-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus have siblings?
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
Could you imagine going through bringing up a child without medical care of any decent kind?
All the fevers my daughter had that was lowered with Ibuprophen and tylenol, stitches for a crushed finger, and other misc antibiotics.
Poor kids younger then 5 had it pretty rough.
If you had a large family odds are at least, one child would die on you, and you were lucky if your wife made it through the standing delivery.
Romans had a chair women sat in to give birth. Peasant Jews would have family members usually women that would hold the mother up and they would just about walk the baby out her with a women on each side supporting her.
They also used olive oil on the female parts to keep the skin smooth.
The Gospel of Luke is the only place that Jesus prays, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." None of the other Gospels mention this. Does that mean that Luke's Gospel is untrustworthy in this account?
Luke is the only one to talk about Mary meeting Elizabeth, Zechariah meeting the angel, and the conception of St. John the Baptist. Should we discount all of these stories because they were only found in one Gospel? How about all the other parables and stories unique to one Gospel? Should they all be thrown out for not being supported by all four Gospels?
And Lot is called Abraham's brother in Genesis chapter 14, literally four verses after he is also called Abraham's brother's son.
12 They also took Lot, Abrams brothers son who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. 13 Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, for he dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre[c] the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner; and they were allies with Abram. 14 Now when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. 16 So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people.
Keeping this in mind, if "brother" has been used in the Bible for an uncle and a nephew, is it really that far-fetched to use the word "brother" for half-siblings?
First off, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not a Roman invention of the 4th century by the Roman Church. In fact, many Eastern Fathers were expressing it as a sure doctrine of the Faith decades even before some of the Latin Fathers did so, thus demonstrating that by the 300's, Mary's perpetual virginity was already a widely-held doctrine across the whole of the Church, held firmly enough by all Christians that those who denied Mary's ever-virginity were actually being anathematized. In fact, Origen (writing in 248) was defending Mary's perpetual virginity even that early!
Second off, anyone who knows anything about Church history from actually taking a glance the primary texts instead of watching the hyped-up, sensationalized bull that the mainstream media shovels onto people in shoddy conspiracy theory specials like what you can find on the History Channel, knows that the Roman Church is NOT the root of the Eastern churches.
Any notion that the Roman Church had any sort of supremacy or control over all of Christendom ever is completely unfounded. The early Church was a collection of regional churches without a universal leadership. The early Church was not united hierarchically or administratively like the modern-day Roman Catholic Church, but instead was united by the Faith. The Bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over the Church in and around Rome and central Italy, and that was it. The Roman Church wasn't the boss of any other Church, nor is it the "root" of both the Eastern and Western Churches. You can fairly say that it is the root of the Western Church, but the Churches in the East had their own Apostolic origins. The modern-day Church of Antioch has the biblical Church of Antioch from the Book of Acts as its root, for one example. The early Church was decentralized structurally and administratively. What we call 'the Early Church" was actually an amalgam of various regional churches, each with their own administrative heads, who were all united in the one same Faith. There was no one person who ruled over all of it, contrary to what many conspiracy theorists or historical revisionists would have us believe.
I agree with Outhouse as well. "Usual" means just that: Usual. There are always outlying data points that deviate from the average or "usual" number.
outhouse
Atheistically
I Agree.
I still think this has everything to with the NT authors interpreting the OT wrong when it was originally young maiden.
gnostic
The Lost One
shiranui said:
Well, it certainly not found in the NT literature.
I used to believe what the church's stance with regards to Mary's perpetual virginity.
In the last 10 or so years, I had reevaluated everything I had read of the bible (both OT and NT). I know now that what are taught in church, don't necessarily have the same contexts that are found written in the individual books of the Bible.
And the Bible wasn't assembled until about 200 years after all the books were written, by the same Church that wrote the books, by the same Church which held and still holds that Mary is an Ever-Virgin. The Bible is only one part of the source and conduit of the Christian Faith, not its entirety. You have to take into account the rest of Tradition, of which the Bible is a part, and from which the Bible came.
gnostic
The Lost One
shiranui117 said:
Which church? Or better yet, which sect?
By the 3rd century CE, there were scores of different sects, each with different teachings because each had different interpretation to the scriptural texts and of course, different tradition.
Although, one Roman church won out (because of Constantine in the early 4th century), but even that church eventually split between east (Greek) and west (Latin).
shiranui117 said:
Sure I know that. There are many sources, and I have read a number of them. And they include church traditions, the NT Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, and even some gnostic literature.
