Why do we know so little about Jesus?

[dogsgod]

It doesn't take an expert to see the blatant contradictions that Oberon's silly notions consist of. For example, a monkey can see the ideas about Paul meeting Jesus' literal brother are based on nothing but thin air. Of the dozens upon dozens of times brothers is used metaphorically in the epistles as well as in Acts, it's nothing short of amazing how this one use of 'brother of the Lord' is to be taken to mean a literal brother of Jesus. It comes out of thin air that Jesus' brother, who happens to be named James according to gMark, is suddenly a leader of a Christian community in Jerusalem. A monkey can see the blatant contradiction this exposes. Acts of the Apostles does not support this, the author doesn't even provide the name of Jesus' brother, and yet we're somehow to believe he's a leader of a Christian community. Why, because thousands of so called scholars say so. I don't care that Oberon believes them. Stop expecting me to buy into such nonsense. I'm not impressed by how many languages Oberon can read or how many pages are devoted to such tripe. A contradiction is a contradiction.

I bet Oberon believes that the use of Christ, meaning anointed, is purely reserved for Jesus of so called Nazareth. Josephus writes of something like 30 different Jesus' and the one called Christ, brother of a James, another common name, is Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. Again, a monkey can see the contradiction that you have to completely ignore in order to be so sure that this is the Jesus in question.Oberon and all the useless baggage you bring with you does not impress me one bit. You need a special education in order to view the gospels as accounts of actual events, and Oberon's got it.

 

[Oberon]

It doesn't take an expert to see the blatant contradictions that Oberon's silly notions consist of.

Right. And all the real experts must be idiots, since they all think the mythicist argument is so foolish.

For example, a monkey can see the ideas about Paul meeting Jesus' literal brother are based on nothing but thin air. Of the dozens upon dozens of times brothers is used metaphorically in the epistles as well as in Acts, it's nothing short of amazing how this one use of 'brother of the Lord' is to be taken to mean a literal brother of Jesus.

You don't know greek, and you don't know kin identification or anything relevant to this, so of course you can't realize how pathetic your argument is. Yes, Paul and christians use brothers and "brothers in the lord" all the time. Never, however, is anyone but james referred to by Paul as "brother OF the lord." The genitive of kin. This same syntax is used throughout greek literature to show LITERAL kin relationships. The very fact that Paul always uses a different syntax for the metaphor strengthens my argument. Why is "brother of the Lord" reserved for James alone?

Plus, Josephus, Mark, and Matthew all also state that Jesus had a brother named James.

Your argument fails largely because you aren't familiar enough with how kin relationship are expressed in greek.

It's like the difference in english between "he's like a brother to me" and "he's my brother." Why use the genitive synax here, but nowhere else? And why do Mark and Matthew and Josephus also identify James as Jesus' brother?

It comes out of thin air that Jesus' brother, who happens to be named James according to Mark, is suddenly a leader of a Christian community in Jerusalem.

Wrong. Acts never states that Jesus' brother is a leader. There are two James in Acts, and in the gospels. One James is a disciple, who Paul calls a pillar, and who dies in Acts.

Acts of the Apostles does not support this, the author doesn't even provide the name of Jesus' brother, and yet we're somehow to believe he's a leader of a Christian community.

Yet the author knew that James was Jesus' brother, because he knew Mark's gospel. And again, there are TWO James' in Acts. Hence they were traditionally called "James the greater" (not Jesus' brother) and "James the Lesser" (Jesus' brother).

Why, because thousands of so called scholars say so.

Here is your argument:

1.The christians use a brother metaphor in their texts.
2. Paul calls James Jesus' brother.
3. It must be a metaphor.

However, in order for this to make sense, you have to explain why the genitive is used. Moreover, you have to explain why independent sources also name James as Jesus' brother.

Stop expecting me to buy into such nonsense.

Your ability to swallow nonsense is nothing short of fantastic. Which is why you read so many webpages and so little scholarship.

