Shermana
Heretic
Didn't James son of Zebedee die in Acts 12? (I.e. long before the alleged Council of Jerusalem)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How would an Historical JC be Defined?
- Thread starter Jonathan Hoffman
- Start date
Didn't James son of Zebedee die in Acts 12? (I.e. long before the alleged Council of Jerusalem)
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Paul calls Jesus Lord. The Lord refers to Jesus. This is known as Paul consistently calls Jesus Lord. I in fact have already explained this.
Again, Paul consistently calls Jesus Lord. Thus, we can be sure that when he says that James is the brother of the Lord, he is talking about Jesus.
There was more than one James. There was James, the son of Zebedee. He is distinguished by being called the son of Zebedee. And there is also James, the brother of the Jesus. He is distinguished by being called the brother of the Jesus.
You can't just take every single James and compile them into one single individual because they have the first name James. There is absolutely no logic in that.
So, can we actually get back to my arguments:
How am I indoctrinated? This stuff was never taught to me in church. It was never brought up in Bible studies or the like. And quite honestly, I have rejected much of what the "Church" has taught. To try to dismiss me as being indoctrinated is foolish.
The conclusion you are making is based off of a misunderstanding of the culture, and the language. People were identified by others, or by titles. There weren't last names. Since many people had the same name then, in order to identify them, they did so by naming a family member (either one that was important, or a father), or some title. And looking of Josephus, he names many different people named Jesus. After all, it was a highly common name. Just because to people share the name Jesus, that does not make them the same person.
Now, for the way that Josephus phrases this section, it is apparent that to different people with the name Jesus are being talked about. If they were the same person, Josephus would not need to identify each in specific manners. Either Josephus would have identified them in the same exact manner repeatedly, or, as we see with James (and more commonly), by simply using his first name. After all, he was already identified, and there was no reason to identify him again as the reader knows who it is.
Going to the actual title, the Greek is 'Ιησου του λεγουμενου Χριστου. It translates to something like Jesus, who is called Christ. The manner in which it is phrased does not allow for the term Christ (which here is clearly a title) to mean anointed. It does not make sense in the context of the phrase as the term Christ is being used as a title.
It is not indoctrination that makes me accept this idea. It is research, and the fact that I know the language, and have done a lot of work on Josephus.
How doesn't literary Christian tradition not support what I am saying? At what point does literary Christian tradition deny that Jesus had a brother name James? While yes, the Gospel tradition shows that James was not a follower of Jesus during the life of Jesus, it does show (with Acts) that he became a follower afterwards. Why should that be surprising?
Also, I did not just adopt the position that Jesus is historical. In fact, I spent years thinking that Jesus did not exist. I was a mythicist. After I did actual research on the subject, I then accepted that there was a historical Jesus. Please do not try to comment on my background when you have no idea where I am coming from.
Or, maybe I just actually understand Josephus, the language he wrote in, and the manner in which ancient sources used to distinguish between individuals.
And here is my argument for James in Acts:
How do they conflict? They don't.
In Acts 15:13-21, we see James taking a leadership position at the council. He is the leader of the Jerusalem group.
In Acts 21:17, James is once again addressed as being in the leadership position. In this verse, Paul goes to James, and all of the elders. The manner in which it is phrased shows us that James was considered the leader.
So it is clear that James is considered to be the leader of the Jerusalem group by Acts. We can then compare this to Paul, and what Paul has to say. He also lists a James as the leader of the Jerusalem group. This same James, Paul states is the brother of Jesus.
Since there is only one James who is talked about as being the leader of this Jerusalem group, we can conclude that both Acts and Paul are talking about the same exact person. There really is no other James that it can be, as there is only one leader, and both Acts and Paul agree that it is James. Paul simply clarifies this even further.
You have also failed to explain how the Epistle of Jude or James are nails in the coffin.
Then stop doing just that. According to the gospels James, the son of Zebedee was a partner of Peter's and they were disciples of Jesus. The other James that was the brother of Jesus was mentioned once in gMark and again in gMatthew wherein gMatthew copied gMark. James the brother of Jesus was a non believer and as late as gJohn was written, probably 100CE or later the author wrote that Jesus' brothers were non believers. Your interpretation of Paul contradicts the written tradition. If you are fine with that for the sake of maintaining that you have evidence for an historical Jesus then by all means knock yourself out.