I have even read some part of Jewish Talmudic and midrashic literature, especially the Aggadah, which caught my interest about 7 or 8 years ago.
Although most sources should be taken into consideration, I have found over the years that the (church) traditions to be unreliable form of storytelling. I trust the church traditions and writings of early church fathers even less than the writings of the NT gospels and letters...with the exception of the Book of Revelation.
Traditions are often distorted and highly embellished, some even more exaggerated than certain parts of the gospels.
Don't get me wrong, shiranui117. I think traditions are important and should be preserved, even when I may disagree with it or don't believe in them, because I still find them to be interesting them.
But getting back to Mary's status of being perpetual virgin, I believed that it is a myth.
Luke 2:7 is not the only verse that indicate Mary had more than one child (Jesus) - "her firstborn son"; the only other birth story of Jesus (Matthew 1 & 2), explicitly stated that Joseph didn't sleep with Mary UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born:
Matthew 1:24-25 said:
How do you define "until"?
Matthew 1:25 do a lot more than "suggest" that had Joseph had marital relations with Mary, after Jesus' birth. So Mary is not an ever-virgin, which you've claimed. And Luke 2:7, also suggested that Jesus was not Mary's only child.
That's quite clear that she didn't remain a virgin.
For devout Jewish family back then, it was important for them to have family. I don't see Joseph remaining married to Mary if he couldn't have children of his own with her. It would be ground for divorce, if Mary was fertile, but do not consummate the marriage.
Also, when Mary appeared (though she may be just referred to as Jesus' mother, instead of by her name), like in Mark 3:31-32 (Matthew 12:46-47, Luke 8:19), Jesus' brothers (and sisters, in Mark 3:32) were with her (though like their mother, they were unnamed here too). If they weren't their mother, then why did they follow Mary around.
Mark 3:31-32 said:
The brothers were given names in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56, though none of the sisters were ever named. James was referred to in 2 other works, Acts and Galatians 1:19, as being Jesus' brother. James is mentioned again, in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1). None of these say that they weren't children of BOTH Joseph and Mary.
It would seem that the Orthodox are exactly like the Catholics, capable of twisting words around to fit their world view.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Perhaps, this thread should be about whether Mary had more children or not than whether Jesus had siblings - full or half- - because the topic has been more about Mary's status of virginity - perpetual or otherwise.
Even if we were to believe that Jesus' conception was that he was born of virgin, I see no references in the gospels or even to epistles - explicit or implied - of Mary being a perpetual virgin.
I know that some churches believe in not only of Mary's immaculate conception, but of her perpetual virginity (they are not the same things). I may not believe in either concepts, but I understand them, and I even understand why that some, if not all churches teach both of them.
And I know that some Christians used John 19:25-27 to indicate Mary had no other children, other than Jesus, but I find that this interpolation of the crucifixion scene, which none of the other 3 gospels mention. John's (or whoever the author is), may tell one of his disciple to take his mother into his (John's) care, but that in no way does this mean she was a perpetual virgin or she had no other children.
And I know that some have argued that the children belonged to Joseph from his previous marriage. This would mean that James, Joses, Judas and Simon (and unnamed sisters) were Jesus' step-brothers and Mary's step-sons. However, I have no (textual) evidences to support this claim in the NT gospels or epistles.
And in the gospels, particularly from the two birth stories in the 2 gospels (Matthew 1 & 2 and Luke 1 & 2), I do see this immaculate conception, but not that of Mary's perpetual virginity.
From the 2 references (which I had already quoted previously), they indicated Mary may have been virgin during conception and birth of Jesus, but not afterward.
Luke (gospel) say that "her firstborn son" (Luke 2:7) clearly indicated that she had more than one son:
Matthew clearly stated that Joseph took Mary as his wife, but didn't sleep with her, or consummate their marriage, UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25), hence, she wasn't a virgin, when Joseph obviously slept with her. Here, are 3 different English translations:
Interestingly enough, Matthew 1:25 in KJV also say "her firstborn son", like that of Luke 2:7. Actually, NRSV left footnote that other ancient authorities also say "her firstborn son" in this passage. (Note that "her firstborn son" was used in each translation of Luke 2:7.)
Of course, these quotes that I had used are all English translations, so some might argue that the translations are not accurate or don't convey the right context of the original. So I wonders, if the original Greek say "her firstborn son" in either Luke 2:7 or Matthew 1:25 (or both).
