James, the brother of a non-historical person?

[ilgwamh]

In this small essay I focus on the independent traditions from the first century that mention James, the brother of the Lord. GMark, Galatians, and Antiquities 20 provide independent historical confirmation that James was the brother of Jesus. I conclude that these references secure Jesus' spot as a figure in history.

http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/brotherofthelord.html

 

[ilgwamh]

No mythers here?

bumpity bump

 

[Tiassa]

Patience, Vinnie ...

I had honestly thought I would just tool around with this until I came up with something more, but since you insist on being impatient ....

To start with, from Acharya S:

It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the Epistles attributed to "Paul," never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years. The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the Epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries, as are, according to Wheless, the Epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul." Aside from the brief reference to Pontius Pilate at 1 Timothy 6:13, an epistle dated ben Yehoshua to 144 CE and thus not written by Paul, the Pauline literature (as pointed out by Edouard Dujardin) "does not refer to Pilate, or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod, or Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion, and that it also never makes any allusion to them; lastly, that it mentions absolutely none of the events of the Passion, either directly or by way of allusion." Dujardin additionally relates that other early "Christian" writings such as Revelation do not mention any historical details or drama. Mangasarian notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus's purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus's supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all which one would presume would be very important to his followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to "Paul."

I include that since you mentioned the Pauline evangelism.

That Jesus had a brother named James is well attested independently by both Mark and Paul. Paul even claims to have known James, one of the Lord’s brothers and that information comes from a primary and contemporary source during James’ lifetime.

We need to consider your use of the word independent. When verifying the Bible, independent testaments to the historicity of the Bible come from outside the Bible. Books of the Bible are not independent of one another. The prophetic books, for instance, do not "independently" confirm one another.

Of Josephus: I don't understand the relationship between Josephus and Christians; when Christians find what they think supports their arguments, Josephus is a great source; otherwise, he was a traitor and a liar who sold out his Jewish heritage for the Romans. In other words, anyone who wants to can call Josephus' writings under question. However, I'm one of those people that takes Josephus as Josephus:

Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent. Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing." Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the Common Era. "Enough of the writings of [these] authors...remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Their silence is deafening testimony against the historicizers.

In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by all scholars and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, "brother" of Jesus. Bishop Warburton labeled the Josephus interpolation regarding Jesus as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."29 Wheless notes that, "The first mention ever made of this passage, and its text, are in the Church History of that 'very dishonest writer,' Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century...CE [Catholic Encyclopedia] admits... the above cited passage was not known to Origen and the earlier patristic writers." Wheless, a lawyer, and Taylor, a minister, agree that it was Eusebius himself who forged the passage.

From the "Kirby" page referred to in the essay:

It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

Either the passage received a few glosses, or the passage was inserted here in entirety. Those who favor partial authenticity usually bracket the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousan other wonderful things concerning him."

Kirby also notes Jerome:

"Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death."

Kirby, it seems, takes issue with the portion referring to the destruction of Jerusalem: Eisenman has suggested that this reference derives from a copy of Josephus from a passage distinct from our Ant. 20.9.1 reference, which nowhere says that the death of James led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet Kirby seems to omit the first part of that passage: Josephus records the tradition ....

And tradition does not history make. Christian Censorship in Josephus is an interesting web page:

In versions of the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, edited by Christians, are two passages describing Jesus. Neither is in the Jewish version of the Josephus's Antiquities. The longer passage, the so called Testimonium Flavianum (18:3:3), is cited by Christians as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. It reads:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Though this passage was quoted by Eusebius writing in about 320_AD, earlier Christian writers make no reference to Josephus's commendation of Jesus even when it would have suited them, as they must surely have done had it existed. Indeed Origen, writing in about 250_AD, puzzled:

Though he [Josephus] did not admit our Jesus to be the Christ he none the less gave witness to so much righteousness in James.

Elsewhere he adds:

although [Josephus] disbelieved in Jesus as Christ,

contradicting the extant text. Plainly Origen's version of Josephus's works did not have the passage to which we are referring, but by 340 AD the version used by Eusebius did. Jerome's Latin version has the insertion but it is less assertive, rendering He was the Messiah by He was believed to be the Messiah. It shows that the text of Josephus has been altered. Who would or could have altered it?

On James specifically, the author writes:

Many scholars think this too is forged. If not it confirms that a previous mention had been made of Jesus. An unfavourable reference to Jesus in the original version must have been excised to render it publishable but Christian copyists, finding that their crudely censored versions contained no reference to Jesus felt obliged to insert one. So what Origen could not see Eusebius could. More space is devoted to John the Baptist in our editions of the Antiquities than to the master whose coming the gospels assure us he was proclaiming. A section covering the career of Jesus in considerably more detail than the short passage we now have must have been deleted.

It's an interesting assertion, I admit. But most interesting there is the if Jesus was so important, why devote more space to John the Baptist? But, in looking at the James reference, we might also turn to Pagels°:

Josephus writes that in 62 CE the high priest Ananus II assembled the Sanhedrin and condemned Jesus' brother James to death by stoning, along with several others, on charges of transgressing the law. These executions apparently cost Ananus II his position as high priest after some Jerusalemites complained to the Jewish king, Agrippa II, and to the Roman procurator, Albinus, that Ananus had executed James and others without notifying the procurator, much less gaining his permission. Josephus describes a later case--one that suggests that Jewish leaders had become more cautious about executing without Roman permission. A man named Jesus bar Ananias, who loudly predicted the downfall of Jerusalem and its Temple, was arrested and beaten by prominent Jewish leaders. When they brought him before Albinus, the same Roman prefect, apparently hoping to secure the death penalty,

Jesus refused to answer the prefect's questions, and so Albinus let him go as a maniac. Thus, despite their anger, the Jewish leaders, who could arrest and flog, did not dare execute this Jesus as they had executed James. (War, 6.2) (Pagels, 108)

On the one hand, we see a political process described, with James as the centerpiece, as Romans and Jews wrestled with social-control policy and capital punishment.