I'm not impressed by how many languages Oberon can read or how many pages are devoted to such tripe. A contradiction is a contradiction.

Where's the contradiction? Jesus' brothers, in the gospels, weren't leaders among the disciples. After Jesus' death, apparently at least one of them became a "name" in the community, yet he wasn't even as important as the other James.

Josephus writes of something like 30 different Jesus' and the one called Christ, brother of a James, another common name, is Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. Again, a monkey can see the contradiction that you have to completely ignore

Do you know why "brother of X" and "son of Y" are used in these texts? Because of the commonality of names. So why, when Josephus just identified Jesus as "the one called Christ" does he then identify him of "the son of Damneus?" And is James is this Jesus' brother, why not identify him as "the son of Damneus" either? You talk of contradictions, but here is your argument.

1. Josephus mentions James, and calls him the brother of a Jesus known as Christ
2. Josephus identifies this Jesus as the one called Christ (but a different one than the gospels.
3. Almost immediately after, Josephus identifies the SAME Jesus as "the son of Damneus.

So, James is identified not by his father (which would be more typical), but by his brother, who is identified first by the fact that he his called christ, and then by his father.

Talk about contradictions.

Here is the real reading:

James is identified by his brother, not by his father which would be typical, because his brother was well known (and therefore a better identifier) as the founder of the Jesus sect whose members called him Christ. The other Jesus, the son of Damneus, needs a different identifier, because he is a different Jesus.

No contradition.

You need a special education in order to view the gospels as accounts of actual events, and Oberon's got it.

Actually, you need to have read ancient historical works in order to recognize which ones fall into the genre of history.

So not only have you failed to address this one basic argument for historicity, you haven't addressed the others including the most important (using sociology of sects)


1. You can't find any evidence that Paul used "brother of the Lord" metaphorically, as he specifically uses a different syntax to refer to metaphorical brothers, and you can't find any evidence of some group known as "brothers of the lord" who were clearly metaphorical. The simplest reason to say "brother of the lord" is that James was his brother. Your "metaphorical" nonsense is just wishful thinking.

2. You can't account for why their are so many sources so early about Jesus, more than all but a handful of ancient people.

3. You can't account for how the sect started in the first place without the sect's founder.

4. You claim Paul never places Jesus in recent times, yet he says Jesus was crucified, which DOES place Jesus in recent times

5. You can't account for the similarity between the gospels and other ancient historical works, and the dissimilarity between the gospels and greco-roman myth, primarily because you haven't read them.

6. You can't support your theory of that early christians thought christ never walked on earth (even the later gnostics knew he was on earth), because we know the christian communities communicated and yet people who were still living in Jesus' day were being told about his mision in Galilee and Jerusalem by Mark. Not only do we have no evidence of anyone denying he existed, but why would the early christians not dismiss Mark as fiction? That's why REAL myths are set in times long, long ago. No one can say whether they happened or not.

 

[Zadok]

"Why do we know so little about Jesus?"

Because there is essentially no historical evidence whatsoever that such a man existed.

It would appear that you need to get a better handle on the concepts of “evidence” as opposed to absolute proof.

Zadok

 

[Dunemeister]

It would appear that you need to get a better handle on the concepts of “evidence” as opposed to absolute proof.

Zadok

I agree. There seem to be a lot of amateurism among some of the skeptics on this forum. These more amateurish types assume that if an argument isn't compelling that it isn't an argument or that if evidence doesn't 100% require one to believe the theory it supports, it doesn't count as evidence for the theory. It's as if critical thinking has taken a holiday and has forgotten to come back and get to work.

 

[logician]

Oberon seem to have some silly fixation on proving that the supposed the supposed Jesu existed.

Wh, I don't, know, it has no relevance to anything besides his own self-esteem, i don't get it.

 

[Charity]

Oberon seem to have some silly fixation on proving that the supposed the supposed Jesu existed.

