The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[Peter Kirby]

to Peter,

If you feel that you've met a burden of proof, don't leave us guessing about where you think you did so. Quote it.

And what would you accept as proof?
Furthermore, I think if I can demonstrate the mythicist explanations are flawed (which I did for Doherty & Carrier), what is left?
Did Doherty offer proof about his theories on this matter? None? Just unevidenced possibilities. The same for Carrier.

Proof: Jesus is said to be human several times in Paul's letters, one way or another (anybody human then has a fair chance to have human brothers).
"Brother of Jesus" is also evidenced by Josephus in 'Antiquities', as also "brothers of Jesus" in the first gospel ever written, gMark.
Of course one can claim:
a) the Pauline epistles were not written by Paul in the 50's, but later, by someone with knowledge of the gospels. Or if genuine, every allusions to a human Jesus in them are later interpolations.
b) the mention of James as a brother of Jesus called Christ in Josephus' Antiquities is an interpolation.
c) the mentions of brothers of Jesus in gMark are not to be trusted.

But this someone have to give proof that his/her claims are true for all of these three points. If only one of his/her claims is false, then Jesus had flesh & blood brother(s).

Cordially, Bernard

I'm not trying to play rhetorical games. I also don't have time to disentangle your web of assumptions.

[Secret Alias]

So if you disprove a bad argument for the existence of gravity you've disproved that gravity exists ...

[Secret Alias]

It's like Bernard can't understand why we don't want to crawl up into his mind and spend the rest of our lives basking in the glow of his enlightened thought. The only reason Ben engages him is because it serves as a dramatic foil for his own enterprise.

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,

So if you disprove a bad argument for the existence of gravity you've disproved that gravity exists ...

But I do not think Carrier & Doherty thought they gave bad arguments against the existence of Jesus' brothers. As a matter of fact, I am sure they thought they gave the best arguments.
If you think their arguments are bad, what would be the good ones?

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

... I do not think Carrier & Doherty thought they gave bad arguments against the existence of Jesus' brothers. As a matter of fact, I am sure they thought they gave the best arguments.

Likewise for your "arguments", Bernard -

Proof: Jesus is said to be human several times in Paul's letters, one way or another (anybody human then has a fair chance to have human brothers).

"Brother of Jesus" is also evidenced by Josephus in 'Antiquities', as also "brothers of Jesus" in the first gospel ever written, gMark.

Of course one can claim:

• a) the Pauline epistles were not written by Paul in the 50's, but later, by someone with knowledge of the gospels. Or if genuine, every allusions to a human Jesus in them are later interpolations.
  b) the mention of James as a brother of Jesus called Christ in Josephus' Antiquities is an interpolation.
  c) the mentions of brothers of Jesus in gMark are not to be trusted.

But this someone have to give proof that his/her claims are true for all of these three points. If only one of his/her claims is false, then Jesus had flesh & blood brother(s).

That "Jesus is said to be human several times in Paul's letters" is not proof that the NT Jesus was in fact human.

"Brother of Jesus" is not evidenced by Josephus in 'Antiquities'.

[Bernard Muller]

That "Jesus is said to be human several times in Paul's letters" is not proof that the NT Jesus was in fact human.
"Brother of Jesus" is not evidenced by Josephus in 'Antiquities'

Why?

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

That "Jesus is said to be human several times in Paul's letters" is not proof that the NT Jesus was in fact human.
"Brother of Jesus" is not evidenced by Josephus in 'Antiquities'

Why?

To paraphrase and elaborate on what you said, Bernard -

a) the Pauline epistles were [probably] not written [or not finalized] ... in the 50's, but later, by someone with knowledge of the gospels ...

• ... allusions to a human Jesus in them are later interpolations.

b) the mention of James as a brother of Jesus called Christ in Josephus' Antiquities is an interpolation.

c) the mentions of brothers of Jesus in gMark are not to be trusted as allusions to biological-brothers ie. siblings

.

[Secret Alias]

If you think their arguments are bad, what would be the good ones?

The point was to say that you can't be certain about anything in this field. The best argument against Jesus having brothers or sisters is having the earliest Christian believers hold that he was angel. Whether or not Doherty or Carrier have done that means little other to say you have 'certainty' in the matter. But we are so far removed from the historical situation at the beginning of Christianity it would be foolish to have certainty in any respect. My dislike with your approach is that it assumes that certainty is possible. It isn't that clear cut ... I am certain of that.

[outhouse]

That "Jesus is said to be human several times in Paul's letters" is not proof that the NT Jesus was in fact human.



.

Agreed.

But anyone who states Paul is not talking about a human figure should leave the game. Its not a credible hypothesis as this point. Regardless of Jesus historicity, In context Paul is talking about a human man.

You only have a few oddballs promoting this paul mythical jesus in the sky horse crap , and it was from my point of view imagination based on historical ignorance, then later being re polished / plagiarized.

[outhouse]

. But we are so far removed from the historical situation at the beginning of Christianity it would be foolish to have certainty in any respect.

Yes and no.


What it comes down to is crucifixion and baptism are certainties. Just because a few oddballs refuse the context of evidence, does not mean the oddballs dictate historicity or lack of it.

As it stands the Galilean probably did exist who was baptized by John and was crucified at Passover, beyond that certainties really don't exist. That is the current state of academia.

The burden of evidence now falls on who ever refutes the above status quo, to come up with a better replacement hypothesis, which no one has yet despite hundreds of years of trying.