The passage at 20.9.1 becomes a mere passing reference to Jesus Christ. I do not see how the author of the Christian Censorship page reaches the conclusion that there must be a missing, prior reference. But consider that, given the controversy surrounding 18.3.3, what we're left with in 20.9.1 is a passing reference to Christ. To the other, though, and recalling that Antiquities 18.3.3 appears to be absent from original versions of the volume, the passage at 20.9.1 presents some interesting challenges, namely one of the subjective bases of the assertion of censorship: More space is devoted to John the Baptist in our editions of the Antiquities than to the master whose coming the gospels assure us he was proclaiming.

A curious condition, indeed.

•_"First, as to the historians whose works record the existence of Jesus, the list comprises but four. They are Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. There are short paragraphs in the works of each of these, two in Josephus. The total quantity of this material is given by Harry Elmer Barnes in The Twilight of Christianity as some twenty-four lines. It may total a little more, perhaps twice that amount. This meager testimony constitutes the body or mass of the evidence of 'one of the best attested events in history.' Even if it could be accepted as indisputably authentic and reliable, it would be faltering support for an event that has dominated the thought of half the world for eighteen centuries. (Kuhn, cf Acharya S)

• But what is the standing of this witness? Not even Catholic scholars of importance have dissented from a general agreement of academic investigators that these passages, one and all, must by put down as forgeries and interpolations by partisan Christian scribes who wished zealously to array the authority of these historians behind the historicity of the Gospel life of Jesus. A sum total of forty or fifty lines from secular history supporting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and they completely discredited!" (ibid)

•_Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing." Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the Common Era. "Enough of the writings of [these] authors...remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." (Acharya S)

There is much doubt about the use of Josephus to verify either Jesus or James. Most if not all of that antiquarian source body is questionable especially as relates to Christianity; even Tacitus is suspect.

All of this independent historical evidence seems to secure the historicity of the figure behind the Christian faith.

See, that's the problem; I don't see a bunch of independent evidence. I see books of the Bible used to "verify" each other historically, some passages in history which have dubious origins, and the attestations of several apologists for Christian faith, hardly the most "independent" collection of sources. A question regarding the Kirby citation:

•_If Josephus referred to James as the brother of Jesus in the Antiquities, in all likelihood the historical James identified himself as the brother of Jesus, and this identification would secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history.

So a guy named James says, "I'm the brother of Jesus"? I'm sorry, but in the millennia since, the scope of Jesus' brethren has grown considerably. What if you went before a court and described yourself as a "brother of Jesus"? In rhetoric, I might agree with that sense of fellowship, but what would it mean to history? Would you suddenly become independent verification that Jesus Christ lived and walked the earth as told in the Bible?

thanx much,
Tiassa

Notes:

°_Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1995.

 

[ilgwamh]

I hate to “lower” this discussion, but Acharya S?!?? It was argued that the Gospels were composed late second century in that article! That is an extremely fringe position. A definite minority view. Most of that article seems to be a bunch of fringe positions thrown together. But for the sake of argument, lets go through the quotation:

“”””””It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the Epistles attributed to "Paul," never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years.”””””””””

The Gospels themselves do not do what that wants Paul to do! Anyways, Paul refers to a historical person who he thought was the climax of Israel’s history or “ as the prophet and messianic agent commissioned by God to bring about the definitive divine rule (O’ Collins, Christology). I recently wrote a paper on Paul and Jesus addressing basically that quote (without ever seeing it). I may incorporate it into my article which can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/paulandjesus.html

I argued that there is an appropriate continuity between Jesus and Paul when viewed in the light of Jewish eschatology.

“””””The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the Epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries,””””””””

Those who argue that verses like 1 Cor 15 are interpolations are in the minority.

“”””””as are, according to Wheless, the Epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul."”””””””

What? It is WIDELY accepted that Paul authored quite a few of the epistles attributed to him. Many scholars will however argue that Paul did not author II Thess, Col, Eph, and the Pastoral Letters (I and II Tim and Titus). The rest are considered Pauline. This is yet another fringe position. A minority view.


“””””””Aside from the brief reference to Pontius Pilate at 1 Timothy 6:13, an epistle dated ben Yehoshua to 144 CE and thus not written by Paul, the Pauline literature (as pointed out by Edouard Dujardin) "does not refer to Pilate, or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod, or Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion, and that it also never makes any allusion to them; lastly, that it mentions absolutely none of the events of the Passion, either directly or by way of allusion."”””””””

I view 1 Tim as duetero-Pauline so that is irrelevant to me. Of course, this is fallacious reasoning at its finest. A section from the article of mine that I linked above should serve to illustrate this:

The Danger of Exegesis that Employs What the Evangelist did not say

There is a dangerous trap here that many fall into. It is often noted that Paul does not mention the virgin birth or that he never mentions an empty tomb etc. How could he have never mentioned such pivotal views in all his writings if he accepted them as true? 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. Does a non-mention of the virgin birth by Paul or the author of Mark or any other 1st century author mean they did not know about it or disagreed with the idea?. From Raymond Brown “The NT writers certainly knew more of the Christian tradition than they were able or chose to convey in their writings; John 21:25 is specific about that. Therefore we should maintain a certain distrust of negative arguments from silence, as if the failure to write meant the failure to know. For instance, only Matt and Luke tell us about Jesus' virginal conception. Failure of other NT writers to mention it does not necessarily mean that they did not know of it (or, a fortiori, would deny it); yet neither can we assume that the knowledge was widespread. On the level of the literal sense, exegesis that embraces what the evangelist did not actually convey in writing becomes very speculative.”5 Those who argue that Paul does not speak of a historical Jesus are clearly wrong and those who want to modify their argument and say Paul does not speak enough of a historical Jesus should know that they are in the boonies of “speculation-ville” and the slums of “argument from silence-land”. A devastating citation, in regards to that position, from Raymond Brown: Thus in the 50s of the 1st century Paul produced the earliest surviving Christian documents: 1 Thess, Gal, Phil, Phlm, I and II Cor, and Rom. There is a somewhat different tone and emphasis to each, corresponding to what Paul perceived as the needs of the respective community at a particular time. This fact should make us cautious about generalizations in reference to Pauline theology. Paul was not a systematic theologian but an evangelizing preacher, giving strong emphasis at a certain moment to one aspect of faith in Jesus, at another moment to another aspect—indeed to a degree that may seem to us inconsistent. On the grounds that Paul does not mention an idea or practice, very adventurous assumptions are sometimes made about his views. For example, the Eucharist is mentioned in only one Pauline writing and there largely because of abuses at the Eucharistic meal at Corinth. Except for that situation scholars might be misled to assume that there was no Eucharist in the Pauline churches, reasoning that Paul could scarcely written so much without mentioning such an important aspect of Christian life. 6