Wh, I don't, know, it has no relevance to anything besides his own self-esteem, i don't get it.

i don't,l get it

Now that's a profound statement

I don't think it's about Oberon's self esteem....

 

[logician]

i don't,l get it

Now that's a profound statement

I don't think it's about Oberon's self esteem....

Someone else that will never "get it".

 

[Charity]

i don't,l get it

Someone else that will never "get it".

 

[lockyfan]

Yet what Jesus did and said has affect the lives of people for 2000 years ofter his death and resurrection.


you are 100% correct but rather if you think how many lives have been cut short in his name, you would better have him not exist.

Not really because in effect his life on earth will actually mean something to those who are dead. At least they stayed faithful to the end and have the hope of the resurrection. As opposed to those who die when he comes to the earth to complete God's promise of removing the evil from this world, those who die during that time, they have no hope of anything.

I would rather he exist also for hte fact that his life means that we will have the chance to live in the new system he is going to set up and actualy become free from sin and thus death.

Thgose who are dead also on the same point have already paid for hteir sins so they have a clean slate when they get resurrected. It is then their lives during the 1000 year reign of Christ that they have to then be judged.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon seem to have some silly fixation on proving that the supposed the supposed Jesu existed.

Wh, I don't, know, it has no relevance to anything besides his own self-esteem, i don't get it.

I could have something to do with years spent in grad school interacting with an enormous amount of scholarship trying to put forth my own theory on aspects of the historical Jesus, only to come upon people totally ignorant of all that scholarship spouting ridiculous theories that virtually no one who knows anything takes seriously. I should just be able to shrug that off. But I'm not great at suffering fools.

 

[dogsgod]

Tell us the one about how the James referred to in Acts is the brother of Jesus. Impress us with your "enormous amount of scholarship."

 

[dogsgod]

Yet the author knew that James was Jesus' brother, because he knew Mark's gospel. And again, there are TWO James' in Acts. Hence they were traditionally called "James the greater" (not Jesus' brother) and "James the Lesser" (Jesus' brother).

This from years of studying scholarship? Why are they traditionally referred to as "James the greater" (not Jesus' brother) and "James the Lesser" (Jesus' brother)? Well Mr. scholarship, what are these traditional assumptions based on?

 

[Oberon]

Tell us the one about how the James referred to in Acts is the brother of Jesus. Impress us with your "enormous amount of scholarship."

This from years of studying scholarship? Why are they traditionally referred to as "James the greater" (not Jesus' brother) and "James the Lesser" (Jesus' brother)? Well Mr. scholarship, what are these traditional assumptions based on?

I'm linking these together because they are related. First, the "lesser" and "greater" title are one of many titles which could have been chosen. The point is that the church recognized that Jesus' disciple James was not his brother, and that this James was "the pillar."

Tell us the one about how the James referred to in Acts is the brother of Jesus.

There are TWO James referred to in Acts. Also, unless you think Luke didn't use Mark (which would mean another independent attestation for Jesus), Luke obviously knew that Mark wrote that Jesus had a brother named James. Luke, in using Mark's material, for whatever reason decided not to include that James was Jesus' brother. We don't know why. It could be as simple as his audience was expected to know this.

Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. For the sake of argument, let us say that Luke NEVER said anything about a James, brother of Jesus. He still was aware that Mark had. Additionally, we already have Paul, Josephus, and Mark (and Matthew) confirming that James was Jesus' brother.

Paul actually knew this James, and Josephus at least knew of his death and trial, and travelled in similar circles.

So until you can explain the genitive usage in Galation referring to James, you are still stuck with Paul actually knowing Jesus' brother. And even without that, we are still left with:

1. You can't find any evidence that Paul used "brother of the Lord" metaphorically, as he specifically uses a different syntax to refer to metaphorical brothers, and you can't find any evidence of some group known as "brothers of the lord" who were clearly metaphorical. The simplest reason to say "brother of the lord" is that James was his brother. Your "metaphorical" nonsense is just wishful thinking.

