Why People Doubt Jesus Existed

[dogsgod]

How many times must we go through this before you get it? THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE NAMED JAMES! One was an important disciple. He dies in Acts, and yet we find another James still there. James, the pillar, like Peter, is NOT Jesus' brother.

We are dealing with the James that Paul visited the first time he went to Jerusalem, the one he referred to as the brother of the Lord, long before he was killed according to Acts. How many times must we go through this before you get it? As far as Paul is concerned, he deals with the same James on both occasions. You can fantasize about what is written in Acts in order to confuse the issue, but according to what Paul writes, he only visited Jerusalem twice, so it shouldn't be that difficult for you to follow. BTW, typing in all caps on a forum discussion is considered shouting. Oh, and as far as Acts is concerned, non of Jesus' brothers or sisters are ever named, so, when you come across the name James, feel free to fantasize about the actual brother of Jesus becoming an apostle, because that's what you do best.

 

[Quagmire]

We are dealing with the James that Paul visited the first time he went to Jerusalem, the one he referred to as the brother of the Lord, long before he was killed according to Acts. How many times must we go through this before you get it? As far as Paul is concerned, he deals with the same James on both occasions. You can fantasize about what is written in Acts in order to confuse the issue, but according to what Paul writes, he only visited Jerusalem twice, so it shouldn't be that difficult for you to follow. BTW, typing in all caps on a forum discussion is considered shouting.

There are 3 James in Acts:

Acts 3:13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.

The first James mentioned here is James the son of Zebedee, the second one is already identified.

The James killed in Acts is identified as the former:

Acts: 12 1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.

Later in Acts 21:

17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

This James is obviously the head of the Jerusalem church, ie., the brother of Jesus. Still alive and kicking towards the end of Acts, long after the other James (the son of Zebedee) had been executed.

 

[Oberon]

As far as Paul is concerned, he deals with the same James on both occasions.

Wrong. We know this, because Paul has to specify WHICH James he is talking about. James, the disciple and pillar, or James the brother. There is one James which Paul mentions several times, only as James. This is the pillar, almost an equal of Peter. Acts reports the same James (as well as another).

However, in Gal., Paul is dealing with another James. He needs to make this clear, and uses one of the most common methods: kin identification.

BTW, typing in all caps on a forum discussion is considered shouting.

Which was exactly what I was trying to get across.

so feel free to fantasize about the actual brother of Jesus becoming an apostle, because that's what you do best.

I don't have to. Because the gospels clearly record tensions between Jesus and his family. It is quite evidence from Luke as well as the other gospels that Jesus didn't get along too well with his family. And Mark/Matthew specifically mention a James apart from the disciple who is Jesus' brother.

 

[Oberon]

17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

This James is obviously the head of the Jerusalem church, ie., the brother of Jesus. Still alive and kicking towards the end of Acts, long after the other James (the son of Zebedee) had been executed.

There is no indication that this James, still alive, is the head of the Jerusalem church. Luke, who wrote acts, clearly lists a different James among his disciples. Obviously, if the James of Acts 15 is James Jesus' brother, he isn't a nobody. But that doesn't make him the pillar of the the church Paul refers to. Clearly, Paul conceives as one James as not needing to be identified, due to his importance during Paul's day and to the churches Paul is writing to. However, he does take pains to use a specific syntactical formula to identify Jesus' brother.

 

[Quagmire]

There is no indication that this James, still alive, is the head of the Jerusalem church. Luke, who wrote acts, clearly lists a different James among his disciples.

I think it's implied:

18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.

Luke specifically mention James and then "all the elders". This could reasonably be taken as an acknowledged of rank, ie., that the James he's talking about is the head of the elders.

 

[Oberon]

I think it's implied:

18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.

Luke specifically mention James and then "all the elders". This could reasonably be taken as an acknowledged of rank, ie., that the James he's talking about is the head of the elders.

Actually, it implies the opposite: τη δε επιούσῃ εισηει ο Παυλος συν ημιν προς ᾿Ιάκωβον, πάντες τε παρεγένοντο οι πρεσβύτεροι/ and the following (day) Paul went with us to James, and all the elders were present.