5 Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 38-39 (ABRL DOUBLEDAY, 1997).
6. Ibid, p. 6.

“””””””Dujardin additionally relates that other early "Christian" writings such as Revelation do not mention any historical details or drama.””””””””

Revelation falls into a distinct literary genre doesn’t it? I don’t think it happens to be “contemporary biographies.”


“”””””””” Mangasarian notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus's purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus's supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all which one would presume would be very important to his followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to "Paul."”””””””””””

Paul assumes his readers knew the Jesus story in a lot of instances. Anyways, look at the thoughts I quoted from F.F. Bruce on Paul and HJ material. Bruce concludes with: "In short, the outline of the gospel story as we can trace it in the
writings of Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in the New Testament and in the four Gospels in particular.

We see from the Bruce citation (on the website I linked) that Paul does in fact mention a good number of historical things concerning Jesus. It should be noted that the Gospels do not present us with biographies of Jesus in the modern sense. We do not know what Jesus looked like, we do not know what type of food he preferred nor what he did for most of his life. The Gospels concern themselves primarily with Jesus’ ministry and the genuine Pauline epistles line up with the thoughts regarding Jesus’ ministry found in the Gospels. The indication here is that Paul accepted a historical Jesus. The evidence dictates that Paul thought Jesus was “commissioned by God to bring about the definitive divine rule.” Pauline thought was not so much concerned with the details of Jesus’ life as he was with his ministry and death and resurrection. There was, is, and always will be an appropriate continuity between Jesus and Paul.

Vinnie said:That Jesus had a brother named James is well attested independently by both Mark and Paul. Paul even claims to have known James, one of the Lord’s brothers and that information comes from a primary and contemporary source during James’ lifetime.

Tiassa responded: We need to consider your use of the word independent. When verifying the Bible, independent testaments to the historicity of the Bible come from outside the Bible. Books of the Bible are not independent of one another. The prophetic books, for instance, do not "independently" confirm one another./

Some books of the Bible ARE independent of one another. To claim otherwise is nonsense. The “various” individual compositions were later collected into a whole. Accoding to the critical consensus, Paul wrote independent of the Gospel of Mark. Thus, as historical documents they are independent sources. Note that I did not include Matthew and Luke’s references to the brother of Jesus because they COPIED off of Mark. Ergo, they cannot be said to be independent witnesses to this. The synoptics constitute a stream of tradition. Omitting the Lukan and Matthean references was deliberate. Had some material been found in Q or L or M I would have included it. That is why I referenced the material in John and Jude as well.

Of Josephus: I don't understand the relationship between Josephus and Christians; when Christians find what they think supports their arguments, Josephus is a great source; otherwise, he was a traitor and a liar who sold out his Jewish heritage for the Romans. In other words, anyone who wants to can call Josephus' writings under question. However, I'm one of those people that takes Josephus as Josephus:

Two thoughts on that:

1. Lots of bad and uninformed apologists out there.
2. Josephus, like the Gospels, is not inerrant and infallible.


“””””””From the "Kirby" page referred to in the essay:”””””””

That referenced the Testimonium Flavanium. I am using the shorter reference in Antiquities 20. What is the relevance?

In versions of the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, edited by Christians, are two passages describing Jesus. Neither is in the Jewish version of the Josephus's Antiquities. The longer passage, the so called Testimonium Flavianum (18:3:3), is cited by Christians as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. It reads:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Though this passage was quoted by Eusebius writing in about 320_AD, earlier Christian writers make no reference to Josephus's commendation of Jesus even when it would have suited them, as they must surely have done had it existed. Indeed Origen, writing in about 250_AD, puzzled:

Though he [Josephus] did not admit our Jesus to be the Christ he none the less gave witness to so much righteousness in James.

Elsewhere he adds:

although [Josephus] disbelieved in Jesus as Christ,

contradicting the extant text. Plainly Origen's version of Josephus's works did not have the passage to which we are referring, but by 340 AD the version used by Eusebius did. Jerome's Latin version has the insertion but it is less assertive, rendering He was the Messiah by He was believed to be the Messiah. It shows that the text of Josephus has been altered. Who would or could have altered it?

The relevance of this? This pertains to the Testimonium Flavanium. I did not bring that up. Are you simply wanting to discuss it or is there some relevance I am missing? Origen seems to affirm the shorter passage that I appealed to in my article. Yes, we are also aware that the current Testimonium Flavanium was not in Origin’s copy of Josephus. That is a given.

Many scholars think this too is forged. If not it confirms that a previous mention had been made of Jesus. An unfavourable reference to Jesus in the original version must have been excised to render it publishable but Christian copyists, finding that their crudely censored versions contained no reference to Jesus felt obliged to insert one. So what Origen could not see Eusebius could. More space is devoted to John the Baptist in our editions of the Antiquities than to the master whose coming the gospels assure us he was proclaiming. A section covering the career of Jesus in considerably more detail than the short passage we now have must have been deleted.

Kirby does away with that argument on the site by noting another example of where the same thing jas occurred.

But most interesting there is the if Jesus was so important, why devote more space to John the Baptist?

