Steve Benson cited Richard Carrier (and with a CV like this - http://www.richardcarrier.info/cv.pdf - I'm sure that we're all shocked that he can't get a tenure-track job) stating that all baptized believers of Jesus were considered to be his brothers. That may be the case, but it's doesn't do anything to address why certain specific individuals such as James were designated as his brothers and other followers such as Peter were not.

The Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55-56 state that a James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon were the brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. Another verse in the Epistle to the Galatians 1:19 mentions seeing James, "the Lord's brother", and none other of the apostles except Peter, when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. The "brothers of the Lord" are also mentioned, alongside (but separate from) Cephas and the apostles in 1 Corinthians 9:5, in which it is mentioned that they had wives. Some scholars go on to claim that Jesus' relatives may have held positions of authority in the Jerusalem area until Trajan excluded Jews from the new city that he built on its ruins.[4]

Good point and another point regarding the 126 historians who didnt mention Jesus is that they were generally not writing about anything remotely connected to Jesus.I studied Latin literature and have read some of them and looked up some of the ones I was not familiar with.Petronius was not an historian. He wrote a satirical novel about the vulgar pretensions of rich freedmen in Rome. Why would he mention Jesus? Another wrote a treatise on Carthiginian agriculture. It is so shocking that he didnt mention Jesus who was not a farmer and who lived no where near Carthage. And so it goes. More ridiculous nonsense by people who have no idea what they are talking about,

The traditional Catholic teaching on His "brothers and sisters," is that this refers to cousins and extended family members. I am not conversant in Greek, but it is my understanding that the Greek ALLOWS for this translation (and consequent doctrine), but in no way says it outright.

The traditional Protestant teaching is that Jesus' conception was a miraculous event, unique in human history. After Jesus, Joseph and Mary had children by the normal, natural means of sexual union.

Every person who follows Jesus, and claims Him as Lord and Savior are God's children (and hence brothers and sisters to Christ) by spiritual adoption. "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1.12-13 ESV).

Scoffers may now proceed to scoff and ridicule.

from "Catholic Answers":

"Why do Catholics teach that Mary was a virgin throughout her life when the Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers? Ever been asked that?

"Let me offer four reasons:

"1. The Meaning of Brother

The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.

"Take Genesis 13:8, for example. Here the word 'brother' is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“'So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers' (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).

"Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of 'brother,' we can rest assured that although St. Paul writes, '[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time' (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!

"2. Children of Mary?

"These 'brothers' are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

"3. Other Women Named Mary

"James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ 'brothers' (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

"After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“'There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.' (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

"4. Consensus of the Early Church

"The earliest explanation of the 'brothers' of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it may contain accurate historical traditions."

("Jesus Had Brothers?," by Matt Fradd. 17 September 2013, at: http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/jesus-had-brothers)

_____


A non-Catholic Christian response to the Catholic position:

"The primary argument against . . . biblical texts [cited as proof that Jesus had siblings] is as follows:

"In Greek, the word for brother is 'adelphos' and sister is 'adelphe.' This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

"There is certainly merit in this argument; however, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.. . .

"There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings.
It is sad to see the Roman Catholic Church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity--something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth."

("Did Mary Have Other Children?," by Matt Slick, at: http://carm.org/did-mary-have-other-children)


Whatever. Now the argument devolves into competitive sectarian interpreation of what constitutes the Bible law of God.
_____



"Degree of Consanguinity Between Jesus and his Brothers

The New Testament names James the Just, Joses, Simon, and Jude as the brothers (Greek adelphoi) of Jesus (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55, John 7:3, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5.[18])

"The etymology of the word 'brother' (adelphos) originally comes from 'of the same womb' ("a-delphys"), though, in New Testament usage, the Christian and Jewish meaning of 'brethren' is wider, and is applied even to members of the same religious community. There is disagreement from an early date over whether the Greek term 'adelphos' applied in these accounts to people described as 'adelphoi' of Jesus means that they full brothers, half brothers, stepbrothers, or cousins.

"According to some scholars the most natural inference from the New Testament is that the 'adelphoi' were children of Mary and Joseph born after Jesus. Tertullian, possibly Hegesippus, and Helvidius accepted this view. In reference to this it is occasionally noted that James (Jacob Iakobos) as oldest of the brothers takes the name of Joseph's father (also James, Iakobos in the Solomonic genealogy of Jesus in Matthew), when in Bible times the grandson occasionally gets the name of the grandfather.

"The term 'brother' ('adelphos') is distinct in Greek from 'cousin' ('anepsios'), and the second-century Christian writer Hegesippus distinguishes between those who were 'cousins' of Jesus ('anepsioi') and his 'brothers.'


