It requires no manipulation at all. This one line does not make the case for Paul's Christ being anything other than a sky God.
Because this "sky god" had a blood relative Paul knew. This same blood relative is mentioned independently by Mark/Matthew and by Josephus.
There is plenty that Paul states to the contrary.
No, there isn't. Paul states that Jesus was descended from "according to the flesh." Not the sort of thing one says about a "sky god." He also states that Jesus had a meal with his disciples the night before he was betrayed. Odd thing for a sky god.
Not only that but Mark's gospel reads like allegorical fiction
An allegory of what? Do you know what allegory means? And no, it doesn't. It reads like a series of independent sayings and narratives woven into an overall narrative. It doesn't read anything like a story. The "story" of Mark is secondary, because Mark is taking a bunch of oral material and making it into one story. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke also attest to Jesus' mission, and they used more than Mark. We also know from Acts that Luke was an active early member of the Jesus sect, and so personally knew eyewitnesses. John also independently attests to Jesus' mission. Then there is Josephus, who in an uncontested passage mentions Jesus' brother, and in a passage that a wide consensus of scholarship regards as having a core which discussed Jesus he also attests to Jesus historical existence.
So, within a few years of the date of Jesus' death, Paul joins the sect, and personally knows Jesus' brother and Jesus' disciples, and within 15+ years he is writing letters to communities which attest to Jesus' historical existence.
Within 35+ years Mark comes along. Now Mark didn't write his gospel as a new born. Although he almost certainly wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus' mission, he not wrote his gospel while people who were around for the events in his gopsel were still alive, he also was alive prior to writing his gospel, bringin him that much closer to the events described in his narrative. Prior to Mark, we know from Paul that their were a few communities, including communities in the places where Jesus preached (e.g. Jerusalem). And Mark sets Jesus' mission in Jerusalem. People and followers of Jesus were still leaving when Mark wrote his gospel (not to mention prior to his writing, while Mark was still alive).
Yet, despite the fact that few ancient texts survive, and despite the expense of copying texts, Mark's gospel was copied and transmitted among the early christian communities. Yet we know from Paul, Luke/Acts, Papias, and others that these communities were in contact. If Mark just made the story up whole cloth, apart from the fact that it doesn't resemble a story, why would any of the early christian communities care about it? The head community in Jerusalem would know it was baloney, because plenty of them would have been around for the events described. And we know these communities talked to each other. Yet Mark's we have better textual attestastation for Mark (i.e. more copies, better, copieds, and earlier copies) than any ancient text apart from other N.T. texts. Why? How can this be explained, given what we know of the structure of the early christian communities from Paul, Luke/Acts, Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc. No piece of "allegorical fiction," even Homer or Plato's cave, even the Jewish bible, has the textual attestation of Mark.
Because the early christians from the first were familiar with the sayings and teachings and stories and passion of Mark. The Jerusalem church, not to mention the other communities, were already familiar with all that was in Mark (and more) and there were still people alive who were around when Jesus was.
Then we have Matthew and Luke, who use Mark and Q as well as M and L. Q predates both of them. Not only that, we know from Acts that Luke was an active member of the early Jesus sect, and also personally knew eyewitnesses to Jesus mission. We can't know if Matthew did.
Then we have John and Jospephus. All of this within a lifetime of Jesus' death.
More attestation for his existence than virtually anybody from the ancient world, and certainly more than any other ancient person from Jesus' social status.
There's no need to take the story literally like a fundamentalist or a creationist would.
It isn't a story. Stories flow. Even bad ones. Mark awkwardly juxtaposed various oral material which predated his writing. And very, very, few NT scholars are fundamentalists or creationists.
What constitutes them being experts in your mind?
The fact that they read greek, hebrew, and latin, have read extensive amounts of ancient history, have read an enormous amount of scholarship, have studied the history of judaism as well as greece and rome, and are capable of telling the difference between "allegorical fiction" and the genre of the gospels.
The fact that just like the church and you they up hold the status quo? Yes, slight exaggerations but otherwise all is real.
This is so completely false. Hundreds of years ago, Reimarus and Strauss doubted whether Jesus existed. Well over a century ago, Renan said we can't know anything about the historical Jesus. At the turn of the century, Schweitzer said that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. Shortly after him, Bultmann said most of the sayings of Jesus were simply put on his lips by the early communities, and that we can know only a rough sketch of the historical Jesus. Currently, most of the Jesus seminar believes that the historical Jesus was distorted by the church, and that he was more or less a cynic philosopher type. Crossan believes his body was eaten by dogs. We have agnostics like Ehrman, Jews like Vermes and Neusner, and plenty of other scholars from all different backgrounds who deny that Jesus was the messiah, the son of god, and all the basic tenets of christianity.
Yet for over a hundred years, the one thing that virtually everyone, regardless of background, has acknowledged was that a charismatic jewish leader named Jesus inspired a number of people in the first century AD and was put to death by Pilate.
It does explain the data. It fits perfectly with the fact that there are no eyewitnesses.
It doesn't fit the fact that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus' brother, nor all of the other problems I detailed above.
It fits perfectly well with only one story that others copied.
1. It wasn't a story. The narrative was secondary, as the primary material was independent oral material.
2. The others didn't copy Mark. John shows zero awareness of Mark, and is independent of the synoptics. So is Paul. Matthew and Luke also had Q, which is independent of Mark. And we know from Acts that Luke personally knew the eyewitnesses.
It fits perfectly well with the virgin birth, the clouds parting and a booming voice of God being heard.
Sort of like the stories of Caesar. Yet he too was historical. The fact that ancient history is not as critical as modern doesn't mean it is all fiction.
It fits perfectly with Paul providing not a word of Jesus' bio.
1. Paul wasn't writing a biography. He was advising early communities.
2. Paul explicitly quotes what Jesus said concerning divorce, and then distinguishes this from his own teaching. If Jesus was just a sky god who talked to Paul, why do this?
3. Paul says Jesus was descended from david "according to the flesh."
4. Paul describes Jesus having a meal with his followers, which IS "a word of Jesus' bio"
5. Paul knew Jesus' brother.
It fits perfectly with differing birth stories and endings.
No, it doesn't. Even modern historians disagree, let alone ancient biographers writing about a man they believed resurrected.
It fits perfectly with all the additional gospels ever written including those burned by the prevailing church whose story you defend,
Not really. With the possible exception of Thomas, all of these were written far too late to be of any use, nor were they written with history in mind.
Facts.
The fact that many 'experts' believe fits perfectly with religious scholarship.
No, it doesn't. Because they aren't all christians by any means, and the first people to doubt the historical Jesus were christians. Not only that, you are hardly in any position to talk about religious scholarship when you haven't read any of it.
Regarding the one sentence about calling James the brother of the Lord, The (first) Apocalypse of James explicitly repudiates any physical connotation of "brother" ("For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially").
Wow. A forgery written well over a century after James was dead contradicts Paul, who actually knew James. hmm....
You said you liked what Price stated, how do you like him now?
I don't know him, but I still like what he said about James being very awkward for mythicists. The fact that a much later gnostic text holds a belief that james couldn't be a physical brother because Jesus wasn't human doesn't say anything about Paul, who actually knew James.
