Why do we know so little about Jesus?

[dogsgod]

[1Cor 9:5] Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

But then again, there is a group referred to here as the brothers of the Lord, not necessarily a designated name of a group, but the reference does appear to be directed towards a brotherhood of believers.

 

[Oberon]

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

He argues that that it refers to a "missionary brotherhood" p. 65

It's unlikely that Paul is referring to Jesus' brother.

Only, that's exactly what he says.

Paul met apostles James, Peter, and John, no doubt the same James, Peter, and John that are recast as disciples in gmark.

Again, there are two different James. We know this because one dies in Acts, and yet James is still mentioned. Likewise, Mark refers to the disciple James, and also lists James among Jesus' brothers (as does Matthew). Again, different James.

It's foolish to suggest that the James referred to in Acts is Jesus' brother because it doesn't say that he isn't.

You keep attempting to divert the argument. It doesn't matter whether or not the two James' in Acts are completely fictionary. What matters is how Paul, Josephus, and Mark/Matthew refer to James, Jesus' brother. We don't need Luke/Acts. Unless Luke/Acts specifically states James is NOT Jesus' brother, than your argument is simply one from silence, whereas I have three independent sources.

That's child's play

Your argument certainly is:

1. Paul mentions James, Jesus' brother, whom he met.
2. When they list Jesus' brothers, Mark and Matthew both list James.
3. Josephus tells us James is his brother.

Now, to argue against all that, you argue:

1. Paul is being metaphorical, although you can't explain the syntax, nor is there any indication he is.
2. Your contradictions in your analysis of Josephus were pointed out above.
3. Luke/Acts never mentions Jesus had a brother James. Of course, he doesn't say Jesus didn't have a brother James, and three other sources say he did.

[1Cor 9:5] Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

But then again, there is a group referred to here as the brothers of the Lord, not necessarily a designated name of a group, but the reference does appear to be directed towards a brotherhood of believers

Exactly. Why do you think you have apostles on the one hand, and Jesus' actual brothers on the other? Mark/Matthew make clear that Jesus had more than one brother (as would be natural). If this was supportive of your "metaphorical" reading, "directed towards a brotherhood of believers," why seperate them from the apostles, who WERE the brotherhood of believers.

Your case amounts to a strained hypothesis that "brother of the lord is metaphorical." There is no evidence of this, as we have nowhere a clear example of metaphorical use of this syntax, particularly when it is kin identification.

Furthermore, two OTHER sources confirm Paul.

Keep trying

 

[dogsgod]

He argues that that it refers to a "missionary brotherhood" p. 65





Only, that's exactly what he says.




Again, there are two different James. We know this because one dies in Acts, and yet James is still mentioned. Likewise, Mark refers to the disciple James, and also lists James among Jesus' brothers (as does Matthew). Again, different James.




You keep attempting to divert the argument. It doesn't matter whether or not the two James' in Acts are completely fictionary. What matters is how Paul, Josephus, and Mark/Matthew refer to James, Jesus' brother. We don't need Luke/Acts. Unless Luke/Acts specifically states James is NOT Jesus' brother, than your argument is simply one from silence, whereas I have three independent sources.



Your argument certainly is:

1. Paul mentions James, Jesus' brother, whom he met.
2. When they list Jesus' brothers, Mark and Matthew both list James.
3. Josephus tells us James is his brother.

Now, to argue against all that, you argue:

1. Paul is being metaphorical, although you can't explain the syntax, nor is there any indication he is.
2. Your contradictions in your analysis of Josephus were pointed out above.
3. Luke/Acts never mentions Jesus had a brother James. Of course, he doesn't say Jesus didn't have a brother James, and three other sources say he did.



Exactly. Why do you think you have apostles on the one hand, and Jesus' actual brothers on the other? Mark/Matthew make clear that Jesus had more than one brother (as would be natural). If this was supportive of your "metaphorical" reading, "directed towards a brotherhood of believers," why seperate them from the apostles, who WERE the brotherhood of believers.

Your case amounts to a strained hypothesis that "brother of the lord is metaphorical." There is no evidence of this, as we have nowhere a clear example of metaphorical use of this syntax, particularly when it is kin identification.

Furthermore, two OTHER sources confirm Paul.

Keep trying

Although Paul applys brothers to all manner of believers and apostles, a brotherhood of believers is consistently named separately from Peter, James, and all the apostles. The more than 500 brothers that had visions of the spiritual Christ are differentiated from Peter, James, and all the apostles. (1 Cor. 15:6) As well we see in Corinthians 9:5 the "other apostles" and Peter are listed apart from "the brothers of the Lord." These do seem to suggest an organized sub group within the main body of believers. Paul nowhere else applies this phrase to other individuals, but that is hardly a compelling argument against such an interpretation.



[SIZE=+1] [/SIZE]

 

[Oberon]

Although Paul applys brothers to all manner of believers and apostles, a brotherhood of believers is consistently named separately from Peter, James, and all the apostles.