"Relationship of Jesus' Siblings to Mary

"By the 3rd century the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was well established and defended by Hippolytus, Eusebius and Epiphanius, important early Christian theologians. Much of the church therefore did not accept that Mary could have had any children apart from Jesus.[18] Eusebius and Epiphanius held that these men were Joseph's sons from (an unrecorded) former marriage. Jerome, another important early theologian, also followed the perpetual virginity doctrine, but argued that these 'adelphoi' were sons of Mary's sister, whom Jerome identified as Mary of Cleopas. The 'Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church' mentions that a modern scholar, whom it does not identify, has proposed that these men were the sons of Clopas (Joseph's brother according to Hegesippus) and Mary, the wife of Cleopas (not necessarily referring to Jesus' mother's sister).

"Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine is that Mary was a perpetual virgin;[24] this view was also held by many of the early Protestants, including Luther and Zwingli, as well as John Wesley, the 18th century Methodist leader. Indeed, the majority of early Christians seem to have left this doctrine completely unquestioned. The Roman Catholic Church, following Jerome, conclude that the 'adelphoi' were Jesus' cousins, but the Eastern Orthodox, following Eusebius and Epiphanius, argue that they were Joseph's children by his (unrecorded) first wife.

"Modern Protestants view the 'adelphoi' as Jesus' half-brothers or do not specify, since the accounts in the Gospels do not speak of Mary's relationship to them but only to Jesus.

"In the Book of Genesis, all the other sons of Jacob are repeatedly called brothers of Joseph, although they were children of different mothers. Similarly, in the Second Book of Samuel Tamar is described as a sister both of Amnon and of Absalom, though these were David's sons by different mothers.

"A small number of early groups, notably some Ebionites, rejected belief in the virgin birth of Jesus and held that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, making the brothers of Jesus full brothers.

"Scholars of the Jesus Seminar suggest that the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has impeded recognition that Jesus had full brothers and sisters."

("Brothers of Jesus," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2014 07:28PM by steve benson.

Ummm, Steve, the papists make a big deal about the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary, so they want to explain away a sibling relationship. If you wish to think of James as Jesus's cousin, then that's your privilege, but you're still arguing that a religious leader was able to attract a following based on an imaginary cousin.

Please note that even supporters of a born Jesus (as I cited) acknowledge that legitimate arguments can be made against historical Jesus arguments.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2014 01:08AM by steve benson.

WestBerkeleyFlats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ummm, Steve, the papists make a big deal about the
> supposed perpetual virginity of Mary, so they want
> to explain away a sibling relationship. If you
> wish to think of James as Jesus's cousin, then
> that's your privilege, but you're still arguing
> that a religious leader was able to attract a
> following based on an imaginary cousin.

Joseph Smith was able to attract a following based on imaginary beings like Moroni and Mormon. And that was less than 200 years ago. It's not at all unlikely that ignorant people living 2,000 years ago, and with no ability to research facts, "believed" stories about an imaginary cousin.

Mary, the wife of Clopas, is described as the "sister" (adelphe) of Mary, the mother of Jesus (John 19:25).

How likely is it that parents would give two of their daughters the exact same name?

"Mary, come down here!" "No, not you; the *other* Mary!"

In John 19:25 Mary of Clopas appears immediately after the expression "His mother’s sister". Therefore, Mary is often seen as the sister of Jesus's mother, despite the awkwardness of having two sisters bearing the same name. However, other interpretations distinguish between two different persons, one being "His mother's sister" and the other being "Mary of Clopas". Still, other interpretations make Mary of Clopas not the sister but the cousin of Jesus' mother, as Hebrew or Aramaic had no specific word for cousin, or her sister-in-law, as Clopas was considered the brother of Joseph.

"'Crypt Held Bodies of Jesus and Family, Film Says'

"A documentary by the 'Discovery Channel' claims to provide evidence that a crypt unearthed 27 years ago in Jerusalem contained the bones of Jesus of Nazareth

"Moreover, it asserts that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that the couple had a son, named Judah, and that all three were buried together.

"The claims were met with skepticism by several archaeologists and New Testament scholars, as well as outrage by some Christian leaders. The contention that Jesus was married, had a child and left behind his bones — suggesting he was not bodily resurrected --contradicts core Christian doctrine.

"Two limestone boxes said to contain residue from the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene were unveiled yesterday at a news conference at the New York Public Library by the documentary’s producer, James Cameron, who made 'Titanic' and 'The Terminator.' His collaborators onstage included a journalist, a self-taught antiquities investigator, New Testament scholars, a statistician and an archaeologist. Several of them said they were excited by the findings but uncertain.

“'I would like more information. I remain skeptical,' said the archaeologist, Shimon Gibson, a senior fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, in an interview after the news conference.

"In recent years, audiences have demonstrated a voracious appetite for books, movies and magazines that reassess the life and times of Jesus, and there is already a book timed to coincide with this documentary, which will be on the air next Sunday.

“'This is exploiting the whole trend that caught on with "The Da Vinci Code,"' said Lawrence E. Stager, the Dorot professor of archaeology of Israel at Harvard, in a telephone interview. 'One of the problems is there are so many biblically illiterate people around the world that they don’t know what is real judicious assessment and what is what some of us in the field call ‘fantastic archaeology.’”

