Why do we know so little about Jesus?

[sojourner]

There is more than enough unquestionable independent physical and written confirmation of Augustus Caesar.

The same could be said about his miraculous birth...

To equate the two because birth stories are applied to rulers, real as well as fictitious, is fallacious on too many levels.

The two are equated, not because "that's what they always say about rulers," but because there is too much other evidence that early Xy sought to replace the image of Augustus-as-deity with the image of Jesus-as-Deity.

 

[Oberon]

Every woman that is named in the geneaology is a "fallen woman," or a foreigner.

Have you read Mary in the New Testament (Brown, R. E., Donfried, K. P, Fitzmyer, J. A., & Reumann, J., eds)?

 

[sojourner]

Have you read Mary in the New Testament (Brown, R. E., Donfried, K. P, Fitzmyer, J. A., & Reumann, J., eds)?

No, but I've read other stuff by Fitz.

 

[Humanistheart]

The same could be said about his miraculous birth....

One could say that of the 'miraculous birth', but it would be false.

 

[dogsgod]

The entire point of a miraculous birth is to show divinity, to show that a true leader has been born, a true leader is one blessed with the divine right to rule. The divine right to rule is what separates the average Joe from the ruling class. This is why Jesus' line is traced back to David, it's to show that he is of a ruling class favored by God. It's also why Matthew paralleled Jesus' birth story with Moses's birth story. It not only sets the plot, but it compares Jesus to Moses, as the bringer of a new covenant with God, Moses being the bearer of the old covenant. This is elementary to mythology and the portrayal of its ruling heroes. Mark used other symbolism, he showed that Jesus was divine by parting the heavens during his baptism. The white dove and the booming voice from above, all symbols. This is mythology and readily recognized by such with the exception of a very few modern pseudo historians that view the gospels as actual historical accounts.

 

[Oberon]

This is mythology and readily recognized by such with the exception of a very few modern pseudo historians that view the gospels as actual historical accounts.

Your "few modern pseudo historians" amount to virtually the entire field of relevant ancient historians. This is why Augustus Caesar's "divine birth" is such a great parallel. Historical people were OFTEN wound up in legends. If we examine the biographies written by greeks and romans, we find mythic elements. We can't expect the ancient world to write histories that live up to modern standards. That doesn't make anything with mythic or legendary elements "myth." When you have actually spent time reading the ACTUAL works written by the greeks and romans, and the secondary scholarship comparing genres, then you can talk about what genre the gospels are.

Here's another web quote (because I know how much you like to rely one the web):

wikipedia:

"...the position that the Gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today"

 

[dogsgod]

It's not about "anything with mythic or legendary elements "myth." It's about not believing everything we read about in the National Inquirer. If we don't use the standard of current-day experience to evaluate claims from the past, what other standard is there?

 

[Oberon]

It's not about "anything with mythic or legendary elements "myth." It's about not believing everything we read about in the National Inquirer. If we don't use the standard of current-day experience to evaluate claims from the past, what other standard is there?

In the current day, we know that people are credited with working miracles or magic or whatever. That is an aspect of the historical record. Historians also know that the genre of history in the ancient world was not as skeptical. They also know the difference between ancient history (which contained mythic elements) and actual myth.

We can use current-day experience to evaluate the sources. The sociology of religion argument, which examines how sects/cults form, does just that, and we find we need Jesus to explain the Jesus movement. We can look at modern faith healers or look at the historical record and see many miracle/wonder workers, who were historical. We can compare the ancient histories with the gospels, as has been done, and find you are completely wrong.

 

[dogsgod]

Osiris, Baal, Adonis, Hercules, Tammuz, Attis, and Asclepius. These figures were believed to have once existed on earth, they were believed to have been killed, and believed to have risen shortly thereafter. Not at all unlike Jesus. And no, a real Jesus is not necessary for Christianity to have spread, Jesus Christ was not responsible for the spread of Christianity.

