rock on which Jesus built his church, allegedly.

Who would obviously know Jesus' teachings and carefully record them and pass them on in his writings...

So,
what do the letters of Peter say about Jesus' teachings?


Iasion

and John -
the beloved disciple so close to Jesus...

What do the letters of John tell us about the teachings of Jesus?


Iasion

 

[Woody]

....

 

[Woody]

Lets look at the whole passage:

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which sayeth Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for rightousness, and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

What he describes here is a relationship between faith and works being like the two wings of a bird, working together...one being incomplete without the other.

This is why it contradicts the teaching of Paul, who is famous for affirming 'justification by FAITH ALONE'.

What did Jesus himself preach? I would imagine that his brother James, who grew up with him, was by his side throughout his ministry, and who was the head of his community in Judea would know better than anyone.

Certainly more than a man whom Jesus had never even met.

Most christians don't see a problem with these two presentations. Faith causes works. No faith no works. Faith without works is not only dead, it's hipocrisy.

Jesus said, "by their fruits ye shall no them."

also Jesus said:

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

"Abiding in Him" is done through faith. No faith -- no works.

and again from Paul:

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So Works without faith is no good either.

Of course it's kind of hard to imagine a christian on their death bed doing a lot of grandioso works. So one of them might pray that a person go away filled, whatever (the example given in James). But if they can do something they will (naturally).

So in the end it's faith that causes works, not the other way around.

 

[Woody]

Originally Posted by Woody
Lot's of people believe the same and they have no vested interest in it one way or another. ”

Iasion said, Rubbish.
They have the most vested interest possible, otherwise it means admitting they were wrong - and one thing that is clear about believers is that they never, ever admit they were wrong.

Well Iasion, that statement is pretty extreme.

Most rational people of other religions and most secularists do not have a problem believing that a man named Jesus started the christian religion. It is a reasonable, rational explanation that clearly explains how the movement got started. A religion with such extreme claims needs a very visible, charasmatic leader that's a tangible force. Paul reciting his own creed just ain't going to cut it. Then you have all of Jesus's contemporaries :

John the Baptist -- his cousin
Zacharias -- his uncle (and high priest of the Jewish temple)
Elizabeth- his aunt
Joseph - his earthly father
Mary - his mother
James - a brother
Jude -- a brother

Then there are the dozen or so disciples that knew him closely. All these people were contemporary with Paul as well. So assuming none of these people actually existed, and Paul just made it all up, how did Paul explain it away, right there in Jerusalem, the place where they were all supposed to live, right there in front of the Jewish leaders that were accused of murdering this "non-existent" man, right there in front of the roman rulers tht were accused as well? Iasion, this scenario is just plain ludicrous. Paul never would have gotten away with this. He might as well have dissed Ceasar to his face, and pissed on him and the Jewish temple in public.

Have you taken any history courses, by the way?

And why do you have such a problem with the concept? It's simple, it's reasonable, it's accepted by mainstream scholars, and it just makes common sense anyway.

 

[Iasion]

Well Iasion, that statement is pretty extreme.

Not extreme, just true.

I have shown many of your claims were wrong on this thread - NOT ONCE did you EVER admit you were wrong. You just keep changing the subject and continue preaching without any evidence.

A faithful believer admit Jesus never existed?
NO chance of that ever happening.

Most rational people of other religions and most secularists do not have a problem believing that a man named Jesus started the christian religion. It is a reasonable, rational explanation that clearly explains how the movement got started.

Indeed.
It is a reasonable, rational explanation.
But it's WRONG.

I provided evidence to show why it's wrong.
But you just keep ignoring it.

A religion with such extreme claims needs a very visible, charasmatic leader that's a tangible force. Paul reciting his own creed just ain't going to cut it.

Paul was obviously visible and charismatic.
But Jesus never existed.

Then you have all of Jesus's contemporaries :
John the Baptist -- his cousin
Zacharias -- his uncle (and high priest of the Jewish temple)
Elizabeth- his aunt
Joseph - his earthly father
Mary - his mother
James - a brother
Jude -- a brother

And what evidence is there for these Bible stories?
Nothing but the Bible.
You really believe the Bible proves the Bible true - what nonsense.

What historical evidence is there for Zacharias?
NONE.

What historical evidence is there for Elizabeth?
NONE.

What historical evidence is there for Joseph?
NONE.

What historical evidence is there for Mary?
NONE.

What historical evidence is there for Jude?
NONE.

As for James his brother - what does the letter of James have to say about Jesus?

And what does the letter of Jude have to say about Jesus?

And what do the letters of John have to say about Jesus?

And what do the letters of Peter have to say about Jesus?

NOTHING !

But of course, you ignore this fact, and will no doubt continue to ignore it - because it shows you are totally wrong.

I see you continue to ignore my posts about the early epistles.

Bollocks.

I have posted at length about the early epistles.

You IGNORED all the facts - that their is no mention of any historical Jesus in the early epistles.

Instead you PREACH the Bible as if that proves something.

Then there are the dozen or so disciples that knew him closely. All these people were contemporary with Paul as well.

Really?
What evidence is there for these people?
NONE.