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The Gospel of John does not state that Jesus' brothers were still non-believers. Since John only deals with the time during the life of Jesus, and the brothers of Jesus were said to be non-believers, it would only make sense for they didn't believe in him while Jesus was living. It says nothing about what happened later on.
Also, according to the Gospels, there was more than one James. You are conflating accounts, and also ignoring the vast amount of my argument.
I hope not, they would have been long dead by the time gJohn was written.
That's true, it says nothing about what happened later on, for that we have to read the gospel according to fallingblood.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
No, we have to read Acts, as Acts is the source that covers this.
I think you should continue to read the gospels and Acts in a way that establishes an historical Jesus since that is what you crave. Me, I'll just read them for what they are, literature.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No..... he seems to have been living and working around the lake. Many of his dispciles came from..... around the lake. When he returned to Nazareth during his ministry, people had to ask, 'Isn't this Joseph's son?'
So Meier thinks that Jesus spoke Greek? He also argues that Jesus was literate.
OK........ so...... do you accept Meier's 'historical Jesus', in preference to the many other scholar's arguments and claims?
What was the population of Sepphoris? 8000? No artisans there,then?
You mention the hauling around of tools. Why not base Jesus somewhere? Why not, say, Capernaum, where he knew people? Sepphoris safe? Jesus was more safe around his own.....
We know much more than that! If we read the reports in the bible we can see 'why' Jesus was angry, and 'how' he reacted. Simple.
Hang on....... GMark does not report that many parables, really, and GMark could well be the most accurate report, once the tinkering and addition has been extracted.
Anyway, modern politicians don't often make clear statements over delicate issues.....?! Jesus sometimes needed to be careful with his audiences...?
I don't know it was 11.5 months...... I just don't accept much of what is written in John. Nor do many scholars, and you know that is so....?
Question...... again...... do you accept most of Meier's findings, arguments and claims?
Last edited:
Meier wrote four volumes over almost 2 decades. A Marginal Jew is not only thousands and thousands of pages, it also doesn't reflect Meier's opinions. He set out from the beginning to determine what scholars in general would tend to agree on, and did so in many ways that conflicts with his own beliefs (most, actually). His "arguments" in these volumes are primarily those of "the many other scholars arguments and claims". That is, his purpose is to try to find the most overlap between scholars as is possible. As his findings conflict/contradict his beliefs, I wouldn't say "Meier's 'historical Jesus'", but rather Meier's pretty successful endeavor to depict the historical Jesus as most scholars would.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Thanks for the above.
And so...... would you say that this is the most probable picture of Jesus and his life that can be obtained at this time?
I ask because I have not read it yet.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
This is only after the fact. Mark 1:9, it is stated that Jesus went from Nazareth, to find John the Baptist by the Jordan. The implication is that Jesus had been in Nazareth up until that time, as he lived there.
In verse 21, when Jesus goes to Capernaum, and into the synagogue to preach, he is addressed by a man there as Jesus of Nazareth. This means that Jesus was known to have been from Nazareth, that was his town or origins, and thus he was distinguished as such.
Now, for the verse you mention (John 6:42, Matthew also mentions it in 13:55, and since the same idea is in both, I will deal with Matthew). The context is very important here. In Matthew 4:13 (similar to Mark 1:21), Jesus is said to leave Nazareth, and move to Capernaum (again, confirming that Jesus had been living in Nazareth). It is around this point that Matthew has Jesus begin preaching.
So we see that Jesus is beginning his ministry, and then he decides to head back to Nazareth. They haven't heard his preaching, they don't know him as a preacher. And as 13:54 states, they were amazed that he had this wisdom and miraculous powers. There were amazed as they knew his family, they knew him. They were shocked that Jesus somehow got all of this knowledge, as that was not who he was when he left.
It is a shocking surprise for these people as they remember Jesus before his actual ministry, before he started doing "miracles" and having had this wisdom.
Legion already addressed this better than I could. I do accept much of what Meier's has to say though. He really brings in some of the best information possible, and created a wonderful series.
When Jesus leaves for Capernaum, he is not said to really know anyone. It is only around that time that he begins gathering disciples. If he had a base somewhere, the most likely place would be Nazareth, which the Gospels agree that Jesus was from, and had been living in until his meeting with John the Baptist, and subsequent ministry.