Does anyone know what is written in Matthew 1:25 (in the original Greek)? Does it simply "son" or "her son"? Or does it say "her FIRSTBORN son"?
If the later, then there would be no doubt in my mind that Mary had other children; children that she gave birth to, and not what some claim that these children were her husband from previous marriage.
Even if we were to believe that Jesus' conception was that he was born of virgin, I see no references in the gospels or even to epistles - explicit or implied - of Mary being a perpetual virgin.
I know that some churches believe in not only of Mary's immaculate conception, but of her perpetual virginity (they are not the same things). I may not believe in either concepts, but I understand them, and I even understand why that some, if not all churches teach both of them.
And I know that some Christians used John 19:25-27 to indicate Mary had no other children, other than Jesus, but I find that this interpolation of the crucifixion scene, which none of the other 3 gospels mention. John's (or whoever the author is), may tell one of his disciple to take his mother into his (John's) care, but that in no way does this mean she was a perpetual virgin or she had no other children.
And I know that some have argued that the children belonged to Joseph from his previous marriage. This would mean that James, Joses, Judas and Simon (and unnamed sisters) were Jesus' step-brothers and Mary's step-sons. However, I have no (textual) evidences to support this claim in the NT gospels or epistles.
And in the gospels, particularly from the two birth stories in the 2 gospels (Matthew 1 & 2 and Luke 1 & 2), I do see this immaculate conception, but not that of Mary's perpetual virginity.
From the 2 references (which I had already quoted previously), they indicated Mary may have been virgin during conception and birth of Jesus, but not afterward.
Luke (gospel) say that "her firstborn son" (Luke 2:7) clearly indicated that she had more than one son:
Luke 2:7 said:
Matthew clearly stated that Joseph took Mary as his wife, but didn't sleep with her, or consummate their marriage, UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25), hence, she wasn't a virgin, when Joseph obviously slept with her. Here, are 3 different English translations:
Matthew 1:25 said:
Matthew 1:25 said:
Matthew 1:25 said:
Interestingly enough, Matthew 1:25 in KJV also say "her firstborn son", like that of Luke 2:7. Actually, NRSV left footnote that other ancient authorities also say "her firstborn son" in this passage. (Note that "her firstborn son" was used in each translation of Luke 2:7.)
Of course, these quotes that I had used are all English translations, so some might argue that the translations are not accurate or don't convey the right context of the original. So I wonders, if the original Greek say "her firstborn son" in either Luke 2:7 or Matthew 1:25 (or both).
Does anyone know what is written in Matthew 1:25 (in the original Greek)? Does it simply "son" or "her son"? Or does it say "her FIRSTBORN son"?
If the later, then there would be no doubt in my mind that Mary had other children; children that she gave birth to, and not what some claim that these children were her husband from previous marriage.
Sculelos
Active Member
"Doubting Thomas" Diddymus Judas is said to be the half-brother of Jesus. But he was said to look almost identical to Jesus.
From reading Biblical sources it seems most likely that Joseph and Mary were both virgins until they married each other.
So yes Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, to believe anything else is to doubt the entire biblical account of Jesus.
But yes Mary had many other daughters and sons if the Biblical account is to be believed.
From reading Biblical sources it seems most likely that Joseph and Mary were both virgins until they married each other.
So yes Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, to believe anything else is to doubt the entire biblical account of Jesus.
But yes Mary had many other daughters and sons if the Biblical account is to be believed.
If they had other children together besides Jesus, why would Jesus entrust Mary to John's care? The two weren't related at all. It would be absolutely absurd to entrust Mary to someone not even closely related to her if she had children of her own who could take care of her. John 19 makes it pretty clear that Mary had no other children; otherwise, they would have been obliged to take care of their widowed, otherwise destitute mother.
The so-called "proto-Orthodox." (I reject the "proto-" labeling, TBQH)
And a lot of those sects forged their books, and we know that they're not ancient. Not like the Four Gospels and a good deal of the Pauline Epistles. The sects who had to forge their own writings were obviously not genuinely Apostolic.
So when you mean "Roman," you don't just mean the church centered around the city of Rome, but the Church that was spread across the whole of the Roman Empire, right?
Sure I know that. There are many sources, and I have read a number of them. And they include church traditions, the NT Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, and even some gnostic literature.
Hmm, what makes Revelation the one exception? There's an interesting rationale behind that one, I'm sure. Do tell.
Fair enough.
