did jesus exist?

[Oberon]

What I believe or don't believe is completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the gospel writers and Acts failed to notice that Jesus' brother had a ministry and that he was supposedly martyred.

So what? The gospels DON'T fail to mention that Jesus had a brother. We don't know if acts fails to mention James' ministry, because the various people named James in act aren't always explicitly identified. We don't know how important Jesus' brother is. All that doesn't matter.

You can't logically go from claiming that the gospels and acts don't support the later christian notion of James Jesus' brother as later active as a missionary in the early christian circles to the conclusion that he did not therefore exist as Jesus' brother. The conclusion doesn't follow. It is perfectly plausible to suppose that James was relatively minor to the early christians and therefore not worth mentioning, except maybe in passing, to the early NT authors. It is equally plausible to suppose that he wasn't active until later, so the only one who would mention him is the author of Luke/Acts, who, while he clearly knew of him, perhaps deliberately chooses not to mention him.

All that is meaningless. What matters is that our earliest source mentions him and knows him first hand, he is attested to by an early non-christian source, and he IS mentioned in the gospels. What we can say about his ministry is irrelevant, and again it isn't logical to go from "later christian beliefs about James are unsupported" to "James wasn't Jesus' brother."

 

[dogsgod]

Sorry, but :biglaugh:

What an astute observation.

The peanut gallery, again. What would a religious forum be without one?

 

[dogsgod]

Paul refers to Peter, James, and John as "pillars." The gospels reflect those three as the names of the three closest disciples to Jesus repeatedly, as in Peter, James, and John.



The Transfiguration

2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone.
There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.
4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.



Yet some how James gets substituted by those trying to establish that it was Jesus' brother that Paul refers to for reasons only known to them.

 

[Oberon]

Paul refers to Peter, James, and John as "pillars." The gospels reflect those three as the names of the three closest disciples to Jesus repeatedly, as in Peter, James, and John.

Different James. Paul makes this clear by identifying the other James as Jesus brother. James the pillar apparently needs no such identification.

Yet some how James gets substituted by those trying to establish that it was Jesus' brother that Paul refers to for reasons only known to them.

The reasons are pretty clear to anyone not completely blinded by bias: Paul specifically states he met Jesus' brother James. Additionally, the gospels and Josephus state that Jesus had a brother named James.

Unfortunately this is pretty devastating to the mythicist hypothesis, as Price admits, so it must be explained away. Price imagines some title based on nothing more than the assumption that it can't refer to a literal brother because Jesus was a myth (assuming his conclusion to get to his conclusion).

Above, you miss the whole point of the identification construction. Paul mentions one James several times, and sees no need to identify him. It isn't hard to imagine why: this James is a pillar, a clear early christian leader. We know that the early christians identified a James as one of the 12, and that this James was not Jesus' brother.

Yet in a move of what can only be described as sheer intellectual desperation you go from seeing the name James elsewhere in Paul, and knowing that it was a common first name, you insist that this James must be the James mentioned as Jesus' brother in Galatians 1:19, which can then allow you to make baseless claims about a lack of mention of any such James in acts. Only 1) that still doesn't get you to logically conclude Paul isn't referring to a literla brother and 2) you can't justifiably identify ever james in Paul's letters as the one in galatians 1:19 when Paul himself specifically differentiates the galatians James (and does so using a common method: kin identification by a genitive construction).

 

[dogsgod]

This is rich:

"The reasons are pretty clear to anyone not completely blinded by bias: Paul specifically states he met Jesus' brother James."

Not the Lords' brother, but "Jesus' brother," and "specifically" no less. There's no bias there. :no:

 

[Oberon]

This is rich:

"The reasons are pretty clear to anyone not completely blinded by bias: Paul specifically states he met Jesus' brother James."

Not the Lords' brother, but "Jesus' brother," and "specifically" no less. There's no bias there. :no:

It's only biased not to realize that Paul refers to Jesus as kyrios, and even more biased to be 1) unfamiliar with greek forms of address (see Eleanor Dickey on this one), 2) unfamiliar with grammatical constructions in greek and the meaning of constructions in linguistics in general 3) unable to adequately explain the construction Paul uses and yet to 4) conclude that because Paul uses kyrios rather than adelphos this means anything.

By all means though, let's hear your expert analysis on why Paul's use of kyrios as a title for Jesus makes some difference here based on an analysis of the semantics/pragmatics of the terms and the construction.

 

[outhouse]

Oberon, does this mean biblical jesus is a myth but historical jesus is accurate?