Who said Jesus was important to Josephus?

“”””””But consider that, given the controversy surrounding 18.3.3, what we're left with in 20.9.1 is a passing reference to Christ. To the other, though, and recalling that Antiquities 18.3.3 appears to be absent from original versions of the volume, the passage at 20.9.1 presents some interesting challenges, namely one of the subjective bases of the assertion of censorship:””””””””””””

The challenges rest on those who wish to argue interpolation. The shorter reference has presumption as it relays a non-Christian witness to Jesus. As any sober canon of textual criticism should tell us that unless there is reason to doubt it we accept it as genuine. Where the burden of proof lies is extremely clear. If it cannot be demonstrated that it was interpolated there is no good reason to doubt the passage.

Note that at best, your Origen argument simply says that the current Antiquities 18 reference to Jesus found in all extant manuscripts was not there. It does not necessarily conclude that there was NO reference at all. That fact fits in with both "total" and "partial" authenticity advocates. Anyways, Kirby agrees with you that Ant 18 was totally interpolated.

“””””””More space is devoted to John the Baptist in our editions of the Antiquities than to the master whose coming the gospels assure us he was proclaiming.””””””””

Josephus knew or accepted that? I think Josephus contradicts the Gospels and says JBap did not baptize for the remission of sin. Of course, scholars like Crossan and Morton Smith think Josephus was wrong here. Otherwise one wonders how John came to be referred as the Baptist to begin with.

Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing." Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the Common Era. "Enough of the writings of [these] authors...remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

I’ll address this later. I’ve discussed this on the sec web before. I’ll try to find the thread, link to it and repost some comments here.

“”””””See, that's the problem; I don't see a bunch of independent evidence. I see books of the Bible used to "verify" each other historically, some passages in history which have dubious origins, and the attestations of several apologists for Christian faith, hardly the most "independent" collection of sources.””””””””

Mark and Paul are independent of one another as is the reference in Ant 20. It should be noted that these references lend support to one another as well. Neither, Josephus, Jude, Paul, nor Mark are stating something “unheard of”. The at least threefold independent attestation presents a strong historical argument.

So a guy named James says, "I'm the brother of Jesus"? I'm sorry, but in the millennia since, the scope of Jesus' brethren has grown considerably. What if you went before a court and described yourself as a "brother of Jesus"? In rhetoric, I might agree with that sense of fellowship, but what would it mean to history? Would you suddenly become independent verification that Jesus Christ lived and walked the earth as told in the Bible?

All the historical evidence dicates that there was a man named Jesus in the early first century with a brother named James. You are equivocating “independent” here. I use “independent” here in regard to historical reconstruction by "substantiated" sources. Mark is a combination of history and legend (or myth) but in the reference I quoted Mark has uneasy and embarrassing traditions about Jesus’ family. Matthew and Luke who drew off of Mark (markan priority) omit some of these I think. This seems to argue for the historicity of this material. Paul claims to have known and met James (which means his Galatians reference is contemporary and primary source material in regards to James and the claim that he was brother of the Lord). Josephus would have heard about the event he was describing earlier than when he wrote. He is a non-Christian source as well and his references to the so called Christ is not a Christian way of referring to Jesus. Sober historians who reconstruct ancient history (which has limited sources and a lot of unknowns) would find this to be solid evidence. As solid as it will get. Needless to say, there is a consensus that Jesus was a historical figure. Christ-mythicism is a fringe view. And the consensus that I speak of is composed of Christian, atheist, Jewish and other scholars.

Vinnie

 

[Tiassa]

Well, you can believe it if you want to

I hate to “lower” this discussion, but Acharya S?!??

As you wish.

The Gospels themselves do not do what that wants Paul to do!

That's the problem with the historicity of Jesus; so little ever deals with the historical development of his ministry. From your quote of Bruce:

Even when he does not quote the actual sayings of Jesus of Jesus, he
shows throughout his works how well acquainted he was with them. In
particular, we ought to compare the ethical section of the Epistle to
the Romans (12:1 - 15:7), where Paul summarizes the practical
implication of the gospel for the lives of believers, with the
Sermon on the Mount, to see how thoroughly imbued the Apostle was
with the teaching of his Master. Besides, there and elsewhere Paul's
chief argument in his ethical instruction is the example of Christ
Himself. And the character of Christ as understood by Paul is in
perfect agreement with His character as portrayed in the Gospels.
When Paul speaks of 'the meekness and gentleness of Christ' (2 Cor.
10:1), we remember our Lord's own words, "I am meek and lowly in
heart' (Matt. 11:29). The self-denying Christ of the gospels is the
one of whom Paul says, 'Even Christ pleased not himself' (Rom. 15:3);
and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny
themselves (Mark 8:34), so the apostle insists that, after the
example of Christ Himself, it is our Christian duty 'to bear the
infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves' (Rom 15:1). He
who said: 'I am among you as the servant' (Luke 22:27), and
performed the menial task of washing His disciples' feet (John 13:4
ff.), is He who, according to Paul, 'took the form of a slave' (Phil.
2:7). In a word, when Paul wishes to commend his readers all those
moral graces which adorn the Christ of the Gospels he does so in
language like this: 'Put on the Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom 13:14).

In other words, Paul repeats a bunch of philosophies that, by Acharya's argument, that were known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years.

What an interesting point.

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

You're making a huge assertion with this point that many Christians would disagree with. I'm perfectly willing to accept it on the grounds that you say so, but in such a case it can, necessarily, only apply to your opinion.

Therefore we should maintain a certain distrust of negative arguments from silence, as if the failure to write meant the failure to know.

Therefore, we should maintain a certain distrust of negative arguments from silence in the sense that the author chose not to include in the complex telling of the most basic of faith points.

For instance, only Matt and Luke tell us about Jesus' virginal conception. Failure of other NT writers to mention it does not necessarily mean that they did not know of it (or, a fortiori, would deny it); yet neither can we assume that the knowledge was widespread

Again, we can presume that such a basic point of faith was not widespread. How did such a faith point become so basic if it wasn't widespread knowledge?