Had Luke meant to imply that James was the head or among these elders, he would very likely have changed the wording, e.g. rather than pros Iakobon, pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi we would have pros Iakobon kai hoi heteroi presbuteroi/ James and the other elders. Instead, Luke organizes the lines as follows, Paul went with them to james [one part], and all the elders were present [another part]. Paul, "us," and James are all seperated from the elders.

Now, it is possible that James was by then considered an elder, but it certainly isn't clear (or implied) by the passage.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only one, that is, except for ...

Martin G. Abegg Jr.
Phillip S. Alexander
George J. Brooke
Sidnie White Crawford
Peter W. Flint
Edward D. Herbert
Jesper Høgenhaven
Armin Lange
Timothy H. Lim
Sarianna Metso
Orlaith O'Sullivan
Donald W. Parry
Harold P. Scalin
Shemaryahu Talmon
Eibert Tigchelaar
Emanuel Tov
Eugene Urlich
James C. VanderKam
Arie van der Kooij​

... among others.

(such as any scholar who actually can review the scrolls in person):faint:

 

[dogsgod]

Wrong. We know this, because Paul has to specify WHICH James he is talking about. James, the disciple and pillar, or James the brother. There is one James which Paul mentions several times, only as James. This is the pillar, almost an equal of Peter. Acts reports the same James (as well as another).

However, in Gal., Paul is dealing with another James. He needs to make this clear, and uses one of the most common methods: kin identification.




Which was exactly what I was trying to get across.


I don't have to. Because the gospels clearly record tensions between Jesus and his family. It is quite evidence from Luke as well as the other gospels that Jesus didn't get along too well with his family. And Mark/Matthew specifically mention a James apart from the disciple who is Jesus' brother.

Several? Paul refers to James 4 times. Three of those times are in Galatians.

This should be very easy to follow:

Let's start with 1 Corinthians 15:7

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
So, this would be James, son of Zebedee.



Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
However, when Paul meets with the Jerusalem group for the first time he saw none of the other apostles, but James, the actual literal brother of Jesus no less, not James, the son of Zebedee. Interesting.


Galatians 2;9
James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Galatians 2:12
Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.


OK, so this would be James, the son of Zebedee, of the pillars that you claim, "We know this, because Paul has to specify WHICH James he is talking about. James, the disciple and pillar, or James the brother."


But wait a minute, are you sure? Let's back up a bit.
Galatians2:1
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas.


This is Paul's second trip to Jerusalem, Acts 21:18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present., but according to Acts 12:2, James the son of Zebedee is dead.

Oberon, you just stated that "We know this, because Paul has to specify WHICH James he is talking about. James, the disciple and pillar, or James the brother."

You got Paul meeting with James, the son of Zebedee, after Acts has him dead.You must be one confused puppy.

 

[Quagmire]

Actually, it implies the opposite: τη δε επιούσῃ εισηει ο Παυλος συν ημιν προς ᾿Ιάκωβον, πάντες τε παρεγένοντο οι πρεσβύτεροι/ and the following (day) Paul went with us to James, and all the elders were present.

Had Luke meant to imply that James was the head or among these elders, he would very likely have changed the wording, e.g. rather than pros Iakobon, pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi we would have pros Iakobon kai hoi heteroi presbuteroi/ James and the other elders. Instead, Luke organizes the lines as follows, Paul went with them to james [one part], and all the elders were present [another part]. Paul, "us," and James are all seperated from the elders.

Now, it is possible that James was by then considered an elder, but it certainly isn't clear (or implied) by the passage.

Which James would this be then? And if he isn't the head of the Jerusalem Christians, where does his status (to the point of not having to be identified) come from?

James son of Alphaeus? Or a completely different James not specifically identified anywhere in Acts? Even if Paul might be referring to a James in his epistles that is so well known no identification is necessary, doesn't it seem unlikely that the author of Acts, writing for a much wider audience as well as for prosperity, would follow suit?

And since there's no previous mention of Paul meeting any James aligned with the Jerusalem church other than the brother of Jesus, why would he be going specifically to see him (and note the passage says "see", not "meet").

2 Gallations indicates that the head of the Jerusalem church is a James: the emissaries are identified as coming "from James", which appears to be synonymous with coming from, ie., representing, the Jerusalem Church.

 

[dogsgod]

Which James would this be then? And if he isn't the head of the Jerusalem Christians, where does his status (to the point of not having to be identified) come from?

