• 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!

Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Yet somehow fails to mention that Jesus' brother became a religious leader of a Christian community. Heck, he doesn't even so much as mention his name in Luke or Acts.
This is funny, coming from someone who specifically state we shouldn't use Acts or the gospels to read Paul. Unless of course you think it backs you. Then it is ok.

And you are wrong. He just doesn't specifically say "james jesus' brother." After "James, brother of John" dies in Acts 12, Peter makes sure that James is told about what happened (Acts 12:17).
That's all very sweet but Acts is confusing because there's no explanation as to whom this James is that is being referred to after reading that James was killed.

Again, Luke is writing to a christian community. The whole purpose of using kin is to distinguish between various people. If you don't need to, because it is obvious, you don't have to. James the brother of John is dead.

No he doesn't. He doesn't write a word about Jesus' brother being a religious leader. Not one word.



Again, you make this claim simply because he doesn't use the identification formula "james, the brother of the lord." Of course, he does mention "James, the brother of Jude" and Jude was another brother of Jesus. Its entirely plausible that Luke wanted to downplay James' significance. Or not. We don't know. We have enough information to know from Paul, the gospels, and Josephus that James, Jesus' brother, was fairly well known. Luke makes mention of an important James other than the brother of John. He doesn't specifically state this is Jesus' brother, which would be helpful to us. But he wasn't writing to us. He was writing to christians, documenting what he thought important in Jesus' mission and in the early days of the church. If there were only two big players named James, and one of them dies, then he doesn't really need to say "james, the brother of the lord" does he?

Moreover, Luke does explicitly state that James had brothers in Luke 8:20-1.

This is simply another example of you trying to manipulate sources to support an untenable position.

Paul, Josephus, and Mark all record that Jesus had a brother named James.

You claim that the later sources can't be read into Paul. Then you want to use Acts to support your claim that Paul, Josephus, and Mark are all wrong. This is the same Acts you called a piece of "2nd century mythmaking." Hypocrite?

hmmmm...
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
This is funny, coming from someone who specifically state we shouldn't use Acts or the gospels to read Paul. Unless of course you think it backs you. Then it is ok.

And you are wrong. He just doesn't specifically say "james jesus' brother." After "James, brother of John" dies in Acts 12, Peter makes sure that James is told about what happened (Acts 12:17).


Again, Luke is writing to a christian community. The whole purpose of using kin is to distinguish between various people. If you don't need to, because it is obvious, you don't have to. James the brother of John is dead.





Again, you make this claim simply because he doesn't use the identification formula "james, the brother of the lord." Of course, he does mention "James, the brother of Jude" and Jude was another brother of Jesus. Its entirely plausible that Luke wanted to downplay James' significance. Or not. We don't know. We have enough information to know from Paul, the gospels, and Josephus that James, Jesus' brother, was fairly well known. Luke makes mention of an important James other than the brother of John. He doesn't specifically state this is Jesus' brother, which would be helpful to us. But he wasn't writing to us. He was writing to christians, documenting what he thought important in Jesus' mission and in the early days of the church. If there were only two big players named James, and one of them dies, then he doesn't really need to say "james, the brother of the lord" does he?
This is laughable.

Moreover, Luke does explicitly state that James had brothers in Luke 8:20-1.

This is simply another example of you trying to manipulate sources to support an untenable position.
Again, yes Luke says Jesus had brothers and sisters, but Luke does not name any of Jesus' siblings. I have manipulated nothing, you simply lack comprehension skills.

The position I hold is tenable, that the gospels nor Acts suggests that Jesus' brother became a religious leader. All you have to do to prove me wrong is show where they do suggest that James became a religious leader.

Paul, Josephus, and Mark all record that Jesus had a brother named James.

You claim that the later sources can't be read into Paul. Then you want to use Acts to support your claim that Paul, Josephus, and Mark are all wrong. This is the same Acts you called a piece of "2nd century mythmaking." Hypocrite?

hmmmm...
I stated that Jesus' brother becoming a religious leader is not mentioned in the mythologies, so how is that hypocritical? I'd say that's consistent, both in what I state and what the record shows.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
And you are wrong. He just doesn't specifically say "james jesus' brother." After "James, brother of John" dies in Acts 12, Peter makes sure that James is told about what happened (Acts 12:17).