Just Bible stories.
You keep pretending Bible stories prove Bible stories true.
What nonsense.

So assuming none of these people actually existed,

Wrong.
There is NO EVIDENCE these people existed.
YOU merely assume they do.

and Paul just made it all up, how did Paul explain it away, right there in Jerusalem, the place where they were all supposed to live, right there in front of the Jewish leaders that were accused of murdering this "non-existent" man, right there in front of the roman rulers tht were accused as well?

Clearly you are not capable of grasping the issues.
But, I'll try and explain it again.

What did Paul have to "explain away" ?
Paul never said ANYTHING about Jesus of Nazareth.

There is nothing to explain.

Paul describes his beliefs in a spiritual being.
People write such things all the time - no explaining is needed.

Iasion, this scenario is just plain ludicrous. Paul never would have gotten away with this. He might as well have dissed Ceasar to his face, and pissed on him and the Jewish temple in public.

Get away with WHAT?
What on earth do you think Paul had to get away with.

This comment makes no sense at all.

Paul wrote some spiritual ideas - so what?
People write spiritual ideas then and now and get "away with it".

Please explain what YOU THINK Paul "got away with" ?

Have you taken any history courses, by the way?

Yes.
And I have read the actual historical sources.
You clearly haven't - instead you just preach straight from the Bible.

Have you read Aland, Ehrman, Metzger, Brown ?
I bet you have no idea who they even are !

And why do you have such a problem with the concept? It's simple, it's reasonable, it's accepted by mainstream scholars, and it just makes common sense anyway.

I have explained in great length why and given a great deal of argument.
I have shown there are many scholars who agree with me.
I have shown you are wrong on many occasions.

But you have ignored all of it.
Perhaps you post with your eyes closed, like Carcano?


Iasion

 

[Woody]

Iasion said:

And what evidence is there for these Bible stories?
Nothing but the Bible.

And Paul (whom you claim started the Jesus Myth) making the claims of all the above, especially of the crucifiction of christ with the blame placed squarely, point blank on both the roman government and the Jewish leaders -- (false allegations according to you, because according to you Jesus didn't exist to start with)-- and the penalty for treason is death. Come on you can figure it out. Anyone that spread false accusations against both Rome and the Jewish leaders was guilty of treason and insurrection whether it was Paul, Mark, or anyone else.

Those accusations are in the Bible, which you say is false, hence they (the perpetrators) would be crucified for treason and insurrection, for spreading a treasonous document packed with lies about a roman government that killed an innocent man that did not exist to start with -- add to that the charges that the Jewish leaders connived to commit murder.

Nobody could get away with these so-called false accusations unless, the charges were true, that yes indeed, the roman government and the Jewish leaders DID crucify a man called Jesus, and they were RESPONSIBLE before all that witnessed the event, hence they had no defense against the charges in the gosple accounts, hence Paul and anyone else could openly say that Rome and the Jewish leaders crucified Jesus without fear of reprisal.

Here are a few of Paul's accusations in Acts 2 and 4:

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

How does Paul (or anyone else for that matter) proclaim a prophet that died a highly visible public execution in Jerusalem, if no such prophet existed. Yet Paul goes before Jerusalem and the Caesar (in Rome) unchallenged on those statements. How does he get away with these treasonous accusations of murder if this person, Jesus, did not exist to start with.? You say you have ansered, no you have not answered.

You can claim Paul never said those things, but it doesn't matter. The document (bible) says those things. Hence it is a treasonous document. Hence anyone that spread it by whatever means was guilty of treason.

Iasion, you are arguing in circles.

You just don't seem to get it.

Get away with WHAT?
What on earth do you think Paul had to get away with.

The "Jesus Myth." That's what you said in post #78:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1250843&postcount=78

Greetings,

“ Originally Posted by Woody
Now can you tell me the name of the person that supposedly started the Jesus myth? I could use a good chuckle. ”

I told you.
Paul, and the author of Mark, and later Christians.
You ignored it all.

Iasion, You're babbling nonsense. I place you on my ignore list. Yes, I am ignoring you -- all of it. Goodybye. I have no use for this senseless insanity. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

 

[Carcano]

So, what did this leader and brother James write of Jesus' teachings?
What did this leader and brother James write of Jesus' life?

And, what does Jude's epistle tell us about Jesus' teachings?

So, what do the letters of Peter say about Jesus' teachings?

What do the letters of John tell us about the teachings of Jesus?

Why do the epistles not contain biographies of Jesus? Because biography was not their intention. An epistle is a theological writing, a Gospel is a biography.

Its like asking why a sociology thesis doesnt contain any recipes for strawberry shortcake. If you want recipes, read a cookbook. Planning a trip? Read a travel guide.

Now there are some gospels and fragments of gospels attributed to some these people, and they can be found on your earlychristianwritngs website.

But they were not accepted by the official church, and whether you want want to believe them or not is entirely up for grabs.

Some scholars like James D. Tabor believe they do contain little clues that can be pieced together for a more complete story of the earliest times.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/indexb.html

 

[Iasion]

Here are a few of Paul's accusations in Acts 2 and 4:

What on earth?
Paul did not write Acts.