Once more, just to make this clear, we have at least to James' in the tradition, as both all the Mark/Matthew and Luke/Acts make clear.

The more than 500 brothers that had visions of the spiritual Christ are differentiated from Peter, James, and all the apostles. (1 Cor. 15:6)

You seem once more to have difficulty with syntax. Paul and other christians us "brethren/brothers" all the time. Paul also refers to "brothers in the lord" to make it even more clear he is being metaphorical. But "brothers of the lord" is a totally different syntax which is not metaphorical. This is even MORE explicit when it is used as an identifier for a single person in a standard kin identification formula "james, the brother of the lord." Before last names, that was how one identified people. Paul identifies this James as Jesus' brother. So do Mark/Matthew, and so does Josephus.

As well we see in Corinthians 9:5 the "other apostles" and Peter are listed apart from "the brothers of the Lord." These do seem to suggest an organized sub group within the main body of believers.

No, it doesn't. Why would it suggest that, unless one were doing anything possible other than recognize the plain meaning? When Paul says "brothers of the lord" he means "brothers." Which is why, although we have all kinds of references to brethren metaphorically, this syntax is only used to describe ACTUAL brothers:

Mark 6:3 ουχ οὗτός εστιν ο τέκτων, ο υιος της Μαρίας, αδελφος δε ᾿Ιακώβου και ᾿Ιωση και ᾿Ιούδα και Σίμωνος; και ουκ εισιν αι αδελφαι αυτου ὧδε προς ημας/Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, and Joses and Jude and Simon; and are not his sisters here with us?

The same genitive, used for kin. And here we find James, among other brothers.

So, why assume a metaphorical usage of some "special brotherhood" for this genitive in Paul, when another source makes clear he had other brothers (as would be standard in a Jewish family then), and the syntax is different from all the metaphorical usages?

Paul nowhere else applies this phrase to other individuals, but that is hardly a compelling argument against such an interpretation.

The compelling arguments are as follows:

1. You don't go around assuming "special uses" of some word, without good reason. When someone says brother they usually mean brother.
2. Paul obviously uses this word to mean a non-literal brother very often. We have good reason to believe this.
3. When Paul is speaking metaphorically, he either says simply "brothers/brethren" or uses a DIFFERENT syntax.
4. He doesn't do this when speaking of literal brothers.
5. Most importantly, Paul uses a standard syntactical formula of kin identification to identify James, the brother of the Lord, in Galations.

No, based on all of the above, the only reason to assume some metaphorical reading is because obviously a literal brother completely eradicates the mythicist argument.

Furthermore, Paul has two independent sources to back him up: Josephus and Mark/Matthew.

Again, the only reason to say "NO! It's not a literal brother" is a desperate attempt to hold on to a theory dismissed by all the people who are in the best position to know, and instead troll websites.

Dogsgod, you can't even address THIS argument for historicity, let alone any of the others. If you were such a fundamentalist dogma driven mythicist, this might be a clue for you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

why are so many non christians Debating in this thread on christianity.

 

[Oberon]

why are so many non christians Debating in this thread on christianity.

I don't know, but it could be because so many christians think we know all we need to know about Jesus. Also, an unfortunately common occurance when questions concerning what we know about Jesus are proffered is someone bringining out the "mythicist argument." You asked why we know so little. The answer of they mythicists is "because he didn't exist."

 

[dogsgod]

There you have it folks, once again the best and most consistent argument for an historical Jesus boils down to the use of a syntax.

 

[Dunemeister]

There you have it folks, once again the best and most consistent argument for an historical Jesus boils down to the use of a syntax.

Honestly, dogsgod, your ability to skew the issue seems infinite.

We know of Jesus (and everyone else from history) by way of testimony.l To testify to the existence of Jesus, Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Josephus all used language. To communicate in a language, and to make themselves understood, they used such despicable things as idiomatic expression and formal syntax (the fools!).

You have said that you doubt the existence of Jesus. Fair enough. The problem is that ancient witnesses used that horrible and messy syntax thingy to express it. So yes, in a trivial way, the historical argument, because it relies on testimony, relies on (some) questions of syntax. The issue, after all, is this: WHAT DID THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS? How are we supposed to know except by reading what they wrote and appealing to the rules of syntax and idiom? Your dismissal of the question of syntax is tantamount to dismissing the use of language (let alone specific uses such as to testify about what you have seen and heard).

 

[Oberon]

There you have it folks, once again the best and most consistent argument for an historical Jesus boils down to the use of a syntax.

That isn't the best. I gave you multiple arguments, and you said you would take them one at a time. You have failed addressing even part of the only one you attempted. Let me go over some of the MOST BASIC again:

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 there 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 (which goes into sociology 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

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.

Now you attempted and failed to answer 1) above. You said you would take on one at a time. Having failed with the first, you make the snide comment I quoted above.

 

[dogsgod]

"No one can say whether they happened or not."