"Professor Stager said he had not seen the film but was skeptical.

"Mr. Cameron said he had been 'trepidatious' about becoming involved in the project but got engaged out of “great passion for a good detective story,” not to offend and not to cash in.

“'I think this is the biggest archaeological story of the century,' he said. 'It’s absolutely not a publicity stunt. It’s part of a very well-considered plan to reveal this information to the world in a way that makes sense, with proper documentation.'

"The documentary, 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus,' revisits a site discovered by archaeologists from the Israel Antiquities Authority in the East Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem in 1980, when the area was being excavated for a building.

"Ten burial boxes, or ossuaries, were found in the tomb, and six of them had inscriptions. The Discovery Channel filmmakers say, and archaeologists interviewed concur, there is no possibility the inscriptions were forged, because they were catalogued at the time by archaeologists and kept in storage in the Israel Antiquities Authority.

"The documentary’s case rests in large part on the interpretation of the inscriptions, which they say are Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Matthew, Joseph and Judah.

"In the first century, these names were as common as Tom, Dick and Harry. But the filmmakers commissioned a statistician, Andrey Feuerverger, a professor at the University of Toronto, who calculated that the odds that all six names would appear together in one tomb are one in 600, calculated conservatively--or as much as one in one million.

"One box is said to be inscribed 'Yeshua bar Yosef,' in Aramaic, an ancient dialect of Hebrew that is translated as 'Jesus son of Joseph.' The second box is inscribed 'Maria,' in Hebrew. Maria is the Latin version of 'Miriam'--a name so common in first century ancient Israel that it was given to about 25% of all Jewish women. But the mother of Jesus has always been known as 'Maria' (which in English is 'Mary'). The documentary says that while thousands of ossuaries have been discovered, only eight have had the inscription “Maria” spelled phonetically in Hebrew letters.

"The third box is labeled 'Matia,' Hebrew for Matthew, and the filmmakers cite a reference in the New Testament to buttress their claim that Mary had many Matthews in her family and it would make sense to find one in the family tomb.

"The fourth box is inscribed 'Yose,' a nickname for the Hebrew 'Yosef,' or 'Joseph' in English. Again, the filmmakers turn to the New Testament Gospels, which refer to four 'brothers' of Jesus: James, Judah, Simon and Joseph. Scholars disagree whether these were actual brothers, companions or cousins, but the filmmakers infer that the inscription refers to a brother of Jesus.

"Perhaps the most shaky claims revolve around the inscription on the fifth box, which the filmmakers assert is that of Mary Magdalene. It is the only inscription of the six in Greek, and says 'Mariamene e Mara,' which the filmmakers say can be translated as 'Mary, known as the master.'

"The filmmakers cite the interpretation of a Harvard professor, François Bovon, of the 'Acts of Phillip,' a text from the fourth or fifth century and recently recovered from a monastery at Mount Athos in Greece. The filmmakers say that Professor Bovon has determined from the 'Acts of Phillip' that Mariamene is Mary Magdalene’s real name.

"The filmmakers commissioned DNA testing on the residue in the boxes said to have held Jesus and Mary Magdalene. There are no bones left, because the religious custom in Israel is to bury archeological remains in a cemetery.

"However, the documentary’s director and its driving force, Simcha Jacobovici, an Israeli-born Canadian, said there was enough mitochondrial DNA for a laboratory in Ontario to conclude that the bodies in the “Jesus” and “Mary Magdalene” ossuaries were not related on their mothers’ side. From this, Mr. Jacobovici deduced that they were a couple, because otherwise they would not have been buried together in a family tomb.

"In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed 'Judah, son of Jesus' was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary.

“'We’re not scientists. At the end of the day we can’t wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA,' he said. 'We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, ‘I’ve done my job as a journalist.' ”

"Among the most influential scholars to dispute the documentary was Amos Kloner, former Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who examined the tomb in 1980.

Mr. Kloner said in a telephone interview that the inscription on the alleged 'Jesus' ossuary is not clear enough to ascertain. The box on display at the news conference is a plain rectangle with rough gashes on one side. The one supposedly containing Mary Magdalene has six-petalled rosettes and an elaborate border.

“'The new evidence is not serious, and I do not accept that it is connected to the family of Jesus,' said Mr. Kloner, who appears in the documentary as a skeptic.

"New Testament scholars also criticized the documentary as theologically dangerous, historically inaccurate and irresponsible.

“'A lot of conservative, orthodox and moderate Christians are going to be upset by the recklessness of this,' said Ben Witherington, a Bible scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. 'Of course, we want to know more about Jesus, but please don’t insult our intelligence by giving us this sort of stuff. It’s going to get a lot of Christians with their knickers in a knot unnecessarily.' . . .