While there definitely would have been artisans in Sepphoris, the city has traditionally been the place where such groups can find some work. That is where the money is. And often, there is quite a bit of work, as with a larger population, there are more people who have to perform a wider variety of jobs (thus giving space for a wider variety of workers, and giving the potential for more jobs).
Was he really angry though? The reports that we have place the incident in the Temple in close conjunction with Jesus talking about how his body (temple) will be destroyed, and then in three days, resurrected. He in fact states that he will destroy the temple, and rebuild it in three days.
Jesus then symbolically destroys the church with a little demonstration. It really couldn't be from anger, as, according to Mark 11:11, Jesus had already visited the Temple the day before, and took stock of everything. It was then the next day that he entered into the temple a second time, and caused the disturbance. However, there is no suggestion that he actually is angry. Instead, he uses the situation as a time to teach (Mark 11:17).
The verses that he quotes as well state something quite important about this message. The first being that "my house will be called a house of prayer for all people." He is taking this directly out of the OT, and in particular, out of an eschatological idea. Isaiah mentions that at the end of times, all nations will come towards the Temple of God, and honor it. What Jesus is doing here is making a very distinct point.
The second passage, which talks about a den of robbers, or a hideout for crooks, is not talking about people doing evil in the Temple. As E.P. Sanders, and others have pointed out, the selling of animals, and the exchanging of coins was a necessary part of the Temple cult. Coins with the image of a deity or the like could not be used in the Temple. Since many were coming from places in which that would be the only money they had, it was necessary to have a place to exchange money. The selling of animals was even more important, as carrying livestock all the way to the temple (often which constituted very long journeys, multiple days), and not having it blemish in some way, would have nearly been impossible. So the sale of acceptable offerings was necessary. Jesus would have recognized this, and in fact supports it, as later on, for his Passover meal, we are told that he has his disciples buy such an offering themselves.
The idea of a den of robbers, or a hideout for crooks is that it became a place where crooks would go in order to hide from authority. They weren't necessarily doing evil there, but instead, went there to hide.
The incident is hardly simple.
You mean being careful such as not coming out and saying exactly what he wanted? Not being straight forward? I agree. He was not preaching a simple message.
And while Mark may not report as many parables as others (to say it is most accurate may not be true. Matthew and Luke have other sources, which may just be as early, or even earlier than Mark), he still relies heavily on parables.
Not to mention, much of what he says is so rooted in first century Judaism, and first century thought that for modern readers, it becomes difficult to fully realize what he is talking about, unless one actually delves into the background.
It is true that many do not accept John as being as accurate. It does seem (at least from my studies) that Catholic scholars tend to be the ones who find it to be the most accurate. However, there are still ideas within John that many do accept. The suggestion that Jesus' ministry was longer than a year is one that many do at least consider. One of the primary reasons being is that the synoptic Gospels do not have to be read as if only one year is being covered. The events could be stretched to a much larger time scale. Now, Mark does seemed to be a a very quick pace; however, that could simply be a literary tool. And in fact, a larger time scale makes more sense as the amount of time that it would take Jesus just to travel would almost require that more time was had. Especially since we do not get a firm clue as to when he started his mission.
I accept a good deal of them. As with any scholar, I do disagree with some points.
outhouse
Atheistically
You dont get crucified for asking politely, if the bad ole Hellenistic governement would quit being corrupt!
Finding that the Jewish temple coin had a picture of Melqart a pagan deity on it, in gods own house! Na that wouldnt upset a real Jew :slap:
Not only that you have OT scripture with a similar parable about tipping tables, this could have been drawn from.
All we really know is that he caused some sort of violence in the temple to get himself murdered by Romans in one of the most horrendous punishements available.
Bottom line is violence equals angry.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
And what does this have to do with the Temple? Where is the government that Jesus was addressing, with his demonstration in the Temple? There was none.
Where were the changing tables at? Were they in the Temple proper, in the Gentile area? That latter is true. The whole point of having the changing tables, money exchangers, was so that no coinage with pictures of pagan deities would be in the Temple proper.
So, if this story was drawn from the OT, then why should we assume that Jesus was angry? If the story is out of the OT, then wouldn't it make sense that it doesn't actually portray what Jesus did?