And no, I'm not wrong. James who is told this? We don't know which James is told this because it doesn't say. The last person we could ever suspect it would be is Jesus' brother James because Luke/Acts doesn't ever name him.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
This is laughable.

Right. First you say we can't use the gospels to interpret Paul. Then you use Acts, which you call a "piece of 2nd century myth-making" to interpret Paul.

Second, neither Luke nor Acts says Jesus didn't have a brother named James. Acts does have another James who is a key player, but doesn't explicitly tell us that it is James the brother of the Lord. Of course, he isn't writing to us.

Third, even given that Luke/Acts never explicitly mentions that James the brother of the Lord is a key player, your argument still amounts to something WORSE than an argument from silence.

I have manipulated nothing, you simply lack comprehension skills.
We have at least three independent sources that James was Jesus' brother. Now you want to read into one source because it lacks an explicit identification. Notice, you aren't showing that Acts actually refutes Paul, Josephus, Mark or Matthew in that Jesus DIDN'T have a brother named James. You are simply pointing out that Acts doesn't explicitly identify James as Jesus' brother. Once more, this is worse than an argument from silence. We don't have silence. We have 3 independent sources calling James the brother of Jesus. We have one source (Acts) which doesnt EXPLICITLY title him in this way. And this is the basis for an argument that the other sources are all wrong? Hahaha. You must be joking

Let's see, explicit identification in 3 sources, vs. no explicit identification in one, and no actual data to refute the explicit identification in the other 3.

Hmmm.....

The position I hold is tenable, that the gospels nor Acts suggests that Jesus' brother became a religious leader. All you have to do to prove me wrong is show where they do suggest that James became a religious leader.

I have. I have shown that there is more than one James mentioned. I have told you that as Acts was not written to non-christians, there isn't the same need to seperate the different people named James.

Moreover, even accepting that Acts makes no EXPLICIT identification of James as being the brother of Jesus, neither does he explicitly identify the James after James the brother of John is killed AT ALL. Which means we are weighing an EXPLICIT identification by three sources on the one hand (including at least 1 who personally knew this James) against NO explicit indentification AT ALL in 1 source.

I stated that Jesus' brother becoming a religious leader is not mentioned in the mythologies, so how is that hypocritical?

If Acts is a piece of 2nd century myth-making, why does it matter AT ALL what Acts says? Josephus and Paul, neither of whom were writing stories or myths, and both of whom state that James was Jesus' brother, would be far better than Acts. Yet you hold on to Acts for dear life as the one source which doesn't explicitly identify this James as Jesus' brother, despite your calling it a piece of 2nd century mythmaking.

And no, I'm not wrong. James who is told this? We don't know which James is told this because it doesn't say. The last person we could ever suspect it would be is Jesus' brother James because Luke/Acts doesn't ever name him.

Why would that be the LAST person we could expect? Just because Luke/Acts never EXPLICITLY identifies him so. We know from 3 other sources that Jesus had a brother named James. Both Paul and Josephus make it evident that this James was fairly well known.
 
Last edited:

Kurt31416

Active Member
Comparing Pilate and Josephus' way of saying it is interesting. Obviously it's not a Christian way of saying it, but that doesn't necessarily mean a Christian didn't add it. Probably not in this case.

And the evidence is pretty overwhelming there was a James, brother of Jesus, that was the leader of the original followers of Jesus. And strong evidence information about him was suppressed. Partly because of his competition with Paul, and therefore Mark, who carries Paul's water. And later because of the importance of Peter to the Christian Church.

I suspect a lot more about James and Jesus were deleted by the Christians than added.

Plus, reading Josephus against himself, there was no James, no John the Baptist, no Jesus and no Fourth Way, in The Jewish War. But all were there in Antiquities, which was less intense Roman propaganda, time having passed. The Fourth Way he blames for the Jewish Revolt, wasn't in The Jewish Revolt. Josephus didn't like Jesus. He didn't like the lower class getting uppity, and he didn't like troublemakers. He clearly was hostile to Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if the Jesus Ben Ananus story in the Jewish War was to slander Jesus.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Obviously it's not a Christian way of saying it, but that doesn't necessarily mean a Christian didn't add it.