James son of Alphaeus? Or a completely different James not specifically identified anywhere in Acts? Even if Paul might be referring to a James in his epistles that is so well known no identification is necessary, doesn't it seem unlikely that the author of Acts, writing for a much wider audience as well as for prosperity, would follow suit?

And since there's no previous mention of Paul meeting any James aligned with the Jerusalem church other than the brother of Jesus, why would he be going specifically to see him (and note the passage says "see", not "meet").

2 Gallations indicates that the head of the Jerusalem church is a James: the emissaries are identified as coming "from James", which appears to be synonymous with coming from, ie., representing, the Jerusalem Church.

Oberon is trying to shoehorn an actual brother of Jesus into the epistles in order to support an historical Jesus that was supposedly crucified at the time of Pilate. On top of that there are problems with Acts 12:2. It might be a misplaced line or an intentional forgery. Remove it and the questions concerning who this James is after he is supposedly killed vanish into thin air.

 

[Oberon]

Several? Paul refers to James 4 times. Three of those times are in Galatians.

I consider three times several. A couple is two, several is more, but whatever. The point is, only once in the four times that Paul refers to James does he feel the need to explicitly identify him.

This should be very easy to follow:

One would think.

Let's start with 1 Corinthians 15:7

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
So, this would be James, son of Zebedee.

Actually, it doesn't have to be James, son of Zebedee, (or even James, the brother of the lord, as there was also James the son of Alphaeus, mentioned in Acts and the gospels) nor did I say that. I was simply countering your claim that James, Jesus' brother was so important. You stated:

Rubbish, stop fantasizing, he was one of the first that the risen Christ appeared to. In fact, according to Paul, he appeared to James before all of the apostles. 1 Cor7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

Only this is patently false: :

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

James was not "one of the first that the risen Christ appeared to" but the second to last. So, if it was his brother, it shows the opposite of your claim. I am inclined to think it wasn't his Jesus' brother, because of the lack of identification, but it is possible that as Paul has already specified that Jesus appeared to the twelve, the only other James remaining is Jesus' brother.

Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
However, when Paul meets with the Jerusalem group for the first time he saw none of the other apostles, but James, the actual literal brother of Jesus no less, not James, the son of Zebedee. Interesting.

He didn't "meet with the Jerusalem group." He specifically states he went to see peter, and as a side note he mentions that he didn't see anyone else, except Jesus' brother. How is that interesting?

Galatians 2;9
James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Galatians 2:12
Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.


OK, so this would be James, the son of Zebedee, of the pillars that you claim, "We know this, because Paul has to specify WHICH James he is talking about. James, the disciple and pillar, or James the brother."

Yes, this one is definitely not Jesus' brother.

But wait a minute, are you sure? Let's back up a bit.
Galatians2:1
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas.


This is Paul's second trip to Jerusalem, Acts 21:18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present., but according to Acts 12:2, James the son of Zebedee is dead.

You argument is not logically sound. Paul doesn't say "fourteen years later I went back to Jerusalem for the second time." He could have been many times since the first. The same is true for Acts, which doesn't record how many times Paul went to Jerusalem.

You must be one confused puppy.

Right.

Paul only once implies a first trip to Jerusalem. He mentions going again, and in Romans mentions intending to go to Jerusalem, but never once mentions how many times in total he went. Yet you infer, without evidence, from the mention of two visits in galations, that he only went twice, and that therefore the a specific trip to Jerusalem in Acts 15 has to be this second one mentioned in Galations.

Only there is no evidence for this. First of all, Acts has Paul in Jerusalem at another point (9.6) which clearly doesn't correspond with Gal. 1.18. Secondly, no source specifies how many trips Paul took to Jerusalem, so unless you have access to a source no one else has, you can't possibly conclude that the trip to Jerusalem in Acts 15 corresponds to the second one in Galatians.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon is trying to shoehorn an actual brother of Jesus into the epistles in order to support an historical Jesus that was supposedly crucified at the time of Pilate.

I already pointed out above how your chronological analysis concerning the correlation between visits to Jerusalem in Acts and Galatians is flawed. It depends on you knowing exactly how many times Paul went to Jerusalem and when. You just assume that as he only mentions two time, the second must correspond to Acts 15.