For example, the Eucharist is mentioned in only one Pauline writing and there largely because of abuses at the Eucharistic meal at Corinth. Except for that situation scholars might be misled to assume that there was no Eucharist in the Pauline churches, reasoning that Paul could scarcely written so much without mentioning such an important aspect of Christian life

Hmmm ... the "facts" of Jesus' life versus the procedures of a church institution. Quite the analogy. I mean, I know you're trying but I think your essays are failing in the fact that you start from the presumption of Christ's legitimacy. If Paul was the only source on the Eucharist, then perhaps such an argument could be made legitimate.

By looking at the “story of Jesus” not in terms of a collection of fact or in terms of a pile of discrete pieces, but in terms of pattern and meaning, we have found a deep consistency in the earliest Christian literature concerning the character of Jesus as Messiah.

By looking at the story of Jesus not in terms of a collection of fact ....

Real life does not always show pattern and meaning. I accept the Bible as a myth. That seems to be what the LT Johnson quote points out.

Fair enough.

Those who argue that verses like 1 Cor 15 are interpolations are in the minority.

Says you.

“”””””as are, according to Wheless, the Epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul."”””””””

What? It is WIDELY accepted that Paul authored quite a few of the epistles attributed to him. Many scholars will however argue that Paul did not author II Thess, Col, Eph, and the Pastoral Letters (I and II Tim and Titus). The rest are considered Pauline. This is yet another fringe position. A minority view.

Well, if the Bible is in any way, shape, or form factual, there goes the Pauline credibility. "Somewhat credible", or "kind of credible" do not credible make.

I view 1 Tim as duetero-Pauline so that is irrelevant to me.

So irrelevant to you ... I guess that wraps it up?

A section from the article of mine that I linked above should serve to illustrate this:

As I've addressed the most glaring sections of that text already, I shall forego further comment.

Revelation falls into a distinct literary genre doesn’t it? I don’t think it happens to be “contemporary biographies.”

Yeah, but some people tend to believe in prophecy, don't they? I mean, since I find Revelations to be completely fictional and intended to polarize its audience, it is irrelevant to me or this argument.

Paul assumes his readers knew the Jesus story in a lot of instances. Anyways, look at the thoughts I quoted from F.F. Bruce on Paul and HJ material. Bruce concludes with: "In short, the outline of the gospel story as we can trace it in the
writings of Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in the New Testament and in the four Gospels in particular.

Or, to put it another way, Paul employs a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years.

. The indication here is that Paul accepted a historical Jesus.

I think this makes its own point.

Some books of the Bible ARE independent of one another. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

Right. Just like the Gospels independently verify the prophetic books?

Accoding to the critical consensus, Paul wrote independent of the Gospel of Mark. Thus, as historical documents they are independent sources. Note that I did not include Matthew and Luke’s references to the brother of Jesus because they COPIED off of Mark. Ergo, they cannot be said to be independent witnesses to this. The synoptics constitute a stream of tradition. Omitting the Lukan and Matthean references was deliberate. Had some material been found in Q or L or M I would have included it. That is why I referenced the material in John and Jude as well.

By and large, this speaks against the historicity of Jesus in almost any context.

I mean, if Paul is writing before the evangelists (cf. Pagels, A History of God, 183), what interest do you think Paul had in establishing the historical Jesus? If Paul "accepted a historical Jesus", why? Was it something he could simply afford to accept on faith?

Two thoughts on that:

1. Lots of bad and uninformed apologists out there.
2. Josephus, like the Gospels, is not inerrant and infallible.

I'll agree on both counts.

That referenced the Testimonium Flavanium. I am using the shorter reference in Antiquities 20. What is the relevance?

Perhaps the fact that you included it in your essay?

The relevance of this? This pertains to the Testimonium Flavanium. I did not bring that up.

Yes, actually, you did. Do I really have to cite your own words?

Kirby does away with that argument on the site by noting another example of where the same thing jas occurred.

There's a sound argument.

Who said Jesus was important to Josephus?

I don't think that matters. Was Jesus important, at all, period?

The challenges rest on those who wish to argue interpolation. The shorter reference has presumption as it relays a non-Christian witness to Jesus. As any sober canon of textual criticism should tell us that unless there is reason to doubt it we accept it as genuine. Where the burden of proof lies is extremely clear. If it cannot be demonstrated that it was interpolated there is no good reason to doubt the passage.

Note that at best, your Origen argument simply says that the current Antiquities 18 reference to Jesus found in all extant manuscripts was not there. It does not necessarily conclude that there was NO reference at all. That fact fits in with both "total" and "partial" authenticity advocates. Anyways, Kirby agrees with you that Ant 18 was totally interpolated.

And all of this leaves us with Ant. 20.9, which leaves us with the trial of a guy who claimed to be Jesus. And from the Kirby article you provided, "Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death." The tradition of James' great sanctity. Traditions do not histories make.

Josephus knew or accepted that? I think Josephus contradicts the Gospels and says JBap did not baptize for the remission of sin. Of course, scholars like Crossan and Morton Smith think Josephus was wrong here. Otherwise one wonders how John came to be referred as the Baptist to begin with.

Josephus was, among other things, an historian. What do you think is more historical? A guy proclaiming a savior, or a guy recognized by many as that savior who is executed as a political insurgent and a thief?

Just as an historical insight?

Mark and Paul are independent of one another as is the reference in Ant 20.

Two books canonically classified as gospels independently verify each other, as does the recording of a tradition of James' sanctity alleged as the brother of Christ?

Well and fine.

It should be noted that these references lend support to one another as well. Neither, Josephus, Jude, Paul, nor Mark are stating something “unheard of”. The at least threefold independent attestation presents a strong historical argument.

It's not as strong as you think. Such loose references can easily be constructed to argue against the Bible, as well. For instance, I'll wait for the sec web reference to push this point.

All the historical evidence dicates that there was a man named Jesus in the early first century with a brother named James.