2. You can't account for why their are so many sources so early about Jesus, more than all but a handful of ancient people.

3. You can't account for how the sect started in the first place without the sect's founder (given sociological studies of religion).

4. You claim Paul never places Jesus in recent times, yet he says Jesus was crucified, which DOES place Jesus in recent times. He also makes several references to an earthly Jesus.

5. You can't account for the similarity between the gospels and other ancient historical works, and the dissimilarity between the gospels and greco-roman myth, primarily because you haven't read them.

6. You can't support your theory of that early christians thought christ never walked on earth (even the later gnostics knew he was on earth), because we know the christian communities communicated and yet people who were still living in Jesus' day were being told about his mision in Galilee and Jerusalem by Mark. Not only do we have no evidence of anyone denying he existed, but why would the early christians not dismiss Mark as fiction? That's why REAL myths are set in times long, long ago. No one can say whether they happened or not.

 

[dogsgod]

Enough of the red herrings already. We're discussing how it is that the audience of Acts "knows" that the James referred to in Acts is Jesus' brother. What exactly has scholarship come up with?

 

[Oberon]

Enough of the red herrings already. We're discussing how it is that the audience of Acts "knows" that the James referred to in Acts is Jesus' brother. What exactly has scholarship come up with?

You seem to have difficulty with this, so let me make it VERY easy for you.

1. Acts mentions more than 1 James, as one dies and another is mentioned later.
2. The author of acts is also the author of Luke.
3. Luke knew, at the very least, of Mark's gospel, so he knew that Mark described Jesus as having a brother named James.
4. Luke never mentions that a James is Jesus' brother.
5. We don't know why.
6. We have no direct, specific evidence linking either James in Acts to Jesus' brother James.
7. THIS DOESN'T MATTER!. Even if, for the sake of argument, Luke never discusses James the brother of Jesus, it means nothing! Why? Because we have Paul, who KNEW James, who tells us that he is Jesus' brother. Because we have Josephus doing the same. And finally Mark/Matthew ALSO do so.

So in answer to your question:

1. We know that in the ancient world authors didn't differentiate people in their works if they expected their audience to be familiar with them. That's why there are stilll debates like whether antiphon the sophist is the same as antiphon the orator.
2. We know Luke knew that Jesus had a brother named James, because he knew Mark's work.
3. Luke didn't ever connect any James with Mark. We don't know why. It COULD be because his audience already knew.
4. In the end, it doesn't matter, because we have Paul, who knew James, and two other independent sources confirming that James was his brother.

Finally, we have all the other arguments:

1. You can't find any evidence that Paul used "brother of the Lord" metaphorically, as he specifically uses a different syntax to refer to metaphorical brothers, and you can't find any evidence of some group known as "brothers of the lord" who were clearly metaphorical. The simplest reason to say "brother of the lord" is that James was his brother. Your "metaphorical" nonsense is just wishful thinking.

2. You can't account for why their are so many sources so early about Jesus, more than all but a handful of ancient people.

3. You can't account for how the sect started in the first place without the sect's founder (given sociological studies of religion).

4. You claim Paul never places Jesus in recent times, yet he says Jesus was crucified, which DOES place Jesus in recent times. He also makes several references to an earthly Jesus.

5. You can't account for the similarity between the gospels and other ancient historical works, and the dissimilarity between the gospels and greco-roman myth, primarily because you haven't read them.

6. You can't support your theory of that early christians thought christ never walked on earth (even the later gnostics knew he was on earth), because we know the christian communities communicated and yet people who were still living in Jesus' day were being told about his mision in Galilee and Jerusalem by Mark. Not only do we have no evidence of anyone denying he existed, but why would the early christians not dismiss Mark as fiction? That's why REAL myths are set in times long, long ago. No one can say whether they happened or not.

 

[dogsgod]

OK, nothing from Acts. The tradition is based on thin air.

Mark and Matthew are not two independent sources because we can see that Matthew is dependent on Mark for this information.