True enough. However, the question is what reason do we have to suspect interpolation? The reason so many scholars doubt the complete authenticity of the larger reference to Jesus in Josephus is because it sounds too christian. Parts of it sound very much like Josephus, which is why most scholars believe the text was altered, but not that the whole passage was added.

With the short reference, what reason do we have to suspect interpolation? It doesn't sound christian and it fits well into the narrative. There is no reason at all to doubt its authenticity.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
Yeah, that phrase is probably genuine.

I don't know why people have such a problem with Jesus being in Josephus. Other secular stuff about Christians starts showing up at about that time.

Paul says in Acts that after finishing the work locally, he went to the High Priest to ask permisson to persecute them abroad. Seems there's no reason to slander a main character like that unless there's some truth to it. So it was international decades before Josephus and spreading fast.

How much Josephus deliberately left out and lied about is hard to judge, about all we can do is read him against himself. Hard to say how much about Jesus was edited out by the Christians. If like the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas, or whatever, you can be sure it was edited out. They weren't tolerant of even the slightest difference in dogma. But one thing seems likely, Josephus knew a lot more about Jesus than's in the existing documents.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
30 years later? This is ridiculous. Paul was a follower of the Jesus sect within a few years of Jesus' death. I also like how you quote acts when you think it supports you. Luke wrote Acts, and according to Acts the earliest followers of Jesus all preached that he was the messiah and resurrected. As long as you are spouting nonsense, at least be consistent. Don't try to use Acts to support you one minute, and then disregard everything in it the next.

As for Paul not calling himself a christian, he also didn't refer to any other people as christians either. He wrote to several communities, but never uses the word christian. Why? There were no christians at this time. Paul, like other early members of the Jesus sect, believed that they were following the resurrected Jewish messiah.


First of all, prove to me that Paul was a follower of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Don't just think I am going to take your word for it.

Second, you say there were no Christians at the time Paul was writing to the churches. Because he didn't mention the word? Too weak for someone who babbles that he has a title in History.
Go ahead and reread Acts 11:26, and explain to us why the disciples in Antioch, whose synagogue he had robbed the Nazarenes from, were called Christians. That's when Christians started, because Paul was preaching about Jesus as Christ. Nu! I am all ears.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Well, considering josephus was born after the "events" of jesus' life took place, anything he has to say on the subject is hearsay.


What is not hearsay? Everything is hearsay also in the gospels. No one was eyewitness of anything about Jesus.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
First of all, prove to me that Paul was a follower of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Don't just think I am going to take your word for it.


I don't think the sect called themselves "nazarenes." There was no single name for a long period of time to designate Jesus' followers. Paul still thought of himself as a "Jew," a servant of the same god as before, only now knowing the truth. The sect during Paul's time was not "the nazarenes" any more than they were "christians." Acts uses both terms. Paul uses neither. Other literature calls them "saints" "disciples" "poor" "brethren" or whatever.


Second, you say there were no Christians at the time Paul was writing to the churches. Because he didn't mention the word? Too weak for someone who babbles that he has a title in History.
Go ahead and reread Acts 11:26, and explain to us why the disciples in Antioch, whose synagogue he had robbed the Nazarenes from, were called Christians. That's when Christians started, because Paul was preaching about Jesus as Christ. Nu! I am all ears.

I think you should read Acts. It says that is was in Antioch the Lord's followers were first called christians. It doesn't say that they called themselves christians. It appears it took some time for the name to catch on among followers. Even by the time of Acts, long after Paul, the name was far from universal among christians.
 

ayani

member
Ben ~

i remember being small, and reciting the Nicean Creed in church. and i recall this creed describing Jesus as having been crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Jesus' divinity and utter uniqueness is a belief we see across the Christian world, in cultures which remained more influenced by the Judaic roots of the Christian faith, too. He is always understood to be Messiah, to be risen from the dead, to be the Saviour, and to have a unique relationship to God which no man like you or i could boast of.

doubtless, He is a good Man, and was reported even in secular historical records do have done notable things, and impressed many people, regardless of what they thought of Him. yet to say He is only a Man is to go half way. most Jews today do not believe He is Messiah, i understand that.

yet for those who do, whose lives have been changed by believing in Him, He is recognized as more than a good teacher, man, or prophet. He is recognized as God's Son, and as somehow wonderfully able to save, and make people new, inside and out.

we can seek to verify our own opinions and beliefs, or we can seek what is true from God's perspective. to assume that God agrees with us because we agree with ourselves and have made certain scholarly deductions is to exchange worldview for Truth. ultimately, it should not be about proving ourselves right, and others wrong, or about dismantling others' beliefs and faith with one's own.

it should be about loving God, and seeking what is right from His perspective, and then doing His will.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
What is not hearsay? Everything is hearsay also in the gospels. No one was eyewitness of anything about Jesus.

False, the Gospel of Thomas dates to when plenty of people were alive who still knew Jesus. I may well have been written by his brother and disciple Judas Thomas before the death of Jesus as it says.
 

ayani

member
in addition, there is evidence that Matthew and John were written within the first generation of Jesus' own lifetime. i don't doubt that the other two were as well, yet it's always nice to have physical and historical proof or evidence of when the Gospel narratives were written.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
False, the Gospel of Thomas dates to when plenty of people were alive who still knew Jesus. I may well have been written by his brother and disciple Judas Thomas before the death of Jesus as it says.

Nobody believes it was written by his brother. Moreover, the consensus of scholarship is that Thomas post-dates the four canonical gospels.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Ben ~

i remember being small, and reciting the Nicean Creed in church. and i recall this creed describing Jesus as having been crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Jesus' divinity and utter uniqueness is a belief we see across the Christian world, in cultures which remained more influenced by the Judaic roots of the Christian faith, too. He is always understood to be Messiah, to be risen from the dead, to be the Saviour, and to have a unique relationship to God which no man like you or i could boast of.

doubtless, He is a good Man, and was reported even in secular historical records do have done notable things, and impressed many people, regardless of what they thought of Him. yet to say He is only a Man is to go half way. most Jews today do not believe He is Messiah, i understand that.

yet for those who do, whose lives have been changed by believing in Him, He is recognized as more than a good teacher, man, or prophet. He is recognized as God's Son, and as somehow wonderfully able to save, and make people new, inside and out.

we can seek to verify our own opinions and beliefs, or we can seek what is true from God's perspective. to assume that God agrees with us because we agree with ourselves and have made certain scholarly deductions is to exchange worldview for Truth. ultimately, it should not be about proving ourselves right, and others wrong, or about dismantling others' beliefs and faith with one's own.

it should be about loving God, and seeking what is right from His perspective, and then doing His will.

True enough. This story as written in the Prophets reveals a God who sent his Son down to earth in order to redeem us. Mark 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in the Prophets.

Some claim this Son of God is an historical figure, and that all of what was written in the Prophets was of actual events. They are known as believers.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Some claim this Son of God is an historical figure, and that all of what was written in the Prophets was of actual events. They are known as believers.
No, believers do not claim he was simply a historical figure. They claim he was the son of god or whatever. Two very different things. Plenty of non-believers understand that the overwhelming evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. This doesn't amount to believing the bible is the word of god or that Jesus was his son.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
Nobody believes it was written by his brother. .

False. It's a minority position, but some, such as Mahlon Smith consider it possible.

Moreover, the consensus of scholarship is that Thomas post-dates the four canonical gospels.

False again. The academic credentials of those that say Thomas was first vastly exceeds those that say it was later. At that top level, it's well over 90%.

I claim the Jesus Seminar, just for starters. Name one single solitary biblical scholar with that kind of academic credentials that says otherwise.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
False. It's a minority position, but some, such as Mahlon Smith consider it possible.

Citations?



False again. The academic credentials of those that say Thomas was first vastly exceeds those that say it was later. At that top level, it's well over 90%.

What are you talking about? This simply isn't true.

I claim the Jesus Seminar, just for starters.

Not all of them agree that Thomas has priority over the synoptics. Furthermore, despite the publicity seeking antics of the seminar, they don't represent NT scholarship.