"Correction: March 12, 2007

"An article on Feb. 27 about a 'Discovery Channe'l documentary that said a crypt in Jerusalem contained the bones of Jesus of Nazareth referred imprecisely to the Aramaic language. While Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related and Hebrew is written using the Aramaic script, they are distinct languages; Aramaic is not an ancient dialect of Hebrew."

("Crypt Held Bodies of Jesus and Family, Film Says," Laurie Goodstein, "New York Times," 27 February 2007, with attached photos, at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/us/27jesus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
________


"But wait. there's more. Years later, Mormon Messianic Madhatter Glenn Beck's so-called "news" service "The Blaze" is keeping the testimonial fires burning for those who believe that odd ossuary is actually the holding box for the remains of Jesus and his dearly beloved kin:

"Decade-Long Debate Continues Over Authenticity of Ancient Box Naming James as the ‘Brother of Jesus’

"Inscribed on a stone box are the words at the center of more than a decade of religious and scholarly controversy: 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.'

"These words etched into a burial box spurred a 10-year investigation that would ultimately end in a man cleared of forgery accusations. But discussion as to whether this is the earliest reference to Jesus Christ and the validity of the last three words---brother of Jesus' continues.

"The box, an ossuary where Jews would place the bones of a body after it laid a year in a cave, was purchase in the 1970s by collector Oded Golan, 'The Guardian' reported.

"Paris Sorbonne University Professor Andre Lemaire, several decades while the ossuary was in a Toronto museum exhibition in 2002, sparked controversy when he published his belief that the inscription was the earliest mention of Jesus.

"Upon this claim, the Israel Antiquities Authority had an expert evaluate the box and its inscription. It was deemed a fake at the time by the authority, resulting in Golan’s arrest on the charges of forgery.

"Ten years later, a judge found Golan innocent of this charge, and the box was returned to him in November 2013.

“'The inscription is written in the Jewish script, it was done with a sharp instrument and I think it was done by the same hand. It is an authentic inscription,' Bar-Ilan University Professor Gabriel Barkay told 'The Guardian.'

“'There is no doubt that it’s ancient, and the probability is that it belonged to the brother of Jesus Christ,' Golan said, according to the newspaper.

"Although acquitted of forgery charges, the judge in the case did not rule either way if the inscription was authentic: he only ruled that forgery could not be proven. Those skeptical about the inscription remain.

“'Because of the differences in the depth and the clarity and the kerning between the first half of the inscription that mentions James son of Joseph, and the second half, I’d be willing to wager that the second half was added in modern times,' Albright Institute of Archaeological Research Professor Christopher Rollston told 'The Guardian.'

"The box, if valid, would present concrete evidence as to the existence of Jesus Christ and his family, something 'Catholic Online' stated would turn 'the atheist world upon its head.' But the publication also noted that if the controversy was more settled, it could also raise issues within Christian denominations as well.

“' . . . [I]t also would have raised questions for the Catholic Church as well as other faiths that believe Jesus had no brothers, as in born of Mary,' 'Catholic Online' stated.

Other scholars might interpret the use of the word “brothers” to mean friends or cousins.

"While debate regarding the engraved words continues, Golan will soon put the ossuary on display to aid in scholarly discussion."

("Decade-Long Debate Continues Over Authenticity of Ancient Box Naming James as the ‘Brother of Jesus," by Liz Klimas, "Thje Blaze," 27 December 2013, at: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/27/decade-long-debate-continues-over-authenticity-of-ancient-box-naming-james-as-the-brother-of-jesus/)

**********


And the intellectual elites in the "Historical Jesus Club" claim it's the 'mythicists' who are the kooks:

"Some Jesus mythicists say many New Testament scholars are intellectual snobs. 'I don’t think I’m some Internet kook or Holocaust denier,' says Robert Price, a former Baptist pastor who argues in 'Deconstructing Jesus' that a historical Jesus probably didn’t exist. 'They say I’m a bitter ex-fundamentalist. It’s pathetic to see this character assassination. That’s what people resort to when they don’t have solid arguments.'"

("Jesus Debate: Man vs. Myth," by John Blake, CNN, 7 April 2012, at: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/)


Oh, brother. :)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2014 01:10AM by steve benson.

The Romans did it all thebtime. Nonreason the Jews couldnt.

The Jesus Dynasty is long on speculation and short on documentation.

The point is that nobody other than the four men designated as Jesus' brothers was referred to as the brother of the Lord

That is not true. Perhaps you ought read Carriers book. He gives a plethora of examples to substantiate his claim. But why bother with facts and evidence when an appeal to authority will suffice?

Hint: read the book sophist.

HH =)

Maybe the Bible was referring to his Elks Lodge or Masonic brothers.

Now, now, Steve, your theory of a religous leader developing a religious community around an imaginary and rather unsuccessful brother is, umm, interesting to say the least.

Joseph Smith may have convinced some credulous rubes on the frontier of imaginary beings such as Moroni, but he had plenty of more astute critics of his religious chicanery. As has been noted, the same would have applied to an imaginerary Jesus and his supporters but no record of such an aspersion exists amongst the many contemporary criticisms of the nascent Christian community.