On top of that there are problems with Acts 12:2.

How? According to which textual critic? You can't read the greek, so you can't possibly analyze the text from that angle. And there aren't any manuscript variations to point to. What source can you cite in support of this claim?

And, to top it all off, Acts also mentions James the son of Alphaeus, so stating that "Remove it and the questions concerning who this James is after he is supposedly killed vanish into thin air" isn't accurate.

 

[Oberon]

Which James would this be then?

Put simply, other than that it isn't James, John's brother, the Jerusalem pillar, we don't know. It could be James, the son of Alphaeus, or Jesus' brother. One problem we have is that Luke/Acts almost goes out of his way to NOT mention Jesus' brother. Assuming the Q/Mark hypothesis as the main sources for Luke/Matthew are correct, Luke was well aware of Jesus' brother James. Yet, although he mentions that Jesus had brothers, he never names them.

And if he isn't the head of the Jerusalem Christians, where does his status (to the point of not having to be identified) come from?...Even if Paul might be referring to a James in his epistles that is so well known no identification is necessary, doesn't it seem unlikely that the author of Acts, writing for a much wider audience as well as for prosperity, would follow suit?

You have to understand that Acts wasn't written for our benefit, but for people who may have had a much better understanding and knowledge of the people invovled than we. His work is, after all, dedicated to a single person. It could be that Luke's audience would know who this James of Acts 15 is without identification.

And since there's no previous mention of Paul meeting any James aligned with the Jerusalem church other than the brother of Jesus, why would he be going specifically to see him (and note the passage says "see", not "meet").

Paul says nothing of the sort. Paul DOES mention another James in connection with the Jerusalem church, in Gal. 2. This is the pillar alongside James' brother John and Peter.

Also, the passage says that he went to see Peter, not James. James is an aside.

2 Gallations indicates that the head of the Jerusalem church is a James

Again, different James. Three disciples from the original twelve (many seem to have left the group) became prominent: the brothers James and John, and Peter.

 

[dogsgod]

Put simply, other than that it isn't James, John's brother, the Jerusalem pillar, we don't know. It could be James, the son of Alphaeus, or Jesus' brother. One problem we have is that Luke/Acts almost goes out of his way to NOT mention Jesus' brother. Assuming the Q/Mark hypothesis as the main sources for Luke/Matthew are correct, Luke was well aware of Jesus' brother James. Yet, although he mentions that Jesus had brothers, he never names them.



You have to understand that Acts wasn't written for our benefit, but for people who may have had a much better understanding and knowledge of the people invovled than we. His work is, after all, dedicated to a single person. It could be that Luke's audience would know who this James of Acts 15 is without identification.

Now you are using the gospels and Acts to support the gospels and Acts as reliable historical accounts. But you're the historical Jesus expert, so carry on.

None of these questions would be asked if you'd stop insisting that Paul met with the actual literal brother of Jesus. Acts doesn't support such a notion so now you are really looking desperate. You see the same name and start piling assumptions on top of assumptions all for the sake of the gospel truth. If the gospels are historically accurate in any way I'm sure someone will figure it out. Meanwhile, good luck with that.

 

[Oberon]

Now you are using the gospels and Acts to support the gospels and Acts as reliable historical accounts. But you're the historical Jesus expert, so carry on.

Wrong. The fact that the gospels and acts fall into the historical genre and are at least in part reliable (to a debatable degree) has been established by a great deal of scholarship. This is done by comparing the gospels and acts with other works of ancient history. The result of such research shows how well they fall into this genre. Additionally, we can compare them to myth and see how clearly they differ from typical mythic texts (before you object, ancient histories contained religious, mythic, unhistorical, and inaccurate parts, so the fact that the gospels and Acts do as well says nothing). Finally, we can see that the gospels concern a number of actual historical people confirmed elsewhere as well as actual historical places, all within few decades of writing. No other genre in the ancient world, other than histories (and certainly not myth) did this.

None of these questions would be asked if you'd stop insisting that Paul met with the actual literal brother of Jesus.

Why should I stop insisting on what is one of THE most established and agreed upon aspects of biblical scholarship? It is, for example, part of the only non-christian reference to Jesus which is pretty much undisputed by everyone (the Josephan reference to James) and is attested to by Paul and Mark/Matthew, fulfilling multiple criteria for historicity which few other aspects of Jesus' life can boast of.

