did jesus exist?

[outhouse]

as far as james the just

historians have variously interpreted this description as perhaps meaning a brother in a spiritual sense

based on New Testament descriptions, though different interpretations of his precise relationship to Jesus developed based on Christian beliefs about mary the mother of jesus, who was designated theotokos by the 431 council of ephesus. Therefore, he may simply have been Jesus' cousin and referred to as "the brother of our Lord."

 

[dogsgod]

How do you even know there is evidence of Q? Again, the theory of Q is based not on the fact that the gospels have similar parts, but on the similarity of the greek and arguments based on this. You can't read the greek. And all the sources you use take Q for granted because the consensus that Q explains similarities in Matthew and Luke resulted from much earlier intense arguments and scholarship.

So you take it for granted, without seeing the detailed arguments for it (or against it) because it is the consensus position. So you don't have a problem going with the consensus when you lack the expertise. You only have this problem when you don't like what you find. Then you value guys like Doherty or Wells over actual experts.

You know nothing about what I've read about Q. Your straw man arguments don't allow you to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion.

 

[logician]

If someone can point to a SPECIFIC man in history and say, "yes, that was Jesus", then that can be examined. Otherwise, it's all speculation about hearsay evidence.

 

[Oberon]

You know nothing about what I've read about Q. Your straw man arguments don't allow you to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion.

I actually know quite a bit. I know you can't read german, and a great deal of the scholarship on Q is in german. I know that it is based on the analysis of the greek you can't read. If you would like to assert that you have read the detailed arguments that made Q the consensus position, by all means do so, and provide some citations. But I seriously doubt you will be able to do that. The point, however, remains. On the one hand, you are willing to ignore the past 200 years of scholarship in favor of non-experts and discount their views. But the arguments you use to do so, such as Q, are from that same examination. You don't know the arguments in detail, and can't evaluate them because you are removed from the texts themselves by a language barrier, but you are perfectly happy to accept consensus because here it is unproblematic.

 

[Oberon]

as far as james the just

historians have variously interpreted this description as perhaps meaning a brother in a spiritual sense

What historians? And again, what is problematic about the reference to James in Josephus?

 

[outhouse]

Wells noted

the words "who was called Christ" were not in the original passage, the words having originated as a marginal note by a Christian copyist, which later became incorporated into the main body of the text. This passage, and the Testimonium are the only two times that Josephus uses the word "Christ".

 

[dogsgod]

as far as james the just

historians have variously interpreted this description as perhaps meaning a brother in a spiritual sense

based on New Testament descriptions, though different interpretations of his precise relationship to Jesus developed based on Christian beliefs about mary the mother of jesus, who was designated theotokos by the 431 council of ephesus. Therefore, he may simply have been Jesus' cousin and referred to as "the brother of our Lord."

Oberon sees the name James and jumps to all kinds of conclusions. Interesting that none of the gospels or Acts note that a brother of Jesus had a ministry, nor did they note that this James was supposedly martyred. Supposedly the Josephus reference is to be believed and trusted says Oberon, even though the idea of a brother of Jesus becoming a religious leader wasn't invented by the church until the end of the second century.

 

[dogsgod]

What historians? And again, what is problematic about the reference to James in Josephus?

There's no problems Oberon, everything is OK, Jesus is real.

 

[outhouse]

The oldest surviving Christian liturgy, the liturgy of st james, called him "the brother of God"

this sums it up more so then calling him the real family member of jesus.

 

[Oberon]

Wells noted

the words "who was called Christ" were not in the original passage, the words having originated as a marginal note by a Christian copyist, which later became incorporated into the main body of the text. This passage, and the Testimonium are the only two times that Josephus uses the word "Christ".

Wells is a professor of german studies. More importantly, however, there is no evidence for this position, and plenty to tell against it. There are no texts which record this "marginal note" or in anyway suggest that the text as we have it isn't original. And christians did not change texts to make Jesus only "called christ." To them he was christ. Which is why the longer reference by josephus is widely believed to have been altered. Josephus states categorically that Jesus IS christ. Which makes it unlikely to be Josephus' writing. The reference to James states that Jesus is merely called christ.

 

[Oberon]

Supposedly the Josephus reference is to be believed and trusted says Oberon, even though the idea of a brother of Jesus becoming a religious leader wasn't invented by the church until the end of the second century.

James is identified as Jesus' brother in Paul, Josephus, and Mark. It doesn't matter if he was a religious leader or not.

 

[dogsgod]

I actually know quite a bit. I know you can't read german, and a great deal of the scholarship on Q is in german. I know that it is based on the analysis of the greek you can't read. If you would like to assert that you have read the detailed arguments that made Q the consensus position, by all means do so, and provide some citations. But I seriously doubt you will be able to do that. The point, however, remains. On the one hand, you are willing to ignore the past 200 years of scholarship in favor of non-experts and discount their views. But the arguments you use to do so, such as Q, are from that same examination. You don't know the arguments in detail, and can't evaluate them because you are removed from the texts themselves by a language barrier, but you are perfectly happy to accept consensus because here it is unproblematic.

That's a stupid argument and you know it. It's as if you are suggesting that an historical Jesus can't be revealed due to language barriers, he's only known to those that read German or Greek. I've read plenty from scholars that read the texts and they don't come to the same conclusions as you so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[dogsgod]

James is identified as Jesus' brother in Paul, Josephus, and Mark. It doesn't matter if he was a religious leader or not.

There you go. The names are the same, connect the dots and look, a triangle. You're such a genius.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's a stupid argument and you know it. It's as if you are suggesting that an historical Jesus can't be revealed due to language barriers, he's only known to those that read German or Greek. I've read plenty from scholars that read the texts and they don't come to the same conclusions as you so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yes, and they can at least attempt to tell you who the historical Jesus is.

 

[dogsgod]

Wells is a professor of german studies. More importantly, however, there is no evidence for this position, and plenty to tell against it. There are no texts which record this "marginal note" or in anyway suggest that the text as we have it isn't original. And christians did not change texts to make Jesus only "called christ." To them he was christ. Which is why the longer reference by josephus is widely believed to have been altered. Josephus states categorically that Jesus IS christ. Which makes it unlikely to be Josephus' writing. The reference to James states that Jesus is merely called christ.

Wells has more intelligence stored in the end of his little finger than you have in your entire brain. Josephus has been tampered with, try someone else. Oh, there is no one else.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes, and they can at least attempt to tell you who the historical Jesus is.

I've read Q, and I do believe there is a possible case to be made for an historical Jesus of sorts, but he is not to be confused with the Christ of the epistle writers. James or no brother James nonsense notwithstanding.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've read Q, and I do believe there is a possible case to be made for an historical Jesus of sorts, but he is not to be confused with the Christ of the epistle writers. James or no brother James nonsense notwithstanding.

That is precisely the reason for historical Jesus studies. That's the point.

There is the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith."

 

[dogsgod]

That is precisely the reason for historical Jesus studies. That's the point.

There is the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith."

The so called Jesus of history, even if there is a consistency within a small portion of Q that might point to a preacher, is so far removed from the gospel storyline that there really is no point in making that sort of connection.

 

[outhouse]

The so called Jesus of history, even if there is a consistency within a small portion of Q that might point to a preacher, is so far removed from the gospel storyline that there really is no point in making that sort of connection.

the truth comes out

and thats exactly what the vast majority of scolars agree upon.

there is NO reality of christianity and the historical jesus

 

[dogsgod]

To clarify that, the gospel storyline is mythology whereas some of Q is not.