 

[Oberon]

OK, nothing from Acts. The tradition is based on thin air.

Mark and Matthew are not two independent sources because we can see that Matthew is dependent on Mark for this information.

RIght. It isn't in one of the sources (the source which you call "a piece of second century myth-making") so it "is based on thin air." Pathetic.

Mark and Matthew are almost certainly not independent. This is because both Luke and Matthew used Mark. Which means Luke was aware that Jesus had a brother named James, whatever he wrote in his gospel or in Acts.

And it doesn't matter AT ALL if LUke never mentioned James as Jesus' brother. We don't need Luke because we have Paul (who knew him), as well as Josephus and Mark/Matthew (one tradition) making THREE independent supporting traditions, including one who we KNOW knew James.

You are trying to use the one source which doesn't explicitly state Jesus had a brother named James (even though Luke was certainly aware of the tradition, having read Mark). Pathetic, precisely because we don't need Luke's testimony. Luke never says James wasn't Jesus' brother, and three other independent sources say he was. The only reason to focus on Acts is a desperate ploy to go to the one source which doesn't actually deny that James was Jesus' brother; it just doesn't confirm it.

Nice try.

So again, in order for you to support your hypothesis:

1. You can't find any evidence that Paul used "brother of the Lord" metaphorically, as he specifically uses a different syntax to refer to metaphorical brothers, and you can't find any evidence of some group known as "brothers of the lord" who were clearly metaphorical. The simplest reason to say "brother of the lord" is that James was his brother. Your "metaphorical" nonsense is just wishful thinking.

2. You can't account for why their are so many sources so early about Jesus, more than all but a handful of ancient people.

3. You can't account for how the sect started in the first place without the sect's founder (given sociological studies of religion).

4. You claim Paul never places Jesus in recent times, yet he says Jesus was crucified, which DOES place Jesus in recent times. He also makes several references to an earthly Jesus.

5. You can't account for the similarity between the gospels and other ancient historical works, and the dissimilarity between the gospels and greco-roman myth, primarily because you haven't read them.

6. You can't support your theory of that early christians thought christ never walked on earth (even the later gnostics knew he was on earth), because we know the christian communities communicated and yet people who were still living in Jesus' day were being told about his mision in Galilee and Jerusalem by Mark. Not only do we have no evidence of anyone denying he existed, but why would the early christians not dismiss Mark as fiction? That's why REAL myths are set in times long, long ago. No one can say whether they happened or not.

 

[dogsgod]

RIght. It isn't in one of the sources (the source which you call "a piece of second century myth-making") so it "is based on thin air." Pathetic.

Mark and Matthew are almost certainly not independent. This is because both Luke and Matthew used Mark. Which means Luke was aware that Jesus had a brother named James, whatever he wrote in his gospel or in Acts.

And it doesn't matter AT ALL if LUke never mentioned James as Jesus' brother. We don't need Luke because we have Paul (who knew him), as well as Josephus and Mark/Matthew (one tradition) making THREE independent supporting traditions, including one who we KNOW knew James.

You are trying to use the one source which doesn't explicitly state Jesus had a brother named James (even though Luke was certainly aware of the tradition, having read Mark). Pathetic, precisely because we don't need Luke's testimony. Luke never says James wasn't Jesus' brother, and three other independent sources say he was. The only reason to focus on Acts is a desperate ploy to go to the one source which doesn't actually deny that James was Jesus' brother; it just doesn't confirm it.

Nice try.

I'm just taking one step at a time, so let's try again.

Nothing in Acts supports the notion that James, the brother of Jesus, became a religious leader. Acts doesn't name names when it comes to any of Jesus' brothers and sisters. It is not clear at all who the James is that the author is referring to after James, the brother of Zebedee, is killed.

The one source we do have that explicitly states Jesus has a brother named James is gMark. Matthew doesn't count as a source because Matthew is dependent on Mark. Luke/Acts doesn't name the brothers and sisters of Jesus, so they are not a source. The brother of Jesus is literal whereas the brother of the Lord is a metaphor. It could mean literal brother, or it could mean something else. It could be a title given to a particular leader.