Acts doesn't support such a notion so now you are really looking desperate.

I never said Acts did, nor did I use Acts to support such a notion. All I used Acts for was to refute YOUR claim that it undermined James as Jesus' brother.

 

[dogsgod]

Wrong. The fact that the gospels and acts fall into the historical genre and are at least in part reliable (to a debatable degree) has been established by a great deal of scholarship. This is done by comparing the gospels and acts with other works of ancient history. The result of such research shows how well they fall into this genre. Additionally, we can compare them to myth and see how clearly they differ from typical mythic texts (before you object, ancient histories contained religious, mythic, unhistorical, and inaccurate parts, so the fact that the gospels and Acts do as well says nothing). Finally, we can see that the gospels concern a number of actual historical people confirmed elsewhere as well as actual historical places, all within few decades of writing. No other genre in the ancient world, other than histories (and certainly not myth) did this.



Why should I stop insisting on what is one of THE most established and agreed upon aspects of biblical scholarship? It is, for example, part of the only non-christian reference to Jesus which is pretty much undisputed by everyone (the Josephan reference to James) and is attested to by Paul and Mark/Matthew, fulfilling multiple criteria for historicity which few other aspects of Jesus' life can boast of.



I never said Acts did, nor did I use Acts to support such a notion. All I used Acts for was to refute YOUR claim that it undermined James as Jesus' brother.

I never claimed that Acts undermined James as Jesus' brother, but now that you mention it, it does.

 

[Quagmire]

Oberon is trying to shoehorn an actual brother of Jesus into the epistles in order to support an historical Jesus that was supposedly crucified at the time of Pilate. .

There's no need for anyone to "shoe-horn" an actual brother of Jesus into the epistles. He's already there.

Put simply, other than that it isn't James, John's brother, the Jerusalem pillar, we don't know. It could be James, the son of Alphaeus, or Jesus' brother. One problem we have is that Luke/Acts almost goes out of his way to NOT mention Jesus' brother. Assuming the Q/Mark hypothesis as the main sources for Luke/Matthew are correct, Luke was well aware of Jesus' brother James. Yet, although he mentions that Jesus had brothers, he never names them.

I would say more than "almost". I wonder if the lack of mention of James the brother of Jesus in any of the gospels is the result of Pauline Christianity having won out over the doctrine of the original Christian church. From what I've read the fact that James is only mentioned in passing in the Gospels and portrayed as unsympathetic to Jesus' mission, and then suddenly appears as the head of the movement in Acts (as all the scholars I've read believe) has baffled scholars from the begining.

Maybe the authors or editors of the Gospels were intentionally ignoring the role this James played during the ministry of his brother(?)

You have to understand that Acts wasn't written for our benefit, but for people who may have had a much better understanding and knowledge of the people invovled than we. His work is, after all, dedicated to a single person. It could be that Luke's audience would know who this James of Acts 15 is without identification.

True.

Paul says nothing of the sort. Paul DOES mention another James in connection with the Jerusalem church, in Gal. 2. This is the pillar alongside James' brother John and Peter.


Also, the passage says that he went to see Peter, not James. James is an aside.

I'm not saying Paul said this. I was quoting Acts 21, not any of the epistles:


21:17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

 

[dogsgod]

There's no need for anyone to "shoe-horn" an actual brother of Jesus into the epistles. He's already there.

If that's how we interpret brother of the Lord and ignore everything else Paul says, then agreed.

 

[Oberon]

If that's how we interpret brother of the Lord and ignore everything else Paul says, then agreed.

We don't have to ignore anything else Paul says. He calls Jesus lord, the synactical formula is clearly kin identification, Paul specifically states that Jesus was human in that he was "descendend from david according to the flesh" and that he ate and drank with his disciples prior to a roman crucifixion which puts Jesus in a specific time period (i.e. when roman control of Israel was direct, afer Herod). What do we have to ignore?

In fact, to see it any other way, we would have to ignore josephus and mark/matthew, to other independent sources confirming that James was Jesus' brother.

 

[Quagmire]

If that's how we interpret brother of the Lord and ignore everything else Paul says, then agreed.

Just a tad vague isn't it? Are you trying to make a point? Or just posting graffitti?