But getting back to Mary's status of being perpetual virgin, I believed that it is a myth.
That depends. In Matthew 28:20, we see the same word used for "until," ἕως, in Matthew 1:25. "'I am with you always, even (ἕως
to the end of the age.' Amen."Now, are we to say that Jesus will no longer be with us after the end of the age? Absolutely not!
Tell me this. Does Exodus 13:2...
“Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”
...mean that there are always going to be other children after the firstborn? Not necessarily. We get a very good definition of "firstborn" in this passage: "Whatever opens the womb." We see this again in verses 12 and 15. All that "firstborn" means, according to the Bible, is "whatever opens the womb." It doesn't necessitate that there's a "second-born" or anything after "first."
Joseph only married Mary so she wouldn't be left single and holding a baby whose origins were a mystery to the people at large, and she would have been left destitute and without support, cast out by society. Besides, Joseph already had many children, and he was quite old when he married Mary.
They were trying to get Him to come home, obviously. Whether Mary was their birth mother or their stepmother didn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
None of them say they were, either.
I'm sorry, but we're the ones who wrote the Bible in the first place. You don't get to tell the authors that they misinterpreted their own book.
Agreed.
You mention John 19 below. That's pretty strong stuff.
But WHY would Jesus put Mary into the care of someone who was basically a stranger, someone who had no connection to Mary whatsoever? If she had other children of her own besides Jesus, then they would have taken care of her. The fact that she didn't have anyone to take care of her besides one of Jesus' disciples, and not one of her own children, implies very, VERY strongly that she didn't have any children besides Jesus.
The Bible isn't the only source of Christian teaching. Not all of the oral tradition made it into the Bible, and there were a great many oral traditions that were lost. Some of these oral traditions were later added into the text after the Gospels were written. The story with Jesus and the prostitute and Him saying "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" is an example of something that was added into the Gospels from this oral tradition.
The immaculate conception refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus'. And it's talking about a completely different thing.
No, just that there was no one before Jesus. Luke's Gospel is stressing the fact that Mary was a virgin before and when she had Jesus, and that there were no children before Him.
See Matthew 28:20 for a counter-example.
It does say "Prototokon." Proto meaning first, tokon meaning born. So yes, it does say first-born.
See Exodus 13.
Epictetus
Member
The question was asked whether the "Jesus" in the original question is the Jesus of the Gospels or the "Jesus" on which the Gospel stories are based or an entirely fictional Jesus (perhaps a personification of the teachings of the "Q" community).
The question was passed over. People are really interested in the Jesus that is represented in the Synoptic Gospels and John, despite the inconsistencies and differing theologies in these texts. Some considerable biblical and historical scholarship has been brought to bear.
To me, the question of Jesus's historicity is an important one though. It certainly appears that the Jesus of the Gospels is an historical and theological literary construct, though possibly based on an historical person who preached a radical message, was seen as a potential danger to the religious and imperial authorities, and was crucified. If, though, the Gospels' representation of Jesus is "parabolic" (J.D. Crossan's view), that is, presented in such a way as to illustrate and emphasize the author's message, not to describe actual events and people, then why bother to seek historical answers to questions about a non-historical figure?
If there was a real, historical Jesus, we're not going to know about him via the Gospels (and Paul had no interest in the pre-Resurrection Christ), so why not just let the real flesh and blood Jesus be - lost in the mists of time - and focus on the core messages he was trying to convey and which are transmitted through the Gospels from different perspectives and with different agendas?
The question was passed over. People are really interested in the Jesus that is represented in the Synoptic Gospels and John, despite the inconsistencies and differing theologies in these texts. Some considerable biblical and historical scholarship has been brought to bear.
To me, the question of Jesus's historicity is an important one though. It certainly appears that the Jesus of the Gospels is an historical and theological literary construct, though possibly based on an historical person who preached a radical message, was seen as a potential danger to the religious and imperial authorities, and was crucified. If, though, the Gospels' representation of Jesus is "parabolic" (J.D. Crossan's view), that is, presented in such a way as to illustrate and emphasize the author's message, not to describe actual events and people, then why bother to seek historical answers to questions about a non-historical figure?
If there was a real, historical Jesus, we're not going to know about him via the Gospels (and Paul had no interest in the pre-Resurrection Christ), so why not just let the real flesh and blood Jesus be - lost in the mists of time - and focus on the core messages he was trying to convey and which are transmitted through the Gospels from different perspectives and with different agendas?
outhouse
Atheistically
Who says he is non historical, that is not Crossans view.