So again, in order for you to support your hypothesis:

1. You can't find any evidence that Paul used "brother of the Lord" metaphorically, as he specifically uses a different syntax to refer to metaphorical brothers, and you can't find any evidence of some group known as "brothers of the lord" who were clearly metaphorical. The simplest reason to say "brother of the lord" is that James was his brother. Your "metaphorical" nonsense is just wishful thinking.

2. You can't account for why their are so many sources so early about Jesus, more than all but a handful of ancient people.

3. You can't account for how the sect started in the first place without the sect's founder (given sociological studies of religion).

4. You claim Paul never places Jesus in recent times, yet he says Jesus was crucified, which DOES place Jesus in recent times. He also makes several references to an earthly Jesus.

5. You can't account for the similarity between the gospels and other ancient historical works, and the dissimilarity between the gospels and greco-roman myth, primarily because you haven't read them.

6. You can't support your theory of that early christians thought christ never walked on earth (even the later gnostics knew he was on earth), because we know the christian communities communicated and yet people who were still living in Jesus' day were being told about his mision in Galilee and Jerusalem by Mark. Not only do we have no evidence of anyone denying he existed, but why would the early christians not dismiss Mark as fiction? That's why REAL myths are set in times long, long ago. No one can say whether they happened or not.

One at a time:

No one at any time ever claimed that there was a group called "brothers of the Lord" so you don't even understand the argument of your opponent which means you can't understand your own argument. Perhaps you are making a straw man argument, in other words presenting a weak argument that doesn't really exist because it's easier to tear down, or your comprehension skills are lacking. Which is it?

 

[Oberon]

I'm just taking one step at a time, so let's try again.

Nothing in Acts supports the notion that James, the brother of Jesus, became a religious leader.

First, I never said that James, the brother of Jesus, became a "religious leader." That is a read herring.

Second, it doesn't matter if Luke/Acts NEVER mentions Jesus' brothers at all. What difference does it make? Your argument about Luke/Acts is an argumentum ex silentio. Luke never says Jesus' didn't have a brother named James, nor that one of the James he discusses isn't Jesus brother.

WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LUKE/ACTS AT ALL other than for your red herring?

Three independent sources mention James as Jesus' brother: Paul, who knew him, Josephus, and Mark/Matthew. We only need one, as long as we have no contradicting evidence. Instead we have three, and one who knew him.

So stop bringing up this argument from silence, because it makes you look foolish, and deal with the evidence.

Acts doesn't name names when it comes to any of Jesus' brothers and sisters.

So what? We don't need Luke/Acts as a source for this information, because we have it elsewhere.

It is not clear at all who the James is that the author is referring to after James, the brother of Zebedee, is killed.

The declaration of independence doesn't say that James in Acts is Jesus' brother. Neither does Philo. Neither do most of Paul's letters. In fact, most of the texts ever written don't. SO WHAT? What matters is what they DO say. Luke/Acts never denies that Jesus had a brother named James, and three other sources confirm he did.

The one source we do have that explicitly states Jesus has a brother named James is gMark.

Wrong. We also have Paul and Josephus. I already ripped apart your pathetic attempt to argue that Josephus was talking about a different Jesus:

Do you know why "brother of X" and "son of Y" are used in these texts? Because of the commonality of names. So why, when Josephus just identified Jesus as "the one called Christ" does he then identify him of "the son of Damneus?" And is James is this Jesus' brother, why not identify him as "the son of Damneus" either? You talk of contradictions, but here is your argument.

1. Josephus mentions James, and calls him the brother of a Jesus known as Christ
2. Josephus identifies this Jesus as the one called Christ (but a different one than the gospels.
3. Almost immediately after, Josephus identifies the SAME Jesus as "the son of Damneus.

So, James is identified not by his father (which would be more typical), but by his brother, who is identified first by the fact that he his called christ, and then by his father.