Joseph S. was a real guy, hence, his local, in-his-lifetime, contemporary critics.

Jesus C. wasn't a real guy, hence his lack of local, in-his-lifetime, contemporary critics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2014 08:01PM by steve benson.

WestBerkeleyFlats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, now, Steve, your theory of a religous leader
> developing a religious community around an
> imaginary and rather unsuccessful brother is, umm,
> interesting to say the least.
>
> Joseph Smith may have convinced some credulous
> rubes on the frontier of imaginary beings such as
> Moroni, but he had plenty of more astute critics
> of his religious chicanery. As has been noted,
> the same would have applied to an imaginerary
> Jesus and his supporters but no record of such an
> aspersion exists amongst the many contemporary
> criticisms of the nascent Christian community.

In the early 2nd century CE, Tacitus wrote about the "Christ" (without mentioning "Jesus" at all) that christians believed in, and called those beliefs a "pernicious myth." Seems like a good record of such an aspersion to me.

Additionally, we know that the gnostic christians (attested to as early as the 1st century CE) didn't consider the "Jesus" character to be an actual human being, but simply manifestations of a "spirit." They denied the "incarnation" of an actual "Jesus."

Since questioning what developed as christian orthodoxy (that "Jesus" was an incarnated human, and that the gospel stories were "fact") was deemed heresy in the 4th century CE, a great many gnostic and other extant texts were collected and burned intentionally to destroy this "heresy." What was in them we'll probably never know. There could have been a great deal of "aspersion" that was burned -- yet even so, some aspersions survive. In short, even in that day of few records, no research, utter ignorance, and general belief in outrageous myths, there were still those who called BS on the magic Jesus stories.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2014 07:14PM by caffiend.

"Jesus never existed. That is the conclusion of a researcher who says he has combed 126 texts written during or shortly after the time Jesus is supposed to have lived--and found no mention of Jesus whatsoever.

"The claim that Jesus, the messianic figure at the center of the world’s largest religion, Christianity, was simply a fictional character is not a new one. Advocates of the “Mythical Jesus” theory have been around for years, arguing that the story of Jesus bears a close resemblance to numerous other mythological stories of ancient gods who were born of virgin mothers and performed miracles.

"In a new article entitled 'The Fable of the Christ,' Michael Paulkovich summarizes his findings, or lack of findings, which lead him to believe that Jesus never actually existed, but is instead a fictional character, made up to give followers of the religion founded in his name a central icon worthy of their worship.

"Paulkovich says that only one of the 126 texts he combed through contains any mention of Jesus--and that, he says, is a forgery. That text is the first-century history book The Jewish Wars by the Roman historian Josephus Flavius, who wrote his work in the year 95 CE.

"But, despite making his home just one mile from Jesus’s supposed hometown of Nazareth, Josephus appears totally unaware of the famous miracle worker who later went to Jerusalem where he became such a political threat that the Romans found it necessary to execute him by crucifixion.

"The few mentions of Jesus in The Jewish Wars, Paulkovich argues, were added by later editors, not by Josephus himself.

"Otherwise, says the author, despite the remarkable feats Jesus is alleged to have performed and the great deal of political unrest caused by his arrival in Jerusalem, not a single writer from the time and place of Jesus’s life finds that Jesus so much as rates a footnote.

“Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis. It seems none of these writers from first to third century ever heard of Jesus, global miracles and alleged worldwide fame be damned,” Paulkovich said in a recent interview.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls, also known as the Qumran texts, also contain no mention of Jesus. Even the Apostle Paul, the New Testament figure credited with spreading the new religion that came to be called “Christianity” shortly after the supposed death of Jesus, never says that Jesus was a a real person — even in the Bible itself.

“Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus’ nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial and harrowing passion,” Paulkovich states. “Paul knows neither where nor when Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.”

"While today Christianity has become the most popular religion in world history, with 2.2 billion human beings calling themselves Christians, Paulkovich points out that as late as the the Fourth Century, Christianity was still a small and widely persecuted cult.

"The invention of a mythical figure for followers of the cult to rally around gave the early Christians the strength to survive, according to this theory. On the other hand, another recent advocate of the “Mythical Jesus” believes that Christ was invented by the Romans as propaganda to pacify the public.

“'When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not — and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumran and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions,” Paulkovich writes, “I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character.'"

("Jesus Never Existed Says New Report that Finds No Mention of Christ in 126 Historical Texts," 28 September 2014, at:
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/#hk9HE4VuqcKTzkKo.99http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/#hk9HE4VuqcKTzkKo.99



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2014 08:10PM by steve benson.

Zactly!!!

Steve,

That reference is honestly an embarrassment. The reasoning is: Contemporary writers did not recount elements of the gospels that are obviously mythic and legendary in nature, therefore Jesus did not exist. It's a joke.

. . . didn't start popping up until the forged account of Josephus surfaced long after Jesus' supposed death?