I'm not kiddin' man, it really happened, I was on that boat when He put up his hand and the storm stopped, just like the book says, and I was there when he raised the dead, one minute he was dead, next thing you know he was alive, it really happened man. No, I haven't been smokin' any **** man, I'm serious. He's the only guy I ever knowed that could walk on water too. He was d'man.

Oberon, get a grip.

 

[Oberon]

"No one can say whether they happened or not."


I'm not kiddin' man, it really happened, I was on that boat when He put up his hand and the storm stopped, just like the book says, and I was there when he raised the dead, one minute he was dead, next thing you know he was alive, it really happened man. No, I haven't been smokin' any **** man, I'm serious. He's the only guy I ever knowed that could walk on water too. He was d'man.

Caesar Augustus was said to be born of a virgin. That's impossible. He obviously didn't exist. Socrates was said to be visited by a divine power. Impossible. He didn't exist. 30,000 to 60,000 people were executed during the late middle ages because they were said to have perform magic. Obviously, none of them existed.

Or, real people can be thought to do magic things, and still exist.

Oberon, get a grip.

When you can't defeat by argumentation, this is what you resort to.

When you can answer the arguments I gave you (you attempted part of one and failed), and why virtually all the experts agree with me, then tell me to get a grip.

 

[dogsgod]

"Caesar Augustus was said to be born of a virgin."


I can't help but notice the use of syntax.

 

[Charity]

I believe that most Christians know quite a lot about Jesus
The people that know little about Jesus really don't care to know more

 

[Dunemeister]

"Caesar Augustus was said to be born of a virgin."


I can't help but notice the use of syntax.

Well, we wouldn't want anyone to use language, would we?

 

[lockyfan]

Jesus was born of a virgin to this earth, but was already alive in Heaven BEFORE he came to the earth.

 

[Dunemeister]

Jesus was born of a virgin to this earth, but was already alive in Heaven BEFORE he came to the earth.

Well, now we're dipping into non-scriptural traditions that don't represent the church's historical teaching. Just sayin'.

 

[Oberon]

"Caesar Augustus was said to be born of a virgin."


I can't help but notice the use of syntax.

Show me a sentence witbout syntax. But u deliberately missed the point. Lots of historical people were credited with the impossible. That jesus was too doesn't make him a myth.

Now, are you going to get to the other basic argument I listed, or have you given up after failing at the first?

 

[dogsgod]

All we have of Jesus is the impossible, there's nothing left if we take that away, nothing to know about him.

 

[Oberon]

All we have of Jesus is the impossible, there's nothing left if we take that away, nothing to know about him.

Completely false. The gospels full of Jesus' sayings, parables, teachings, etc. And as for the miracles, let's look at the historical record for a second. Take the shrine of Lourdes. There are numerous, documented examples of people saying they saw or experienced miracles. Now, these EVENTS happened. People came to the shrine, they said they were healed, other people saw it, believed it or didn't, and so forth.

Now, I, as a skeptic, may say that there is some other explanation. A believer calls it a miracle. Yet it is still a historical event, miracle or no. Likewise, just because stories exist of Jesus healing people or whatever, doesn't mean that these events did not happen in that Jesus did something seen and interpreted as a miracle by some people. The historical record is lettered with historical events which actually happened, which some people claim are/were magical or whatever.

So to say "there are impossible stories about Jesus performing miracles, therefore there is no historical basis to these stories" is a serious mistake. Faith healings are still performed, and witnesses will swear they happened even today. I don't believe they are actually healed, but the event itself is historical, just not the miracle.

In sum
1. Plenty of information about Jesus exists apart from miracles
2. We can discount miracles as historical, and still acknowledge that the events interpeted as miracles by bystanders were historical.

And if these sorry responses are all you have, I guess you have given up on trying to refute some of the most basic arguments for historicity.

 

[dogsgod]

Completely false. The gospels full of Jesus' sayings, parables, teachings, etc. And as for the miracles, let's look at the historical record for a second. Take the shrine of Lourdes. There are numerous, documented examples of people saying they saw or experienced miracles. Now, these EVENTS happened. People came to the shrine, they said they were healed, other people saw it, believed it or didn't, and so forth.

Now, I, as a skeptic, may say that there is some other explanation. A believer calls it a miracle. Yet it is still a historical event, miracle or no. Likewise, just because stories exist of Jesus healing people or whatever, doesn't mean that these events did not happen in that Jesus did something seen and interpreted as a miracle by some people. The historical record is lettered with historical events which actually happened, which some people claim are/were magical or whatever.

So to say "there are impossible stories about Jesus performing miracles, therefore there is no historical basis to these stories" is a serious mistake. Faith healings are still performed, and witnesses will swear they happened even today. I don't believe they are actually healed, but the event itself is historical, just not the miracle.

In sum
1. Plenty of information about Jesus exists apart from miracles
2. We can discount miracles as historical, and still acknowledge that the events interpeted as miracles by bystanders were historical.

And if these sorry responses are all you have, I guess you have given up on trying to refute some of the most basic arguments for historicity.

All Lourdes proves is that people believe in the power of a heavenly Christ.