Why bother? trying to recreate a day in the life of a Jew is fun. Stringing years into the equation gets tougher.
Well your wrong
That is the best evidence there is. These writings were based on oral and written traditions.
because they wrote in mythology and theology and "parabolic" and metaphor and allegory and parallels. DOES not mean it is devoid of history.
You contradict yourself.
You claim these are his "core messages" but then say the books are not reliable.
Your asking us to forget history and stop searching for Jesus real meaning, and that we should focus of the Hellenistic unknown authors who wrote about him not knowing a single word he spoke and people that didn't live where he did. nor were they even the same culture as he was. :slap:
Epictetus
Member
Who says he is non historical, that is not Crossans view.
Why bother? trying to recreate a day in the life of a Jew is fun. Stringing years into the equation gets tougher.
Well your wrong
That is the best evidence there is. These writings were based on oral and written traditions.
because they wrote in mythology and theology and "parabolic" and metaphor and allegory and parallels. DOES not mean it is devoid of history.
You contradict yourself.
You claim these are his "core messages" but then say the books are not reliable.
Your asking us to forget history and stop searching for Jesus real meaning, and that we should focus of the Hellenistic unknown authors who wrote about him not knowing a single word he spoke and people that didn't live where he did. nor were they even the same culture as he was. :slap:
OK, Outhouse. Let me try to make myself a bit clearer. I'll do it in points as I'm not good with the quote by quote responses.
1. You're right. Crossan accepts Jesus's historicity. What he says in The Power of Parable (HarperOne2013) is that the Jesus that is represented in the Gospel stories is a parabolic character. The historical Jesus taught in parables, and the Gospel writers used the same pedagogy in presenting Jesus as the main character in a collection of parables about Jesus. The sub-title of Crossan's book is: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. Nevertheless, Crossan accepts that there was a real person behind the myth and legend. He accepts the modified testimony of Josephus and that of Tacitus (both of which are extensively contested by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God nor Man)) He also argues that the fact that Jesus changes so much in the Gospels indicates that he really wasn't what the Gospel writers were looking for, so they reconstructed him as someone more suited to their wishes and needs. I find both of these arguments unconvincing. I'm also mindful that Crossan, Ehrman, Hoffman, Vermes and others can undermine the constructed Gospel Jesus and still be accepted within the scholarly community as long as they acknowledge an historical person behind all of this. If they were to step outside the consensual paradigm and seriously contest Jesus's historicity they'd be ostracized and derided as cranks, as Earl Doherty is. (Actually, Robert Price has almost done just that, but he's quite eccentric and has other strings to his bow, so I doubt he cares what the scholarly community think of him.)
2. The fact that the Gospels are all we have about Jesus (plus some spurious statements in Josephus and some weak indirect references in Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius) doesn't mean that the Gospel accounts add up to any strong evidence for anything, especially given the substantial differences in the accounts between the Synoptics and John and the Synoptics amongst each other, even though Matthew and Luke draw on common sources. (We don't really know what Mark drew on, or even who he was.) The Gospels certainly don't give us a comprehensive, consistent and reliable biography. And the history? Well, some of the people (Pilate, Caiaphas, etc), were around at the time of Jesus's mission and its demise, but the infancy narratives are non-historical stories, and nothing is really known of Jesus's early life. He is said to have been one of Joseph and Mary's children in Nazareth and that he became a disciple of John the Baptizer, but little or nothing else is known of the pre-mission Jesus. And there is some doubt that Nazareth existed in Jesus's time.
3. I am following Crossan, to some extent, in suggesting that there is a core message that comes through in the Gospels, despite the different ways in which he is presented in each of them: miracle worker; fulfiller of the prophecies; Messiah; second Moses; upholder of the Law; pro-Gentile; pro-Samaritan; egalitarian par excellence; pacifist; challenger of conventional ethnocentric ethics; God in human form; humanly vulnerable; omniscient; prescient, and so on. I do so as well out of sympathy with Christians who need to let go of increasingly questionable historical claims and, instead, to see what there is about the Jesus/Christian kerygma that is worth preserving and promoting. Crossan argues that it is a radical, non-violent egalitarianism and a challenge to conventions, authorities and structures that unreasonably and unfairly allocate superiority to some and inferiority to others. I don't disagree with this view, even though that message is hardly unique to Jesus.