Talk about contradictions.

Here is the real reading:

James is identified by his brother, not by his father which would be typical, because his brother was well known (and therefore a better identifier) as the founder of the Jesus sect whose members called him Christ. The other Jesus, the son of Damneus, needs a different identifier, because he is a different Jesus.

No contradition.

The brother of Jesus is literal whereas the brother of the Lord is a metaphor.

There is NO basis for this statement. Paul calls Jesus Lord, christ, etc. In greek, people identify kin by titles (e.g. brother of the king, son of the high priest, etc). Why shouldn't Paul say "Lord" here like he does elsewhere to refer to Jesus. Nice Try.

Now, why does Paul use the genitive of kin to identify James as Jesus' brother, and no one else?

It could mean literal brother, or it could mean something else. It could be a title given to a particular leader.

Only if you know nothing about kin identification. Which you don't.

No one at any time ever claimed that there was a group called "brothers of the Lord" so you don't even understand the argument of your opponent which means you can't understand your own argument.

Read Price's essay in The Historical Jesus: Five Views before you say what I know about Price's argument. And then read how all the other experts trash his views as foolishnesss.

Paul calls Jesus "Lord." He often talks about brothers metaphorically, but he uses a specific syntax to do this. When he talks about James, he specifically changes this syntax to indicate a literal brother. Furthermore, we have Mark and Josephus saying the same thing.

You can't even address this argument. I can't wait to hear your response to the rest.

 

[dogsgod]

First, I never said that James, the brother of Jesus, became a "religious leader." That is a read herring.

Second, it doesn't matter if Luke/Acts NEVER mentions Jesus' brothers at all. What difference does it make? Your argument about Luke/Acts is an argumentum ex silentio. Luke never says Jesus' didn't have a brother named James, nor that one of the James he discusses isn't Jesus brother.

WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LUKE/ACTS AT ALL other than for your red herring?

Three independent sources mention James as Jesus' brother: Paul, who knew him, Josephus, and Mark/Matthew. We only need one, as long as we have no contradicting evidence. Instead we have three, and one who knew him.

So stop bringing up this argument from silence, because it makes you look foolish, and deal with the evidence.



So what? We don't need Luke/Acts as a source for this information, because we have it elsewhere.



The declaration of independence doesn't say that James in Acts is Jesus' brother. Neither does Philo. Neither do most of Paul's letters. In fact, most of the texts ever written don't. SO WHAT? What matters is what they DO say. Luke/Acts never denies that Jesus had a brother named James, and three other sources confirm he did.



Wrong. We also have Paul and Josephus. I already ripped apart your pathetic attempt to argue that Josephus was talking about a different Jesus:








There is NO basis for this statement. Paul calls Jesus Lord, christ, etc. In greek, people identify kin by titles (e.g. brother of the king, son of the high priest, etc). Why shouldn't Paul say "Lord" here like he does elsewhere to refer to Jesus. Nice Try.

Now, why does Paul use the genitive of kin to identify James as Jesus' brother, and no one else?




Only if you know nothing about kin identification. Which you don't.




Read Price's essay in The Historical Jesus: Five Views before you say what I know about Price's argument. And then read how all the other experts trash his views as foolishnesss.

Paul calls Jesus "Lord." He often talks about brothers metaphorically, but he uses a specific syntax to do this. When he talks about James, he specifically changes this syntax to indicate a literal brother. Furthermore, we have Mark and Josephus saying the same thing.

You can't even address this argument. I can't wait to hear your response to the rest.

Price argues that there is a group called brothers of the Lord? I doubt it.




It's unlikely that Paul is referring to Jesus' brother. Paul met apostles James, Peter, and John, no doubt the same James, Peter, and John that are recast as disciples in gmark. It's foolish to suggest that the James referred to in Acts is Jesus' brother because it doesn't say that he isn't. That's child's play. I think all this scholarship you allude to is working against you.