What historical evidence?

Mention in the Bible, which, as we're seeing, is not particularly factual.

Reference to a guy who claims to be the brother of Christ.

A "visionary" (used loosely) evangelist who accepted a historical Jesus but never bothered to mention that in his writings, even though the gospels were still merely forming.

Ummm ... anything more concrete?

Matthew and Luke who drew off of Mark (markan priority) omit some of these I think.

Matthew and Luke draw almost straight from Q in many places (see Pagels).

Paul claims to have known and met James (which means his Galatians reference is contemporary and primary source material in regards to James and the claim that he was brother of the Lord).

If Paul was more demonstrably aware of the significant points that would rise from the Gospels to become primary faith points, perhaps that argument would bear more weight. But being that those points had to wait for the gospels, one wonders if those "facts" were in circulation at the time of Paul's writing. By the late second century, there are multiple "gospels" afoot, and I've made many a laughing reference to Irenaeus of Lyon and his argument concerning groups of four. Seems rather indicative of assimilation to me that the settling-out should result in a restatement of older gnostic principles.

Sober historians who reconstruct ancient history (which has limited sources and a lot of unknowns) would find this to be solid evidence.

Then there's not as many sober historians out there as you would like to imagine.

As solid as it will get.

I believe you.

Needless to say, there is a consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

Largely among people who are predisposed by faith to believe that anyway.

And the consensus that I speak of is composed of Christian, atheist, Jewish and other scholars.

Such as? I mean, might as well match some names with their affiliations.

Maybe we should take a poll.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by ilgwamh
In this small essay I focus on the independent traditions from the first century that mention James, the brother of the Lord. GMark, Galatians, and Antiquities 20 provide independent historical confirmation that James was the brother of Jesus. I conclude that these references secure Jesus' spot as a figure in history.

Two years ago I heard, first-hand, more than twenty people say "The world will end at midnight on the eve of January first 2001". Since so many people actually said it, it must be true. The world ended two years ago. Bummer.

 

[Xev]

Adam:

Two years ago I heard, first-hand, more than twenty people say "The world will end at midnight on the eve of January first 2001". Since so many people actually said it, it must be true. The world ended two years ago. Bummer.

Oh come on fish-boy, you know the situations are different. One can be easily debunked - we are sitting here, we know the world did not end.

The other is simply like accepting the references to Socrates (thanks Mike for the analogy) in Plato, Aristophanes and Xenophon to mean that Socrates actually existed.

Tiassa:

Again, we can presume that such a basic point of faith was not widespread. How did such a faith point become so basic if it wasn't widespread knowledge?

The virgin birth? I'm sorry Tiassa, I'm not sure how this casts doubt on Jesus' historicity. Mithra was born of a virgin as well, and Christianity pilfered much of the beliefs of Mithraism. It does not seem suprising that the early Christians would claim Jesus to have been born of a virgin.

An analogy is helpful. Many chronicalers of the Norman invasion claim that Halley's comet was responsible or a herald of the disaster. Does this mean that their testimony of the existance of William the Bastard *smiles* or William the Conquerer (always liked how that works out) is flawed?

Well, if the Bible is in any way, shape, or form factual, there goes the Pauline credibility. "Somewhat credible", or "kind of credible" do not credible make.

I think it does in history. Not completely credible, of course, but it is a piece of circumstantial evidence. See my above analogy.

Such as? I mean, might as well match some names with their affiliations.

Good point. However, I dunno.....how much evidence is there that Buddha existed?

I think it is likely that some sort of Jesus figure existed. Here is why:

A: There is some mention of Jesus outside the Gospels.
B: The existance of a Jewish rabble-rouser in that period of time seems easy enough to accept.
C: There's really no convincing evidence that he did not exist.
D: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Carl Sagan said.
E: The accounts in the Gospels mesh well enough to be accounts of the same person, but not well enough (i.e the different accounts of Jesus' last words, the accounts of his riding into Jerusalum on a donkey and a colt, etc) to be later forgeries - at least forgeries by the same person.

Many courtroom lawyers consider it a good sign when eyewitness accounts differ slightly - they say it makes conspiricy between witnesses seem less likely. I think this applies here.

 

[Tyler]

Just another site here on the religion Xev mentioned. It's an interesting topic I believe.

http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dyn...=http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html

 

[ilgwamh]

I'll be back with a response thursday at the leatest. Busy week developing

 

[Tiassa]

But is it really what happened, Xev?

Xev

I never realized how important Jesus Christ was to you.

The virgin birth? I'm sorry Tiassa, I'm not sure how this casts doubt on Jesus' historicity.

Did you happen to read the essays Vinnie offered? I would ask you to consider a couple of simple ideas:

• Paul assumes his readers knew the Jesus story in a lot of instances. (Ilgwamh, 8.04.02)

So if Paul assumes the historicity of Jesus, why? The primary Gospels have not arrived yet; the "facts" of Jesus' life have not been given to the masses in this way. The Pauline evangelism is conventionally held to occur before the Gospels became known, as I recall. Does it not seem presumptuous? History shows that there were many ideas circulating at the time about Jesus Christ, and that by the end of the second century the political infighting would be afoot while the Bishop of Lyon screamed that there could only be four Gospels.

It seems to me that Paul, writing about Jesus Christ and Salvation, would at least make mention of basic faith points. Unless, of course, he didn't know they were basic faith points (e.g. that part of the religion had not accreted and concretized).

Mithra was born of a virgin as well, and Christianity pilfered much of the beliefs of Mithraism.

I hope you don't expect me to argue with this. I might direct you at this point to this thread, on the second page (Notes on India & the Christ myth); the Christ myth borrows elements of many other theologies. Lacking any details such as the virgin birth, we see that Paul repeats a bunch of philosophies that were known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years, a point already put forth for consideration in the current topic.