4. I don't know what you're trying to say in your last paragraph. I'm sorry; I can't make head or tail of it. Can you rephrase it?
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
gnostic said:
shiranui117 said:That depends. In Matthew 28:20, we see the same word used for "until," ἕως, in Matthew 1:25. "'I am with you always, even (ἕως
Now, are we to say that Jesus will no longer be with us after the end of the age? Absolutely not!
Don't be silly, shiranui117. :jester5:
The two verses (1:25 and 28:20) are completely different in context.
First of, the gospel (Matthew's) narrated event about Jesus' birth, had - obviously - already happened in the past, THAT IS, as in BEFORE the gospel was ever written.
Likewise, when the gospel say that Joseph not sleeping with Mary UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born (1:25), is also writing about something that already happened.
So Mary couldn't be a perpetual virgin, once Joseph had sex with Mary, as 1:25 indicated. And according to Luke (2:7), Jesus wasn't the only child, since it was Mary's "firstborn son".
And all three gospels, speak of Jesus' brothers (and sisters) often with Mary. I find it highly doubtful that Mary's step-children would follow her around.
Second. Although, all of Matthew 28, narrated event that happened before the gospel was ever written, Jesus was speaking of future in verse 20, when speak of the "end of age" or "end of the world", when using with the word - ἕως - "until", "even to" or "even unto", depending on the translation being used.
Clearly, they (apostles) didn't live till the "end of age" or "end of the world", because the future was hypothetical.
So unless you can provide a better verse for comparison, my point is still very valid.
And lastly, no where do any part of the gospels and epistles - other than tradition and interpretations - indicated that these siblings of Jesus were children of Joseph from previous marriage.
outhouse
Atheistically
You have done your homework and know what the heck your talking about.
fair enough, accept my apology. Maybe its just the way you wrote it that caught me.
I debate with him regularly, and respect him. His only problem is that not being a scholar and great at language, I don't think he understands the full context of First century history.
He is also forced to rely all interpolations being turned his way to make his celestial Jesus fly
My hats off to him, unlike most mythers, at least he has made a complete replacement hypothesis. Its just weak.
Love him, but there is only so much of his work I find reliable, or can take.
Well said agreed.
Agree
Same here.
Not worth the argument now.
But ill do my best because you asked.
You claimed we should focus on the core messages of Jesus even noting that they have different perspectives and with different agendas.
And also claim we're not going to know about him via the Gospels.
I just found that a bit contradictory.
I think you understand we may not know with any certainty just how much of the Galilean mans message survived this Hellenistic retelling.
I do follow your path in understanding historicity is thin at best, but there are days I feel I can see him in his everyday life in Galilee. Its not that hard, they were peasants in my view with very little, of course that is following Reeds work in socioeconomics, whom I have a few issues with myself due to his personal opinions. Love his work as well.
Last edited:
Epictetus
Member
I'm pleased to meet someone who has spoken with Doherty in person. To me he's still a shadowy figure.
You may be right. I might just be going along with Crossan as well as trying to preserve something for Christians to build on and work with. A 2000 year tradition, even if much of its fundamental underpinning is now questionable, has probably still got something to offer. My grandchildren attend Catholic schools and they are getting a good all-round education, including a solid exploration of personal and social values, without indoctrination. Still, it seems odd to have Catholic schools, which educate over 20% of kids in Australia, when hardly any of their parents and probably not many of their teachers go to church.
outhouse
Atheistically
As a atheist If I didn't love the theology and lessons it provides I wouldn't be here interested in the history.
I think there is quite the beauty even in Paul's teachings who as a person I dislike and have my biases.
With the mythology and allegory and metaphors and parallels written about a man by a different culture then he taught to, finding out if the man really has siblings is tough. That's is the beauty of Crossan and having Reed in his pocket so to speak. He uses anthropology, I just wish he used more. I have leaned towards Reed more so while retaining the core of Crossan, but disagree with Reed on Hellenism in Sepphoris.
Due to the high mortality rate under 5 years of age as well of that of the child surviving 48 hours. Peasants in Galilee most likely had large families. I will use cultural anthropology over theology and scripture in this case because its obvious the theology is not building his life's history. They are building divinity and a relationship to the supernatural over that of his real family ties. Its why Joseph is not really present. Many try and play this off as Joseph not surviving, but the evidence is clear who they want to portray as his father. And of course this is layered like a onion from mark on.
Outhouse debates with Doherty on this forum, you can too: History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts - FRDB
Last edited: