Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

If Paul wasn't the founder of Christianity he certainly was one of its chief architects. His writings predate the gospels but those that parrot Catholic church dogma can only read Paul through a gospel lens. It's not an objective way of reading Paul but the well indoctrinated can't help it.

 

[Kurt31416]

Paul never met Jesus unless he was involved in killing him, like he killed his followers, men and women, every house, including the saints.

 

[Oberon]

If Paul wasn't the founder of Christianity he certainly was one of its chief architects. His writings predate the gospels but those that parrot Catholic church dogma can only read Paul through a gospel lens. It's not an objective way of reading Paul but the well indoctrinated can't help it.

Right. Only you have done the same. You used act as (bad) evidence that Paul didn't say he knew Jesus' actual brother.

Moreover, the gospels are independent of Paul. They are seperate sources, attesting to AT LEAST 3 different streams of tradition. Paul is another. Your method is basically saying we can't read Thucydides using anything from Herodotus. Just because the source is later doesn't mean that two independent sources can't be used to corroborate each other where possible. That is the BASIS for historical inquiry.

 

[dogsgod]

You're still sore because you can't use Acts to support your little notion about Paul meeting up with Jesus' brother James. I'm the one that pointed that out to you and you still aren't over it. So sorry.

 

[Oberon]

You're still sore because you can't use Acts to support your little notion about Paul meeting up with Jesus' brother James. I'm the one that pointed that out to you and you still aren't over it. So sorry.

I don't need Acts to support it. I would only have a problem if Acts denied Jesus had a brother named James. Your argument is simply one from silence, while I have three independent sources (Josephus, Paul, and Mark/Matthew) attesting to Jesus' brother James.

That is beside the point. The real point is that you do exactly what you say we can't do, when it suits you.

And moreover, comparing multiple sources with each other (like Paul and the gospels) is how historical inquiry works.

 

[dogsgod]

I hate to be the one to point it out, again, but Acts doesn't name any of Jesus' siblings so you can't use Acts to find out the names of any of Jesus' brothers or sisters.

 

[dogsgod]

What else is sad, or as humorous as the case may be, is that beyond the influence of the Catholic church, there isn't much support for these sources as being in any way credible.

 

[Oberon]

I hate to be the one to point it out, again, but Acts doesn't name any of Jesus' siblings so you can't use Acts to find out the names of any of Jesus' brothers or sisters.

I don't have to. I have three other independent sources for this

I can use Luke to confirm that he had brothers and that there was an important James other than James the brother of John.

All you can do is make a bad argument from silence.

What else is sad, or as humorous as the case may be, is that beyond the influence of the Catholic church, there isn't much support for these sources as being in any way credible

Unless you count centuries of scholarship by jews, atheists, christians, liberal christians, and agnostics. But no, those aren't as good as wikipedia or earl doherty I'm sure.

 

[dogsgod]

The influence of the Catholic church is no doubt far reaching but I doubt that atheists contributed much if at all to Christian scholarship. Most atheists take a critical view of religion which is why they're atheists and agnostic means nothing anymore considering the broad usage of the term.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not making an argument from silence, I'm simply stating that you're still sore about not being able to use Acts to support your notions about James.

 

[dogsgod]

Acts can't be used to confirm anything least of all James since there's absolutely no way of confirming who this James was that's referred to after Acts12:2.

 

[ayani]

man, 32 pages....

has it occured to many people here (and i ask this sincerely, not sarcastically) to earnestly and humbly as God's opinion on the matter, instead of relying on one's own, or that of another?

provided one accepts the existence of a God who can be prayed to and who answers.

 

[Oberon]

The influence of the Catholic church is no doubt far reaching but I doubt that atheists contributed much if at all to Christian scholarship.

Considering you haven't read any, that's quite a claim.

Most atheists take a critical view of religion which is why they're atheists and agnostic means nothing anymore considering the broad usage of the term.

The entire historical Jesus project is a "critical view" of Jesus. From start to finish it is at best neutral to christianity and far more often critical of christian dogma. Historians START with the assumption that miracles, gods, etc, are outside of the realm of historical inquiry. As such, a history of Jesus' mission cannot confirm his miracles or his divinity, but it CAN make, and has made for centuries, critical claims about many beliefs held by mainstream christianity.

I'm not making an argument from silence, I'm simply stating that you're still sore about not being able to use Acts to support your notions about James.

You are not simply stating that. You have used the fact that Acts never mentions James as being specifically the brother of the lord as evidence against the idea that Jesus had a brother named James. That IS an argument from silence.

Acts can't be used to confirm anything least of all James since there's absolutely no way of confirming who this James was that's referred to after Acts12:2.

First, we don't need acts to confirm that Jesus had a brother named James. We have three other independent sources.
Second, Acts can be used to confirm many things. The author of acts was around during the events described in Acts.

 

[dogsgod]

.

Try to keep up,


Acts does not support the notion that James, the brother of Jesus, became a religious leader.

The fact that Luke/Acts audience can't know the names of Jesus' siblings is not the point of my argument, though duly noted.

 

[dogsgod]

We know nothing about the author of Acts and suggesting that we can confirm anything in Acts because the author was around is equivalent to saying we can use Acts to confirm Acts. That's an argument from circular reasoning.

 

[Oberon]

.
Acts does not support the notion that James, the brother of Jesus, became a religious leader.

It doesn't deny it either. It simply has a James we KNOW wasn't the brother of John continue to play a major role in the Jesus sect. It doesn't say that this was Jesus' brother, but it doesn't say that it wasn't either. So acts provides support that a James who wasn't John's brother was a fairly major player, and we have Paul, Josephus, and Mark/Matthew who name a James the brother of Jesus. Paul and Josephus also tell us this sames was more than a minor player in the early sect.

The fact that Luke/Acts audience can't know the names of Jesus' siblings is not the point of my argument, though duly noted.

You don't know what Luke/Acts audience could know from reading either of his works. You have no idea how much of the tradition they already knew. Your claim above is made without any basis.

We know nothing about the author of Acts and suggesting that we can confirm anything in Acts because the author was around is equivalent to saying we can use Acts to confirm Acts. That's an argument from circular reasoning.

You are wrong. Because the author of Acts uses the first person to describe his personal involvement in some places in Acts.

 

[dogsgod]

"It doesn't deny it either."

LOL.

 

[Oberon]

"It doesn't deny it either."

LOL.

Exactly. Hence any argument using Acts to contradict the notion of a James the brother of Jesus would be a very poor argument from silence, and a particularly bad one given that Acts DOES mention an important James AFTER James the brother of John is killed, and we know from three independent sources that Jesus had a brother named James, and two of these demonstrate he was active in the early church.

 

[dogsgod]

You should really consider Catholicism since that's where these silly notions about historicity originate.

 

[Oberon]

You should really consider Catholicism since that's where these silly notions about historicity originate.

Apparently you know nothing about that either. The catholics deny that Jesus had any brothers. They believe Mary was a perpetual virgin. You really need to start doing some actual research.