Also, what OT scripture is this similar parable from?
That's all you know. You can't just say all we know is something, when others are saying something else. And Jesus did not go to the Temple to get himself murdered.
Does it? Not all violence is done when someone is angry. Violence can also be done when someone is extremely calm, sad, happy, etc. Your logic here falls short.
outhouse
Atheistically
If im not mistaken the temple had no Gentile area, named that in the first century. That is later term applied.
There was however a “Outer Court” for everyone, but since the small inner cort was overcrowded most jews ended up in the "outer court"
Jesus had plenty to be mad about.
WE dont know if this was his first trip or "many trips" per Gjohn. Had it been his first trip he could have been spun out over the Hellenization and corruption in gods house, the taxation, The pagan coins in gods house with another deity, Roman oppressors in Gods house policing the event, the fact the temple worked hand in hand with Romans their oppressors during a time of celibration of the freedom of previous oppressors. This was a perfect time for a protest. Protest get emotional. Anger is a emotion.
I ask you, how could he not be mad?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
You are mistaken. The Temple mount had a Gentile area. This is where the money changers, and sellers would have been. It was not in the Temple proper.
Here is a schematic: Herod's Temple - Schematic Plan of the Temple and here is another: http://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/JEWISH_TEMPLE00000018.jpg The Gentile area is where the selling would be.
Many people have plenty to be mad about. However, does that actually matter? I don't think so. Jesus does not appear mad here.
If this was anger, why did he not react out when he first saw the Temple? Why did he first go to the Temple, check it out, and then leave, only to come back the next day for a demonstration? This does not fit with a fit of anger.
And there weren't pagan coins in God's house. They were in the Gentile court. They were not in the Temple proper. So there is no reason to be angry about that.
Roman oppressors also would not be allowed in the Temple proper. Only Jews would have been allowed in, and from records, Romans appeared to honor that.
Also, protests do not have to get emotional. You're using circular logic here.
outhouse
Atheistically
This states it pretty clear
Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish Temple: clearing up misconceptions | Daily Minyan
Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish Temple: clearing up misconceptions
What was the Court of the Gentiles?
Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish Temple: clearing up misconceptions | Daily Minyan
Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish Temple: clearing up misconceptions
What was the Court of the Gentiles?
Officially, there was no such thing as the “Court of the Gentiles”. That’s right, nowhere in the ancient literature, be it the Bible, the New Testament, the writing of Josephus or in Talmud does one find such a term. Instead, what one finds is an area called the “Outer Court”, by far the largest section of the Temple complex.
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Officially there wasn't; however, modern scholarship recognizes what is meant by it. Call it the outer court, or court of Gentiles, doesn't really change what it was. It was the area in which the Gentiles were allowed, and not in the Temple proper. Thus, everything I said above is still correct as the exchange of coins, and selling of animals was not in the Temple proper.
Also, your sources says that it is known as the Court of the Gentiles today: The sole reason it is known today as the “Court of the Gentiles” was simply because Gentiles could go no farther than this area, while Jews, provided they were ritually pure, could proceed across the balustrade to the next level.
Also, just to clear up, you who first argued that there was no Gentile area. However, in fact, the Outer Court was an area in which Gentiles could be. Thus, a Gentile area. Doesn't mean no one else was allowed there. So please, get back to the actual meat of my argument.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Agreed, but it still didn't mean to Jews that pagan deities were welcome.
The main entrance had Herod's Roman Eagle, and when the Jews tore it down, 40 of the rebels were burned alive.
Just so you know its Johnathon Reed that states the Temple coin with Melqart could have made him angry enough top have a violent outburst.
I leave it on the table as a possibility for a zealous teacher
outhouse
Atheistically
As far as him tipping the tables, can we assume that never took place?
If you had tipped a table a table guard would have wrestled him to the ground, with the table man himself.
This wasn't some backwater open table set up where anyone could trash it.
This was the national treasury with hundreds of thousands of people in attendance, and security would have not been taken lightly.
If you had tipped a table a table guard would have wrestled him to the ground, with the table man himself.
This wasn't some backwater open table set up where anyone could trash it.
This was the national treasury with hundreds of thousands of people in attendance, and security would have not been taken lightly.