 

[Oberon]

Osiris, Baal, Adonis, Hercules, Tammuz, Attis, and Asclepius. These figures were believed to have once existed on earth, they were believed to have been killed, and believed to have risen shortly thereafter. Not at all unlike Jesus. And no, a real Jesus is not necessary for Christianity to have spread, Jesus Christ was not responsible for the spread of Christianity.

1) Your knowledge of the mythologies surrounding the above figures is woefully inadequate
2) No text places any of the above figures in a specific place and time like the gospels do, particularly not so close to the time of their composition.
4) You still haven't dealt with the large amount of scholarship on the genre of the gospels, nor have you shown an adequate grasp of the genre of myth in the ancient world
5) Jesus IS necessary for the start (not spread) of christianity.

 

[dogsgod]

It matters not that the gospels have Jesus live on earth a few generations earlier, we don't have any evidence that they were read in the first century by other than a few Christians anyways. Besides, they were not read by commoners, they could not read, education was reserved for members of the aristocracy, only the members of a priestly class used the gospels to preach to their congregations. Not only that but we do have evidence of many that rejected an earthly Christ.

2 John 1:
7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

1 John 4:
1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

A Jesus that walked the earth was not necessary according to Paul. He makes that more than clear in Galatians. 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11

Paul was having revelations, visions, and receieved the gospel he preached from a heavenly Christ. Paul met with apostles that had the same revelations, visions, of a risen Christ but never mentions anyone having witnessed the crucifixion. Paul gives no clues as to when the crucifixion took place, nor do any of the other epistle writers. A Jesus Christ from a recent past was not necessary for the start of Christianity, nor the spread. Christianity began before the gospels were written, before any details of an earthly Christ were written down, before any dates, names, and places were provided, so we can see that an earthly Christ was not necessary for the start of Christianity.

Sorry, I'm open to an historical Jesus but no one has provided a legitimate clue. He may have lived a hundred years or more before Paul started having revelations of him. Paul's Christ and the Jesus of Galilee may be two different people, or perhaps many different people. Who knows? One can claim a genre for the gospels if they like, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[Oberon]

It matters not that the gospels have Jesus live on earth a few generations earlier

It does matter if you want to compare the gospels to myth. There is no comparison.


,

we don't have any evidence that they were read in the first century by other than a few Christians anyways.

If they weren't read, they wouldn't have survived. And you are wrong. We have evidence of a christian community which communicated, and did so often and over great distances.

Besides, they were not read by commoners, they could not read, education was reserved for members of the aristocracy

No, it wasn't. True, most people were illiterate. But not only were there plenty of non-aristocratic people who could read (actually, often enough slaves were used by illiterate aristocracy because they read), the gospels and letters were read out loud in early christian communities.

Not only that but we do have evidence of many that rejected an earthly Christ.

They didn't reject the notion that Jesus came to earth. The some gnostics believed he only appeared human. Doceticism wasn't a denial of Jesus coming to earth. Again, you would be better served by actually reading scholarship rather than preaching this dogma without research.

A Jesus that walked the earth was not necessary according to Paul

Necessary? Where does Paul say it wasn't necessary? His whole theology is built around Jesus DYING and being crucified. Difficult to do in some spirit world. And he talks about Jesus eating, Jesus according to the flesh, he knew Jesus' brother, etc. You recycling the same tired arguments which are readily contradicted by the sources.

He makes that more than clear in Galatians. 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11

Yes, we all know that Paul had to contend with Cephas, and so had reasons to preach far more about the risen Christ, rather than the living Jesus whom he had not known.

However, if he only received the gospel by revelation, then why does he take pains to distinguish his teaching from that of Jesus? Why did he spend two weeks with Peter, inquiring into him?

Paul gives no clues as to when the crucifixion took place

The very fact that it is a crucifixion is a clue to those who know history.

A Jesus Christ from a recent past was not necessary for the start of Christianity

Study the sociology of religion.

Christianity began before the gospels were written, before any details of an earthly Christ were written down, before any dates, names, and places were provided

but not before Jesus was preaching in galilee.