Name one single solitary biblical scholar with that kind of academic credentials that says otherwise.
James D.G. Dunn, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Tuckett, N. T. Wright, J. P. Meier, L. Michael White, Jean Marie Sevrin, H. E. W. Turner, Robert M. Grant, Bertil Gartner, Kurt Rudolph, Boudewijn Dehandschutter, Wolfgang Schrage, and Gerd Theissan among others. Some of them argue for the independence of Thomas (like Ehrman) but nonetheless accept a later date, others (e.g. Tuckett) argue dependence on the synoptics. However, to claim that Koester and his students (e.g. Crossan) represent the consensus of scholarship is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
This "historical" Son of God's arrival was foretold: Mark1:

2“ Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,

Who will prepare Your way before You.”
3 “ The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

‘ Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make His paths straight.’”

Great is the glory of this holiest of redeemers, that his days on earth will find a place in the mind of the claimed historian, far into the future, well beyond the days when the gods walked among us.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
Citations?.

"Surely, you jest! But if we remove the redactional layers of Q, we might be left with a text that approximates proto-Thomas. And if this can be traced to Jesus' "twin" brother Judas, that's about as close to ipsissima verba Jesu as you can get ;-)
Shalom!

Mahlon"

What are you talking about?.

The fancy professors at the fancy universities with the fancy academic honors. The top level. And that's despite the persecution for saying so including some losing their jobs.

Not all of them agree that Thomas has priority over the synoptics..

James D.G. Dunn, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Tuckett, N. T. Wright, J. P. Meier, L. Michael White, and Gerd Theissan among others.

None of them have even remotely the academic credentials of Funk, Crossan, Robinson, Mahlon Smith etc. For instance, Robert Funk...

Robert W. Funk was a distinguished teacher, writer, translator and publisher in the field of religion. A Guggenheim Fellow and Senior Fulbright Scholar, he served as Annual Professor of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and as chair of the Graduate Department of Religion at Vanderbilt University. Robert Funk was a recognized pioneer in modern biblical scholarship, having led the Society of Biblical Literature as its Executive Secretary from 1968–1973. His many books include The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (1993) and The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds (1998) (both with the Jesus Seminar) and Honest to Jesus (1996), and A Credible Jesus (2002).


Books by Robert Funk
Academic Credentials
  • A.B., Butler University
  • M.A., Butler University
  • B.D., Christian Theological Seminary
  • Ph.D., Vanderbilt University
Special Study
  • University of Toronto, Canada, 1973–1974
  • University of Tübingen, Germany, 1965–1966
  • Ecumenical Institute, Bossey, Switzerland, 1947
Academic Appointments
  • Professor of Religious Studies, University of Montana, 1969–1986
  • Professor of New Testament, Vanderbilt University, 1966–1969
  • Associate Professor of New Testament, Drew University, 1959–1966
  • Assistant Professor of Biblical Theology, Emory University, 1958–1959
  • Annual Professor, American School of Oriental Research (Jerusalem), 1957–1958
  • Instructor, Harvard Divinity School, 1956–1957
  • Assistant Professor of Religion, Texas Christian University, 1953–1956
Professional Service
  • Co-chair, The Jesus Seminar, 1985–2005
  • Founder and Director, Westar Institute, 1986–2005
  • Founder and President, Polebridge Press, 1981–2005
  • Founder and Director, Scholars Press, 1974–1980
  • Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of Montana, 1974–1976
  • President, Society of Biblical Literature, 1974–1975
  • Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, University of Montana, 1971–1972
  • Executive Committee, American Council of Learned Societies, 1970–1972
  • Conference of Secretaries, American Council of Learned Societies, 1968–1973
  • Board of Directors, American Academy of Religion, 1968–1973
  • Executive Secretary, Society of Biblical Literature, 1968–1973
  • Chair, Graduate Department of Religion, Vanderbilt University, 1967–1969
Awards and Honors
  • Doctor of Humane Letters, Butler Univeristy, 2005
  • Society of Biblical Literature, Fellowship, 1980–1981
  • American Council of Learned Societies, Fellowship, 1973–74
  • Fulbright Senior Scholar, University of Tübingen, Germany, 1966–1967
  • Guggenheim Fellow, 1966–1967
Robert W. Funk academic credentials
 
Top