". . . 126 texts studied by [historical researcher Michael Paulkovich looking for empirical proof that Jesus actually walked the earth] were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus--but none mention him, leading the writer to conclude he is a 'mythical character' invented later. Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries. Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors. . . .

"He also says that silence from Jesus himself is telling, with no personal accounts being written.

"‘Perhaps the most bewildering "silent one" is the mythical super-savior himself, Jesus the Son of God ostensibly sent on a suicide mission to save us from the childish notion of "Adam's Transgression" as we learn from Romans,’ he says. ‘The Jesus character is a phantom of a wisp of a personage who never wrote anything. So, add one more: 127.’

"He continues: ‘Christian father Marcion of Pontus in 144 CE denied any virgin birth or childhood for Christ--Jesus' infant circumcision was thus a lie, as well as the crucifixion!'

"‘Reading the works of second century Christian father Athenagoras, one never encounters the word Jesus (or Ἰησοῦς or Ἰησοῦν, as he would have written)--Athenagoras was thus unacquainted with the name of his savior it would seem. And he claims even the book of Mark in the Bible, which contains the story of Christ’s resurrection, was doctored later on."

("'Jesus NEVER Existed': Writer Finds No Mention of Christ in 126 Historical Texts and Says He was a 'Mythical Character,'" by Jonathan O'Callaghan, "Daily Mail," online edition, 1 October 2014, at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html#ixzz3M80Y1fhH)
_____


Berk Alert: Your shame meter doesn't seem to be working. :)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2014 01:28AM by steve benson.

"'Josephus Forgery on Jesus'

"Here’s a neat little paragraph succinctly summarizing one of the many problems with the passage in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus used to 'prove' the historicity of Jesus Christ, called the 'Testimonium Flavianum':

“'Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises 20 books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed in a dozen lines.] (John Remsburg, 'The Christ'_

"There is much more, of course, although one would think this argument alone would suffice to prove this passage is fake in toto. Yet, because it often contended that the 'Testimonium Flavianum' is the 'best evidence' for Christ’s historicity, it is fought for tooth and nail. Hence, the existence of the world’s most famous man essentially rests on a brief and palpably bogus forgery."

("Josephus Forgery on Jesus. 5 May 2011, by "Acharya S/D.M. Murdock," at:http://freethoughtnation.com/josephus-forgery-on-jesus/: for more on the Josephus Joke on the Ungenuine Jesus, see from the same author, see: "The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled." at: http://truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm)


Wait. We're not done yet with Joe (no,not Joe Smith)--Josephus:

"All scholars agree that Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus 'the Christ' or 'the truth,' so the passage must have been doctored by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The phrase 'to this day' reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone agrees there was no 'tribe of Christians' during the time of Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

"If Jesus were truly important to history, then Josephus should have told us something about him. Yet he is completely silent about the supposed miracles and deeds of Jesus. He nowhere quotes Jesus. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives and tells us nothing that would not have been known by Christians in either the first or fourth centuries. In all of Josephus' voluminous writings, there is nothing about Jesus or Christianity anywhere outside the tiny paragraph cited so blithely by the 'Associated Press.'

"This paragraph mentions that Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus does not tell us who those prophets were or what they said. This is religious propaganda, not history. If Jesus had truly been the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, then Josephus would have been the exact person to confirm it.

"And this is the 'most important' historical evidence for Jesus!"

Oh, and here's what Josephus claims about the alleged "brother of Jesus":

"[Another] phrase from Josephus . . . the so-called 'brother of Jesus,' . . . is likewise flimsy. It says that a man named James was stoned to death, which is not mentioned in the Bible. Many scholars believe the "brother of Jesus" phrase is a later interpolation, and that Josephus was referring to a different James, possibly the same James that Paul mentions in Acts, who led a sect in Jerusalem. Contradicting Josephus, Hegesippus wrote a history of Christianity in 170 C.E. saying that James, the brother of Jesus, was killed in a riot, not by sentence of a court."

Barker wraps up with a good summation on why it is empirically logical to reject the historically dubious claims for the mythical Jesus:

: . . Pliny the Younger [cited in defense of a supposedly 'real' Jesus] . . . in the early second century reported that 'Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god.' Notice how late this reference is; and notice the absence of the name 'Jesus.' The passage, if accurate, could have referred to any of the other self-proclaimed 'Christs' (messiahs) followed by Jews who thought they had found their anointed one. Pliny's account is not history, since he is only relaying what other people believed. No one doubts that Christianity was in existence by this time. OFFERING THIS AS PROOF WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF QUOTING MDOERN MORMONS ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS IN THE HISTORICAL EXISTENCE OF THE ANGEL MORONI OR THE MIRACLES OF JOSEPH SMITH--DOUBTLESS USEFUL FOR DOCUMENTING THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BUT MOT THE ACTUAL FACTS. [emphasis added]

"Tacitus, another second-century Roman writer who alleged that Christ had been executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate, is likewise cited . . . . Written some time after 117 C.E., Tacitus' claim is more of the same late, second-hand 'history.' There is no mention of 'Jesus,' only 'the sect known as Christians' living in Rome being persecuted, and 'their founder, one Christus.' Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. No historical evidence exists that Nero persecuted Christians--Nero did persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was confused. There was certainly not a 'great crowd' of Christians in Rome around 60 C.E., as Tacitus put it, and, most damning, the term 'Christian' was not even in use in the first century. No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus. In fact, it appears almost word-for-word in the fourth-century writings of Sulpicius Severus, where it is mixed with other obvious myths. Citing Tacitus, therefore, is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus.