How can Paul assume the historicity of Jesus and communicate according to that historicity before the Gospels which were asserted as fact were widely available? If Paul writes first, and compiles a tale that includes such a generalized theology as has been available among other cults for a while, it seems to me a quite logical outcome that the Gospel authors should merely have dressed the Christ myth more definitively in robes of allegorical mysticism. The mystical details of Jesus' life are not uncommon; why not add the mystical details to reinforce the matching philosophical principles while adjusting them to conform with the specifics of the faith proclaimed?

It does not seem suprising that the early Christians would claim Jesus to have been born of a virgin.

Nor does it seem surprising to me, except in the context that Paul either didn't know about this point or considered it nonessential. Given that the virgin birth stands as a most basic point of Christian faith, that the virgin birth stands as evidence--as such--of Jesus' divinity, don't you think that or other mystical details might be important to include?

An analogy is helpful. Many chronicalers of the Norman invasion claim that Halley's comet was responsible or a herald of the disaster. Does this mean that their testimony of the existance of William the Bastard *smiles* or William the Conquerer (always liked how that works out) is flawed?

Did the Bastard claim to be Christ? Have we ever seen evidence definitively connecting Halley's Comet to the invasion? Many tales also tell us that the gods wrecked Pompeii and Herculaneum. Does that mean the idea that a volcanic eruption occurred is flawed?

I think it does in history. Not completely credible, of course, but it is a piece of circumstantial evidence. See my above analogy.

Admittedly history is never definitive. But since, as Ilgwamh has noted, Many scholars will however argue that Paul did not author II Thess, Col, Eph, and the Pastoral Letters (I and II Tim and Titus).

So the author isn't the author. But we can assume he is and just go forward?

Bear in mind that the Bible can hold a certain philosophical truth, a certain allegorical truth, and even a certain composite truth. But historical truth is nearest the center of the issue, and if the author is not the author, there goes the historical "truth", and a good deal of the historical authority that the Bible alleges as well.

Good point. However, I dunno.....how much evidence is there that Buddha existed?

I'm afraid I don't see quite how that matters. Perhaps you could explain it to me?

I think it is likely that some sort of Jesus figure existed.

You won't find a heck of a lot of argument from me on that point. "Jesus" most likely does refer to something or someone. But the points of evidence you cite do not make the case for that something or someone being Jesus according to the Gospels.

Many courtroom lawyers consider it a good sign when eyewitness accounts differ slightly - they say it makes conspiricy between witnesses seem less likely. I think this applies here.

So plead the case. I make an excellent juror. I mean, I'm not going to ask you to resolve whether Jesus' ministry was one year or three years (Johanine v. Synoptic) or other such contradictions. But in courtroom terms, establishing that the Gospels refer to something is a far cry from establishing what they actually refer to.

The Enuma Elish stands for something in that mythic sense. But nobody's going to argue that it's "gospel truth" are they?

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

Tiassa:

I never realized how important Jesus Christ was to you.

Just bashing Vinnie.

Did you happen to read the essays Vinnie offered? I would ask you to consider a couple of simple ideas:

Wouldn't debate his essay otherwise.

So if Paul assumes the historicity of Jesus, why? The primary Gospels have not arrived yet; the "facts" of Jesus' life have not been given to the masses in this way. The Pauline evangelism is conventionally held to occur before the Gospels became known, as I recall. Does it not seem presumptuous? History shows that there were many ideas circulating at the time about Jesus Christ, and that by the end of the second century the political infighting would be afoot while the Bishop of Lyon screamed that there could only be four Gospels.

This is true. Paul started his evangelism before the Gospels had been codified - that is, they may have been written, but they were not quite accepted by the majority of the Christian community.

Or this is as I recall things, I could be wrong.

It seems to me that Paul, writing about Jesus Christ and Salvation, would at least make mention of basic faith points. Unless, of course, he didn't know they were basic faith points (e.g. that part of the religion had not accreted and concretized).

I submit that Christianity did not truely concretize or fully split with Judaism until at least Constantine.

I hope you don't expect me to argue with this. I might direct you at this point to this thread, on the second page (Notes on India & the Christ myth); the Christ myth borrows elements of many other theologies. Lacking any details such as the virgin birth, we see that Paul repeats a bunch of philosophies that were known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years, a point already put forth for consideration in the current topic.

No, I figured you'd be familiar with Mithra and all. The Christians also borrowed from many other native religions, such as the Nordic paganism.

This is off topic, but so does the antichrist myth.

The mystical details of Jesus' life are not uncommon; why not add the mystical details to reinforce the matching philosophical principles while adjusting them to conform with the specifics of the faith proclaimed?

Indeed. As well as to make Christianity appealing to potential converts. People are more likely to accept what they know.

Nor does it seem surprising to me, except in the context that Paul either didn't know about this point or considered it nonessential. Given that the virgin birth stands as a most basic point of Christian faith, that the virgin birth stands as evidence--as such--of Jesus' divinity, don't you think that or other mystical details might be important to include?

I would not call it the most basic point. I would call Jesus' being God's son, as well as being God, the most basic point of Christian mythos.

But other than that minor quibble, you are right. It seems then, that the virgin birth is a later invention?

Did the Bastard claim to be Christ? Have we ever seen evidence definitively connecting Halley's Comet to the invasion? Many tales also tell us that the gods wrecked Pompeii and Herculaneum. Does that mean the idea that a volcanic eruption occurred is flawed?

My point exactly, and I think I was miscommunicating with you here. For some reason I thought you were arguing against the historicity of Jesus by pointing out that the Gospels included much myth, so why should Jesus himself not be considered myth?

My bad, sorry.

Bear in mind that the Bible can hold a certain philosophical truth, a certain allegorical truth, and even a certain composite truth. But historical truth is nearest the center of the issue, and if the author is not the author, there goes the historical "truth", and a good deal of the historical authority that the Bible alleges as well.

*Smiles* You will not find me arguing that the Bible is a good historical record any more than the Anead (Anaed? Aneid? Gah!) is.

You won't find a heck of a lot of argument from me on that point. "Jesus" most likely does refer to something or someone. But the points of evidence you cite do not make the case for that something or someone being Jesus according to the Gospels.