Sorry, I'm open to an historical Jesus

Right.

but no one has provided a legitimate clue.

None so blind as those that will not see.

He may have lived a hundred years or more before Paul started having revelations of him

Then he would hardly have been crucified, and Paul couldn't have known his brother.

Who knows?

People who study.

One can claim a genre for the gospels if they like, but it doesn't change anything.

Certainly doesn't change dogma.

 

[dogsgod]

You're not presenting a case other than simply denying that Jews wrote mythologies, along with amateurish theories based on identical or similar first names, and that scholars know because they are scholars.

 

[Oberon]

You're not presenting a case other than simply denying that Jews wrote mythologies

Not my case at all. I said the gospels aren't mythologies. Moreover, I can cite plenty of studies which show they are a type of ancient biography, and so (while ancient history in general must be approached with skepticism, because it contains myth, legend, rumor, and hearsay alongside fact) the gospels should be viewed as such.

along with amateurish theories based on identical or similar first names

You are the one who claimed that the two jesus' in in Josephus were the same, although they were both identified differently. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when one James dies in acts, the other james has to be different.

and that scholars know because they are scholars.

Well, yes, if virtually all the people with the relevant expertise have found, despite hundreds of years of critical inquiry, and all different backgrounds, that there is plenty of evidence to say with as much certainty as is possible with ancient history (or history in general) that Jesus existed and is a historical figure, one should take that into account when one trolls around amateurish websites.

And, again, my basic arguments remain:

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). The groups you compare the Jesus sect specifically placed their god(s) in the distant past, and their stories about him/her/them as well.

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]

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.

This is why you are not credible. "Some group known as the brothers of the Lord" is a straw man argument of yours. No one has made such a claim and it's not the first time that this straw man that you made up has been exposed. But you insist on repeating it. If all your scholarship expertise relies on straw man arguments and reliance on first name similarities, then you've got nothing.That there was a brotherhood of believers is not a stretch, you can deny the dozens and dozens of the metaphorical uses of brother when referred to fellow believers and rely totally on this one use of brother as to literally mean a blood sibling if you like, but obviously it's not very convincing for a number of reasons aside from the phrase itself. No one has ever explained how James magically appears as a leader of a Christian community. Now that would be something, but so far it's been ignored.

 

[Oberon]

"Some group known as the brothers of the Lord" is a straw man argument of yours. No one has made such a claim

From Price's paper in The Historical Jesus: Five Views:

"But what about the one whome Paul calls "James the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1`:19)? Paul says he met him, so musn't he have understood Jesus to be a figure of recent history? That is indeed a natural reading, but it is not the only one. Wells cautions that "brethren of the Lord" (1 Cor 9:5) may refer to a misionarry brotherhood..." p. 65.

There's the claim, made by Wells (a professor of German studies) and backed by Price. But where is the evidence that there is such a group? Nowhere. The genitive syntax is used nowhere in christian literature other than to refer to ACTUAL brothers, and so is VERY infrequent. So why the hypothesis, without the evidence? Because if Paul knew Jesus' brother, that alone would pretty much end the "Jesus myth" bunk.

That there was a brotherhood of believers is not a stretch

No. There certainly was. But the claim made by Wells and Price is that the genitive syntax used in two specific circumstances in Paul (despite the numerous references two brothers which deliberately use other syntax which make clear their metaphorical nature) relate to a SPECIFIC group.

Now, I have gone over the syntax of kin indentification many times. It is very straightforward, and grammaticalized. In Greek, it is expressed by X.NOM + Y.Gen. Usually, a lexical item is also placed in the NOM to identify the specific relationship. However, often enough we have only "X of Y" which usually references the father.

Paul uses a very specific syntax used throughout greek literature to identify James by his kin, Jesus.

No one has ever explained how James magically appears as a leader of a Christian community.