"Such are the straws believers must grasp in order to prop up their myth.

"Historians have no evidence of a historic Jesus dating from the early first century, even though many contemporary writers documented the era in great detail. Philo of Alexandria, for example, wrote in depth about early first-century Palestine, naming other self-proclaimed messiahs, yet never once mentioning a man named Jesus. Many other contemporary writers covered that era, yet there is not a single mention of any existence, deeds, or words of a man named Jesus.

"Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, in their book, 'The Jesus Mysteries,' explain how the myth and legend of Jesus could easily have arisen without a historical founder. The Jesus story was pressed from the same template as other mythical savior-gods who were killed and resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis.

"Early Christians agreed that Christianity offered 'nothing different' from paganism. Arguing with pagans around 150 C.E., Justin Martyr said: 'When we say that the Word [Jesus], who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus).' Fourth-century Christian scholar Fermicus, in attempting to establish the uniqueness of Christianity, met at every turn by pagan precedents to the story of Jesus, in exasperation concluded: 'The Devil has his Christs!'

"The Gospels are not history; they are religious propaganda, contradictory, exaggerated, and mythical. The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, are silent about the man Jesus: Paul, who never met Jesus, fails to mention a single deed or saying of Jesus (except for the ritualistic Last Supper formula), and sometimes contradicts what Jesus supposedly said. To Paul, Jesus was a heavenly disembodied Christ figure, not a man of flesh and blood.

"There is serious doubt that Jesus ever existed. It is impossible to prove he was a historical figure. It is much more plausible to consider the Jesus character to be the result of myth-making, a human process that is indeed historically documented. . . .

"Here are a few references relating to the historical Jesus:

-"The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?," by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999, Three Rivers Press)

-"Did Jesus Exist?," by G. A. Wells (1975, Pemberton)

-"he Jesus Puzzle: Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus," by Earl Doherty (1999, Canadian Humanist Association)

-"Deconstructing Jesus," by Robert Price (2000, Prometheus Books)

-"The Jesus Legend by G. A. Wells (1996, Open Court)

-"The Historical Evidence for Jesus," by G. A. Wells (1982, Prometheus Books)

-"Jesus in History and Myth," by Joseph R. Hoffman and G. A. Larue (1986, Prometheus Books)

-"Jesus: Myth or History? by A. Robertson (1949, Watts)
Pagan Christs by J. M. Robertson (1911, London)

-"The Quest of the Historical Jesus," by Albert Schweitzer

-"The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold," by Acharya S (1999, Adventures Unlimited)

-"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," by Bart D. Ehrman (2005, Harper San Francisco) (to document gospel discrepancies)

-see also "Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?," by Dan Barker.

("Debunking the Historical Jesus: What the Bible-Belt Media Didn't Tell You about Italian Lawsuit," by Dan Barker, at: http://www.exminister.org/Barker-debunking-historical-Jesus.html)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2014 01:30AM by steve benson.

Thank you so much for this post. It is wonderfully informative. I have read and re-read it. I love stuff like this.

There are a couple of other texts you may wish to check out. The first is titled, "A Course in Miracles". (ACIM.ORG) This text is not for everyone hence the title "A Course in Miracles" instead of "THE Course in Miracles".

The second is titled, "The Urantia Book". There is a very large section in this book about the Order of Melkesdic (sp?)

The most prominent section is on the life of Jesus, those years when he was scrubbed from Greek and Roman scriptures.

Ideas are so wonderful! They are like gourmet food, to be savored, tasted, tried, ordered again if they pleasure your pallet and spit out if they don't.

Let us all eat our fill and be kind and happy as we learn together.

Blessings,

LTM

James Tabor's "The Jesus Dynasty" has an interesting take on the brothers of Jesus. Jesus had 4 brothers as mentioned in Mark. Jesus was the eldest, then James and Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon. After the death of Joseph, Clophas (Joseph's brother) marries Mary (Levirate marriage I think) and the other sons are born.

You have to read the book to understand how it all fits together in spite of the church's attempt to write the family out of the picture.

Appeal to authority - Tabor is a Professor of Religious Studies.

Can a historicist please explain why the author of the epistle of James had no idea that James was supposed to be the brother of Jesus?

