Paul called an Apostle Paul, so did Mark. The rest he invented. If you haven't seen the gigantic amount of evidence we already have that he's writing fiction, some of which I already posted, you might want to check that out.
Even historians who believe in a historical Jesus do not support using the gospels as history.
That is exactly why they say they believe in a man named Jesus and very little can be known about his actual life.
Historian says no, apologist say unclear.
Historian:
"Likewise the “Brothers of the Lord” Paul references in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are, again, non-apostolic Christians—and thus being distinguished from Apostles, including, again, the first Apostle, Cephas."
Christian apologist reference:
"It's unclear exactly who Paul means in his reference to "brothers of the Lord." Perhaps he means Jesus' actual half-brothers, born to Mary. Or this might mean "brothers" in the same sense as general Christian brotherhood. Or, it might be some other group entirely. In any case, Paul's main point is that he is not claiming his "right" to be supported by those he serves."
Not how it's explained by Christians:
What does 1 Corinthians 9:5 mean?
Wait what?
If I presented several scholars explaining it's widely believed the passage to be fake (I did) that means there absolutely IS CONTROVERSY and to say otherwise is complete denial.
"Honestly. The evidence that the
Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost. The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University,"
Paul Hoppers paper:
"A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus" by Paul J. Hopper - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com
"Further evidence that the longer reference is a Christian fabrication lies in an article I
didn’t cite, however, but that is nevertheless required reading on the matter: G.J. Goldberg, “
The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item)."
"A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus" by Paul J. Hopper - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com
Carrier's paper:
Now that the world has ended, my peer reviewed article on Josephus just came out: “
Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the
Journal of Early Christian Studies
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012),
pp. 489-514.
Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus,
Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.
The only mentions are Mark's fiction and people who read Mark and wanted to convince people their myth was actually real.
Early Christians are already known to have created propaganda documents to prop up the movement. This is why many of Paul's works are considered to be late forgeries as well as Josephus. This is a known thing. All of these sources are completely debunked as Christian propaganda.
Oh, now logic is ok?
Exactly. What is more likely. Highly skilled writers take Jewish mythology and write a story that is as mythic as Lord of the Rings, definitely copy, line by line, stories from Psalms, Kings, Jesus Ben Anias and other fiction and create a demigod who follows the same basic model followed by other demigods only in that region and inspired by an older religion of the people who occupied their lands for 3 centuries. And it's actually all true or it's a myth just like the 1000 other religions going on at the time>
You keep saying "obvious" and that isn't true. In Gal 1:18-19 it's known he's using the word to distinguish between apostolic and non.
Here Carrier is explaining that Ehrman also agrees regarding that passage. Some Pastor writing apologetics does not trump biblical historians.
"Ehrman also says this can’t be the meaning in Galatians 1:18-19 because there the James thus called a brother of the Lord is being differentiated from Cephas (Peter) the Apostle. As I wrote in my summary, that’s indeed true: Paul
is making a distinction; he uses the full term for a Christian (“Brothers of the Lord”) every time he needs to distinguish apostolic from non-apostolic Christians. The James in Galatians 1 is not an Apostle. He is just a rank-and-file Christian.
Merely a Brother of the Lord, not an
Apostolic Brother of the Lord. The only Apostle he met at that time, he says, was Cephas (Peter), the first Apostle (according to 1 Corinthians 15:5 in light of 1 Corinthians 9:1). Likewise the “Brothers of the Lord” Paul references in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are, again, non-apostolic Christians—and thus being distinguished from Apostles, including, again, the first Apostle, Cephas."
As we have already seen, in Mark the apostle James is NOT a biological brother of Jesus. This James has a different biological brother. I gave that information. So yes, Mark gave Jesus a brother named James who also has a name that one of the apostles had.