They have. Many, many, many, times. Jesus' brother James was never that big of a leader, and what status he did have was probably only based on the fact that he was related to Jesus. There are at least two James. Paul identifies two by referring to one as Jesus' brother and the other as the Pillar. Acts doesn't always readily differentiate the two, but one dies, and yet James is still mentioned. Therefore, two James. We know that Jesus had a disciple named James. Matthew and Mark identify both a brother of Jesus named James, and a disciple, and Luke knew Mark, so he must have been aware of the two, apart from any personal experience.

 

[dogsgod]

From Price's paper in The Historical Jesus: Five Views:

"But what about the one whome Paul calls "James the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1`:19)? Paul says he met him, so musn't he have understood Jesus to be a figure of recent history? That is indeed a natural reading, but it is not the only one. Wells cautions that "brethren of the Lord" (1 Cor 9:5) may refer to a misionarry brotherhood..." p. 65.

There's the claim, made by Wells (a professor of German studies) and backed by Price. But where is the evidence that there is such a group? Nowhere. The genitive syntax is used nowhere in christian literature other than to refer to ACTUAL brothers, and so is VERY infrequent. So why the hypothesis, without the evidence? Because if Paul knew Jesus' brother, that alone would pretty much end the "Jesus myth" bunk.

If he knew, but there's nothing to back up the notion that Paul met with Jesus' brother or that Jesus' brother became a leader of a Christian community. Not one miniscule shred links James with a leadership of any sort whatsoever. It's not a stretch to suggest that "brethren of the Lord" may refer to a missionary brotherhood, but it requires a huge leap of faith to be so sure that Paul met with Jesus' brother. It's down right silly.

No. There certainly was. But the claim made by Wells and Price is that the genitive syntax used in two specific circumstances in Paul (despite the numerous references two brothers which deliberately use other syntax which make clear their metaphorical nature) relate to a SPECIFIC group.

Now, I have gone over the syntax of kin indentification many times. It is very straightforward, and grammaticalized. In Greek, it is expressed by X.NOM + Y.Gen. Usually, a lexical item is also placed in the NOM to identify the specific relationship. However, often enough we have only "X of Y" which usually references the father.

Paul uses a very specific syntax used throughout greek literature to identify James by his kin, Jesus.

[SIZE=+1]As a corollary, we also need to be cautious in relying too much on analyses that depend on the exact wording of our surviving text. Whole arguments in the case of "the brother of the Lord" have hinged on the word "the" or the preposition "of" as opposed to the "in" of Philippians 1:14. Considering that our earliest portion of Galatians in an extant manuscript comes from the third century, and in complete form only in the fourth, and that all sorts of scribal amendments were made, intentionally and unintentionally, to the New Testament texts, reliance on knowing the original wording of any passage is extremely unwise.[/SIZE]http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/sil20arg.htm

They have. Many, many, many, times. Jesus' brother James was never that big of a leader,

He was mentioned once in Mark and Matthew where Jesus disowns his family and was never heard form again, with the one exception in Acts where Mary is with her unnamed children.

and what status he did have was probably only based on the fact that he was related to Jesus.

We don't know a single solitary thing about Jesus' brother. Nothing.

There are at least two James. Paul identifies two by referring to one as Jesus' brother and the other as the Pillar.

Paul makes no distinction whatsoever. He never gives a hint that there are two different James.

Acts doesn't always readily differentiate the two, but one dies, and yet James is still mentioned.

Oh well, then that''s it isn't it. I mean the James in Acts has to be the James mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Who could have any doubts, James here and James there, that's it, they must be the same James.

Therefore, two James.

That's what I just stated, Done, say no more.

We know that Jesus had a disciple named James. Matthew and Mark identify both a brother of Jesus named James, and a disciple, and Luke knew Mark, so he must have been aware of the two, apart from any personal experience.

Absolutely.

 

[Oberon]

If he knew, but there's nothing to back up the notion that Paul met with Jesus' brother

Other than the fact that he specifically says so. Oh wait, that's pretty much all one need's

Not one miniscule shred links James with a leadership of any sort whatsoever.