Now I am confused.

My point, I think I have communicated it badly, is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are built around a certain core truth - that some guy named Jesus or something along those lines lived, preached and was likely crucified. I believe that this basic fact accreted myth, much as a grain of sand in an oyster becomes a pearl.

The accreted myth, the layers of nacre, are Christianity. The grain of sand is Jesus.

So plead the case. I make an excellent juror. I mean, I'm not going to ask you to resolve whether Jesus' ministry was one year or three years (Johanine v. Synoptic) or other such contradictions. But in courtroom terms, establishing that the Gospels refer to something is a far cry from establishing what they actually refer to.

Nor am I likely to resolve such contradictions. Not my religion, I'm just an enthusiast. *Smiles*

You are correct. I think Vinnie and I have done a fair job on these forums of establishing that there is a "something".

The next thing to explore would be - what is that "something"? Was Jesus actually a rabbi, or just a preacher to the masses? Did he really preach to the masses? If so, what did he preach?

 

[Tiassa]

The Apple is Hardcore

Xev,

(Sorry ... in lieu of any good title, I kept hearing this line from a Fruit of the Loom commercial for boxer shorts. The apple is hardcore. The apple is hardcore.)

I think I hear you on all points. Thus ... mere commentary for the moment.

I submit that Christianity did not truely concretize or fully split with Judaism until at least Constantine.

I'll raise a glass to that. Nicaea (20 May, 325) brought to Christianity "creation ex nihilo" and a political resolution to issues surrounding the Trinity. Rather than pile on a bunch of quotes here, I'll point to a couple of topics that may or may not be of interest as regards this point.

• The crucifixion was a fraud: 3.19.02 post, Karen Armstrong revisited; btw it's a nice proof and an excellent point. Contains citation from Armstrong about Arius and Athanasius at Nicaea, points toward the concretizing of a couple of specific faith points (creation ex nihilo and Trinity) under Constantine's reign.

• 1+1+1=1? What's up with the Trinity? On page 2, a 3.19.02 post, Three and Three for Trinity and We All Fall Down. Contains similar information and reflects some on the concretization of the Trinity, which, as noted, took place under Constantine.

For some reason I thought you were arguing against the historicity of Jesus by pointing out that the Gospels included much myth, so why should Jesus himself not be considered myth?

It is a rough point that can go either way. It's a matter of what degree of historicity. Some merely wish to establish Jesus. Some wish to establish the historical accuracy of the Gospels as written; I suppose I could make some effort in such considerations to distinguish the two, since I even need to double and triple-check myself when responding to historicity arguments.

My point, I think I have communicated it badly, is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are built around a certain core truth - that some guy named Jesus or something along those lines lived, preached and was likely crucified. I believe that this basic fact accreted myth, much as a grain of sand in an oyster becomes a pearl.

You make me smile very much today, Xev

I am very happy to see it phrased that way. Not just the words "core" or "accreted", but the whole context of it. In fact, that it makes me smile so broadly is the only reason I include it at this moment; I haven't much more to comment on that point at the moment.

The next thing to explore would be - what is that "something"? Was Jesus actually a rabbi, or just a preacher to the masses? Did he really preach to the masses? If so, what did he preach?

A fair question at the heart of Christian credibility. As long as we accept Christianity as a myth, and view it in the context we do other myths, there is actually much to learn from it. To establish Christianity as an historical reality, though, requires that these questions be answered. So it seems the odds are pretty good: Either to answer those issues in consideration of mythical context, or to answer those issues out of historical necessity.

Sooner or later, someone might be able to answer them.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

"The Apple is Hardcore" works.

Tiassa:

I'll raise a glass to that. Nicaea (20 May, 325) brought to Christianity "creation ex nihilo" and a political resolution to issues surrounding the Trinity. Rather than pile on a bunch of quotes here, I'll point to a couple of topics that may or may not be of interest as regards this point.

Not for long! Always problems with the heretics, eh!

But it did set dogma, so that heresy could be labelled.

It is a rough point that can go either way. It's a matter of what degree of historicity. Some merely wish to establish Jesus. Some wish to establish the historical accuracy of the Gospels as written; I suppose I could make some effort in such considerations to distinguish the two, since I even need to double and triple-check myself when responding to historicity arguments.

True. Obviously, the Gospels are not historically accurate. Besides the obvious physical impossibilities (virgin birth, calming the waters, yadda yadda) there are the historical untruths, such as the massacre of the innocents.

You make me smile very much today, Xev

Aww gee, stop it Tiassa, I'll lose my reputation.

A fair question at the heart of Christian credibility. As long as we accept Christianity as a myth, and view it in the context we do other myths, there is actually much to learn from it. To establish Christianity as an historical reality, though, requires that these questions be answered. So it seems the odds are pretty good: Either to answer those issues in consideration of mythical context, or to answer those issues out of historical necessity.

This is a thorney issue. Christianity itself is a historical reality, Jesus might have been a historical person, and we know that certain Gospel stories are utter myth.

As a content athiest, I don't see Christianity as a path to God.

I do, however, see its dissection as a path to the nature of man. I don't think it's a coincidence that Christian mythos so inspired the mystics of the 19th century, and I don't think that mere Church patronage fully explains the prevelence of Christian iconography in so much of art.

Take Winter Landscape with Church by Caspar David Freidrich. The imagry I find quite - inspiring, although that sounds hokey. I think it says more about human nature than about the nature of Christianity.

Where am I going with this? Fuck if I know. I suppose that my point is: Christianity is a look into the nature of man, I think.

Sooner or later, someone might be able to answer them.

There are many different ways to do that, though.

 

[Tiassa]

20th Century, but still ...

Salvador Dali, Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus), 1954

It's 20th century, but it's still one of my favorites. I'm also looking for a good image of Botticelli's Man of Sorrows. Not 19th century, either, but now you've got me thinking about paintings.

Oh, well

thanx,
Tiassa