You don't know much about the Bible, do you?

How does Paul (or anyone else for that matter) proclaim a prophet that died a highly visible public execution in Jerusalem, if no such prophet existed.

Paul said no such thing.
You haven't actually READ Paul, have you?

Paul does not say anything about a murder in Jerusalem.
Paul visist Jerusalem and gives no hint anything happened there.

Yet Paul goes before Jerusalem and the Caesar (in Rome) unchallenged on those statements.

Rubbish.
You just keep PREACHING your faithful claims as if they prove your faithful claims true.


Anyway,
I'm glad I won't have to listen to any more of this nonsense - lurkers have long since figured out what Woody is.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Why do the epistles not contain biographies of Jesus? Because biography was not their intention. An epistle is a theological writing, a Gospel is a biography.

What nonsense.
Jesus is the very SOURCE of Christian theology.
In fact, to many Christians, Jesus IS there theology - Jesus is God allegedly.


So,
what does the theological letter of James tell us about the theology of Jesus?

Nothing.

What do the theological letters of Peter tell us about the theology of Jesus?

Nothing.

What do the theological letters of John tell us about the theology of Jesus?

Nothing.

What does the theological letter of Jude tell us about the theology of Jesus?

Nothing.


YOU say the letters are about theology - so where is the theology from Jesus? How did the theological teachings about Jesus get passed on to Christians?

Hmm?

The facts are clear - the early Christian epistles writers knew NOTHING about Jesus or FROM Jesus - no history, no life, no teachings, no miracles, no speeches - NOTHING.

Modern NT scholars agree that none of the epistles were written by the person whose name they bear (except Paul.)

That's right -

James
Jude
Peter
John

are all FORGERIES.


Iasion

 

[Woody]

Why do the epistles not contain biographies of Jesus? Because biography was not their intention. An epistle is a theological writing, a Gospel is a biography.

Its like asking why a sociology thesis doesnt contain any recipes for strawberry shortcake. If you want recipes, read a cookbook. Planning a trip? Read a travel guide.

Now there are some gospels and fragments of gospels attributed to some these people, and they can be found on your earlychristianwritngs website.

But they were not accepted by the official church, and whether you want want to believe them or not is entirely up for grabs.

Some scholars like James D. Tabor believe they do contain little clues that can be pieced together for a more complete story of the earliest times.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/indexb.html

Makes perfect sense to me. One of my alma maters by the way. You hit close to home.

Excellent references on the Dead Sea Scrolls by the way, and the Qumran, dated somewhere around 66 CE. This group of writers appears to be a lot like John the Baptist's followers (when christianity was morphing from judaism). They agree with the authors of the gospels on some very obscure details, and likewise with the OT scriptural references to the Messiah -- now this is quite interesting. The pieces fit like broken pottery.

Good find Carcano. Good archaeological work too. I'm impressed.

Good list of quotes about the crucifiction of Christ from the Roman political rulers in His day:

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/saw.html

Man, those guys were brutal.

 

[Carcano]

Modern NT scholars agree that none of the epistles were written by the person whose name they bear (except Paul.)

James
Jude
Peter
John

are all FORGERIES.

I believe there is a lot of hocus pocus going on in the NT, and its interesting to consider the difference between what is a forgery and what is simply false.

The last few verses of Mark were known to be forgeries even by the best known early Christian writers, and there is a footnote in some modern bibles describing them as such.

The extra verses were added in clumsy Greek to make Mark sound more like the later gospels, by including lines about how Jesus was seen by many people AFTER his death.

The original Mark only states that his tomb was found empty...nor are there any tall tales of a virgin birth.

A few of Pauls Epistles are also suspected to be forgeries.

However, the entirety of the evidence leads me to believe that Jesus did exist as a real human being...my interest in the subject being historical rather than religious.

Part of that evidence is the existence of Christian sects from the earliest times that did not endorse any of Pauls teachings. Most noteably the Ebionites - Jews who believed in the life of Jesus as the fulfillment of Judaism, not a new religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

And then there are the non-Christian writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived during the events of the new testament and recorded many things about Jesus as a real historical person.

Even here, we can easily see how his words were ammended by later Christian scribes who copied his work and interpolated phrases to make it sound more Pauline.

How do we know this? Because the the Arabs were also copying his work down through the ages, and the extra verses are not present in their versions.

Its a fascinating story:
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

 

[Medicine*Woman]

At what point did the early/later Christians decided that he was not human?

*************
M*W: Sometime after 325 AD.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

ok if you want to believe that you just go right ahead. I find it a lot more rational to believe a man called Jesus Christ started Christianity. That's easy enough. Why make it complicated?

Lot's of people believe the same and they have no vested interest in it one way or another. For atheists, I guess it's a little tougher dealing with reality. You know those religious undertones that go with the account--like there might actually be a real live God---OOHHHHH MMYYYYY GOD. NOPE, it's clearly denial time. We're getting too far out of the comfort zone.

*************
M*W: Whose comfort zone? Your's? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Get a life, BBQ man!

 

[Ayodhya]

Are we still talking about this?