Jesus' brother james' may not have had much in the way of "leadership." Who cares? The point is he was jesus' actual kin, and therefore makes Jesus a historical figure, and Paul's contemporary.

It's not a stretch to suggest that "brethren of the Lord" may refer to a missionary brotherhood,

Yes, it is. Because the greek word isn't "brethren" but adelphoi. Moreover, the adelphoi are linked to jesus through the genitive, unlike anybody else in the early christian literature, including the leader's of the church. And in the gospels, the ones who have this relationship are Jesus' actual brothers.

but it requires a huge leap of faith to be so sure that Paul met with Jesus' brother.

Only if you start from the point of view that Jesus never existed. Then everything in gospels must be myth, and everthing in Paul's letter's must be explained in some way different than the "natural reading."

[SIZE=+1]As a corollary, we also need to be cautious in relying too much on analyses that depend on the exact wording of our surviving text.[/SIZE]

Spoken like one who doesn't know the languages of the text, nor has studied grammaticalization. Their is a specific sytnax for identification.


[SIZE=+1]

Whole arguments in the case of "the brother of the Lord" have hinged on the word "the" or the preposition "of"

[/SIZE]
Once again, proof of your inability to be able to render an informed opinion. There was no "preposition of." And until you figure out greek cases and syntax, you really shouldn't pretend to understand such arguments.
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

He was mentioned once in Mark and Matthew where Jesus disowns his family and was never heard form again, with the one exception in Acts where Mary is with her unnamed children. We don't know a single solitary thing about Jesus' brother.

Wrong. We know from Paul and Acts that at the very least, he became part of the Jesus sect after Jesus' death.

Paul makes no distinction whatsoever. He never gives a hint that there are two different James.

Actually, he does. Otherwise, he wouldn't find it necessary to identify one as "the brother of the lord."

Oh well, then that''s it isn't it. I mean the James in Acts has to be the James mentioned in Mark and Matthew.

Considering Luke, who wrote Acts, read Mark, it would be hard to argue that the James in Mark doesn't figure anywhere in Luke/Acts, given the two James'.

Who could have any doubts, James here and James there, that's it, they must be the same James. That's what I just stated, Done, say no more. Absolutely.

Nice diversion. Luke/Acts is totally unnecessary to make my point. Paul, Josephus, and Matthew/Mark connect Jesus with his brother James. All Luke/Acts has to offer is a lack of an explicit connection.

 

[Charity]

James, the brother of Jesus, is first mentioned as the oldest of Jesus' four younger brothers in Matt and Mark. The Gospels reveal that Jesus' brothers adopted a skeptical attitude toward His ministry.
After Jesus' crucifixion, James became a believer, Paul indicated that James was a witness to the resurrection of Jesus 1Cor 15:7. He called James an apostle through like himself not one of the original Twelve.
In Acts, James emerges as the leader of the church in Jerusalem. His brothers also became believers and undertook missionary travels.

 

[dogsgod]

James, the brother of Jesus, is first mentioned as the oldest of Jesus' four younger brothers in Matt and Mark. The Gospels reveal that Jesus' brothers adopted a skeptical attitude toward His ministry.
After Jesus' crucifixion, James became a believer, Paul indicated that James was a witness to the resurrection of Jesus 1Cor 15:7. He called James an apostle through like himself not one of the original Twelve.
In Acts, James emerges as the leader of the church in Jerusalem. His brothers also became believers and undertook missionary travels.

Paul refers to apostles named James, Peter, and John. The gospels name a brother of Jesus as James as well as two disciples named James. They are mentioned once along with their sisters by Mark and Matthew when Jesus disowns his own family, and then never heard from again. Acts mentions Mary with children but neither Luke/Acts provides the names of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Now, after Jesus' crucifixion how is it that James became a believer? Where does this notion come from? In Acts the brother of Jesus emerges as the leader of the church in Jerusalem? How so? Acts never provides the names of Jesus' brothers. His brothers were also involved? How so? People see first names that are the same and make assumptions, is that how this works?