Maybe it was so well known that it didnt need explaining. After all, this was a letter and the author had no expectation that it would be read as scripture for two thousand years.If Ted Kennedy had written a letter to someone he would not need to point out that his brother was JFK because everyone knows that. It is also possible that it was written by someone else entirely. James was a common name and people often wrote in someone else's name. Nobody knows who wrote the NT.

Steve, Seriously? You are going to make it your life work to say that Jesus didn't exist? There is plenty of evidence. I've posted a lot of this already, but there is a lot out there.

Quotes from people much smarter and more qualified than anybody on this forum

Non-Christian Scholars

Jay Lowder (Ran The Secular Web)
- I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed.

Robert Price
- Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy

Maurice Casey (Agnostic - Professor at University of Nottingham)
- This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. .... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.

Michael Grant (Vice Chancellor at Queen's University of Belfast)
- Wrote more than 70 books mostly on Roman history including books on Caesar, Herod, Cleopatra, Nero, etc...)
- we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned... In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant

Bart Ehrman ( James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
- In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God
- I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus .... We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.
Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina in an interview by The Infidel Guy

Geza Vermes
- [In answer to the question, did Jesus exist?] I would say it is much more likely that he did than he didn’t. To believe that he had been imagined or invented is a much harder task than to rely on the available evidence, which is obviously not as clear-cut as one would like, but is sufficiently good to say that somebody by the name of Jesus existed around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in the first century AD. (Geza Vermes, Oxford University, in A new church is born, History magazine)

Contrary to the claim that nobody but Christians wrote about Jesus doesn't seem to be true.

Non Christian References to Jesus
Taticus (Senator)
- Annals written in AD116 but talking about The Great Fire of Rome
- Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite suffering on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Pliny the Younger Written in AD 112
- They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal—but ordinary and innocent food.

Josephus
- Book 20, Chapter 3 (Most Historians Validate)
- "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"
- Book 20, Chapter 9 (James the brother of Jesus) (Most Historians Validate)
- Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus" by order of Anaanus ben Anaanus, a Herodian-era High Priest who died c. 68 AD

Book 18, Chapter 5 (Most Historians Validate)
- John The Baptist
- Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.
- Book 18, Chapter 3 (Most Historians Validate, Yet some are concerned that the phrase (if indeed one ought to call him a man) might have been added or changed later)
- About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

Lucian of Samosata (2nd Century Greek)
- The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Suetonius (41-51 AD)
- Life of Claudius 25:4
- "Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).”

Do your research, there is a lot of evidence to support the historical Jesus. I do understand why we would all want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the fact is though there is no evidence for the story of the BofM, PofGP, Nephi, Lehi, etc, there is plenty of evidence that there was a man in Jerusalem around 30 AD and his name was Jesus. Whether you believe that he was divine and God is a different question. For me, I threw out Mormonism, but I kept Christ as my savior. I would just ask that if your don't believe that Christ existed that's fine, I just don't understand why people think that they have to spend all day attacking those of us the still believe in him.

So, are you going to make it your life work to engage in a fight of competing bibliographical lists?

Sure seems that way. Lookee here at what you said on this board 24 days ago:

"I don't get on here much anymore, but I see that people are still debating the existence of Jesus. The post below is from a couple of months ago, but since people are still asking . . ." (What then follows is the same stuff you just posted above):

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1440986,1441325#msg-1441325


So, go fer it. At least I've pulled you out of your gopher hole for the fight, :)



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2014 06:27PM by steve benson.

Not in a gopher hole. Just don't come here often. I've moved on in my life. I'm simply showing that there is plenty of evidence to support that Jesus existed. People should have all of the information and decide for themselves.

Steve, read above... I acknowledged that I've posted this before.

"I've posted a lot of this already..." It was in the first paragraph.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/search.php?2,search=,author=+jstojc,page=1,match_type=ALL,match_dates=30,match_forum=2,match_threads=0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2014 06:31PM by steve benson.

Why would it matter if I repeated it? I've acknowledged nearly every time that I've posted it before.

"??? 'Most Evangelicals think these are six literal 24-hour days." ??? I left the LDS Church 15 years ago but I still believe in Christ and attend a local Christian church in Utah. I don't think I would agree with your comment that most Evangelicals believe in the literal six days. In fact most of my Christian friends believe in an Old Earth. In fact the Hebrew word yom that is used in Genesis is translated over 60 times in the Bible as "time" and not "day". It's also translated as "season" in many instances. Just wanted to address that specific comment. Thanks."

(Posted by: jstojc, Date: December 04, 2014 10:21PMRe: Is Science opposed to ALL religions?)
_____


Have a nice life posting here. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2014 06:37PM by steve benson.

Steve, I've posted on this site 28 times. Most of them are copy and paste of previous posts. That's a lot less then the 11,259 times you've posted. The rare times that I get on I see some stuff that I feel needs to be defended or clarified. Not really a big part of my life.

So much for you to do,. so little time.

In the meantime, I've been here for over a decade.

I think you've still got time. 7 . . .



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2014 06:50PM by steve benson.