 

[Danmac]

(if there is another thread about this subject, please point the way)

I am more curious to know if a thread has existed about buddha, or mohammed exiting.

 

[Oberon]

I am more curious to know if a thread has existed about buddha, or mohammed exiting.

Certainly mohammed and probably buddha. The difference is that critical religious scholarship began in the west, where christianity has dominated. So while there are no shortages of analyses of the issues surrounding the historical jesus, secular historical examinations of other religious persons are in their infancy.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, does this mean biblical jesus is a myth but historical jesus is accurate?

The jesus of faith is just that: a religious construction. Historical reconstructions are always going to fall short of reality. The historical jesus doesn't encapsulate all that jesus was, but rather tells us certain things about him, beginning with what is certain and ending with the more contested details. It is hardly a perfect reconstruction, and no reconstruction is equal to the original. What is important is to recognize that the mythicist argument rests on various poor assumptions and false information, and that we can be certain of severalo things about Jesus, and fairly certain about even more, and we will never no for sure the answers to many of the important questions.

 

[Ilisrum]

I am more curious to know if a thread has existed about buddha, or mohammed exiting.

The "Quest for the historical Muhammad" mirrors very closely the "Quest for the historical Jesus". Over the past decades, many critical Western scholars have seriously called into question the traditional view of early Islamic history . A (very) small amount of Islamic scholars hold the view that Muhammad never existed as a historical figure but is the invention of the early Islamic community, which needed a founder figure behind it. This conclusion is arrived at by the fact that the earliest sources of Muhammad's life are late, legendary, and Islamic, and early coinage bearing the name of Muhammad (which is simply Arabic for "praiseworthy") contains Christian iconography. Of course, you can see the similarities between this and the Jesus Myth argument. There's little doubt that Muhammad is a historical religious and military leader who lived in 7th century Arabia, although the details of his life, like those of Jesus, are sketchy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The "Quest for the historical Muhammad" mirrors very closely the "Quest for the historical Jesus".

Only if you define "very closely" as "not at all."

You're essentially saying that the two efforts are similar because historians are questioning the traditional view. That's what historians do.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I just wanted know, why should we care if Jesus existed or not? Is it really all that important?

 

[Oberon]

I just wanted know, why should we care if Jesus existed or not? Is it really all that important?

Why should we care about anything in history?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I just wanted know, why should we care if Jesus existed or not? Is it really all that important?

For many Christians, it is important.

The question of Jesus' existence is compelling because the impact of his life on world history is much more significant than his historical value. That is, there's a world religion that has exercised great force in the world for 2,000 years but we know relatively little about Jesus' life and teachings.

For me, I'm simply irritated by people who say that Jesus did not exist because such a statement is historically implausible. And often these same people criticize others for believing what is the most likely historical explanation.

 

[Oberon]

For me, I'm simply irritated by people who say that Jesus did not exist because such a statement is historically implausible. And often these same people criticize others for believing what is the most likely historical explanation.

For me, it is less people who simply say Jesus didn't exist. I can understand how, if you haven't really studied the issue, you would reach that conclusion. Especially if you've come across any of a number of popular sensationalist accounts. What is irritating to me is the attitude "I've never really studied this issue, but I think I'm qualified to say that everyone one who has doesn't know what they are talking about."

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

For many Christians, it is important.

The question of Jesus' existence is compelling because the impact of his life on world history is much more significant than his historical value. That is, there's a world religion that has exercised great force in the world for 2,000 years but we know relatively little about Jesus' life and teachings.

For me, I'm simply irritated by people who say that Jesus did not exist because such a statement is historically implausible. And often these same people criticize others for believing what is the most likely historical explanation.

Woudn't it be much more important to know the Holocaust had happened learn our moral lessons from that, rather than just being obsessed with one person than may or may not of existed 2000 years ago?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Woudn't it be much more important to know the Holocaust had happened learn our moral lessons from that, rather than just being obsessed with one person than may or may not of existed 2000 years ago?

What happened in the past is just as important as what happened recently.

Besides, I study the Holocaust quite a bit.

 

[dogsgod]

I just wanted know, why should we care if Jesus existed or not? Is it really all that important?

.


It's not in the least bit important.


It's all about the believers, and what makes them so sure.

 

[Oberon]

.


It's not in the least bit important.


It's all about the believers, and what makes them so sure.

Right, because there are no non-believers in historical jesus scholarship...

Still waiting for your analysis of Paul's reference to Jesus' brother.