The existence of Jesus is a hot topic in religious arguments.
There's D 1st group that beleives dat Jesus actually existed in d past as a historical figure but he wasn't a miracle man or magician.
The 2nd group views Jesus exactly d way he's described in D bible: the miracle working son of God who came to offer humans salvation.
Are they one in the same, the same thing.
I believe they are the same thing.
any dissenters?
please explain

The very confusing part is that the Jews do not believe Jesus was a Messiah, prophet or son of God. The Arabs believe in his existence.


But Christianity points to Israel when the acclaimed Jews don’t even believe Jesus and only claim he was a magician.

And the Arabs that believe in him, the Christians detest.


Religion is just one confusing subject you will never unravel.

And now, coming to very height of foolishness of Africans. People who believe a man in the Middle East died for their sins in Africa but detest the Sango and Amadioha in their backyard. The childishness and illiteracy of their ancestors still linger till date.

Imagine someone telling you in 2021 that a man in North Korea died for your sin in Africa. Less than one percent will believe.

But the generational stupidity has become hereditary. No one asking questions.

The only thing that makes sense to me is this:

There was a man named Jesus in Judea during the 1st century who many of the Jews of the time considered to be the Christ. He became famous locally around Jerusalem due to his unorthodox teachings, and when many considered him to possibly be a messiah, it caused a lot of problems with the Jewish authorities.

For the population to call him the messiah, it literally meant that he was being proclaimed to be a king. A king of the Jews. That's what a messiah is. But, since Judea was occupied by the Romans, the Jewish leaders feared that word would get to the Caesar that the Jews has anointed a king. If Caesar believed it, it could mean war because only Caesar himself could appoint a king.

So the Jewish leaders plotted against this Jesus dude, and brought him to the governor, Pontius Pilate. Pilate wanted to let Jesus go, but the Jews blackmailed him into crucifying this Jesus guy by saying that if Pilate didn't crucify him, they would tell Caesar that Pilate allowed a king to go free. So, Pilate had the guy strung up on a couple sticks and crucified him.

From there, you get all these insane stories written about this Jesus guy, including what you see in the Gospels. However, you also get all these nutjob conspiracy theories from unbelievers saying the guy didn't exist at all. They deny that any evidence is evidence at all, and do everything they can just to try to make this Jesus guy go away.

The bottom line is that with all evidence, reason, rationality considered, the argument that some dude named Jesus Christ existed is far better than any argument he didn't. It doesn't prove he existed, but it doesn't require twisting the truth at all to accept that he likely did.

And I have no problem with the Christian god getting dealt by the Romans. I have no idea why any atheist would have a problem with that.

Yes he lived and died


The story of his birth is confusing, how was he conceived

His death and resurrection is also confusing, there are many theories surrounding his personality

He isnt just a regular guy, he was different from people of his time hence he had problem with people and authority, hence he was plotted against, betrayed and murdered.

I don't really believe he was spiritual or has a kingdom in the skies, he was smart and great.

Oladimeji247:
The only thing that makes sense to me is this:

There was a man named Jesus in Judea during the 1st century who many of the Jews of the time considered to be the Christ. He became famous locally around Jerusalem due to his unorthodox teachings, and when many considered him to possibly be a messiah, it caused a lot of problems with the Jewish authorities.

For the population to call him the messiah, it literally meant that he was being proclaimed to be a king. A king of the Jews. That's what a messiah is. But, since Judea was occupied by the Romans, the Jewish leaders feared that word would get to the Caesar that the Jews has anointed a king. If Caesar believed it, it could mean war because only Caesar himself could appoint a king.

So the Jewish leaders plotted against this Jesus dude, and brought him to the governor, Pontius Pilate. Pilate wanted to let Jesus go, but the Jews blackmailed him into crucifying this Jesus guy by saying that if Pilate didn't crucify him, they would tell Caesar that Pilate allowed a king to go free. So, Pilate had the guy strung up on a couple sticks and crucified him.

From there, you get all these insane stories written about this Jesus guy, including what you see in the Gospels. However, you also get all these nutjob conspiracy theories from unbelievers saying the guy didn't exist at all. They deny that any evidence is evidence at all, and do everything they can just to try to make this Jesus guy go away.

The bottom line is that with all evidence, reason, rationality considered, the argument that some dude named Jesus Christ existed is far better than any argument he didn't. It doesn't prove he existed, but it doesn't require twisting the truth at all to accept that he likely did.

And I have no problem with the Christian god getting dealt by the Romans. I have no idea why any atheist would have a problem with that.

I'm a sinner but two scriptures in the bible I'm holding strong are:
1) John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The major criteria to have everlasting life is to believe in Jesus, this days many don't even believe in Jesus.
Jesus said " I am the way, the truth and the light, no one cometh unto the father except through me".
How do you have everlasting life when you don't believe Jesus existed? Or He was a magician and not the Son of God.

2) Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

The above scriptures shows that our wisdom is like foolishness in the sight of God.
Our all knowing God knew a day like this will come when people will not even believe that Jesus is the son of God.
Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

9:16 It is not He that Willeth nor He that runner, but but of God that Showeth mercy.

My brothers and sisters, we are in the last days choose life instead of death.

...... let me go and smoke my weed so I can dance well this morning in church.
Happy Sunday.
Jesus loves you.
For those who don't believe that a God can take the form of a man, made poor so that you will be rich, died for your sins before you were even born all I can say is that. " it is well with your soul"

OgunLaakaye:
The very confusing part is that the Jews do not believe Jesus was a Messiah, prophet or son of God. The Arabs believe in his existence.

If the Jews accepted Him, they would never had murdered Hiim.

If you look at Exodus, you would see that they did not even accept God, so how shall they accept His Son as the Parable of the husbandmen said. Mathew 24:33-40.

A man born while no one slept with his mother.

It means most of the story surrounding him are fake

Jesus is real.

Its even evident today, and he's coming back for people who believe in him, to save them from the coking wrath of The Almighty God

obonujoker:
Jesus is real.

Its even evident today, and he's coming back for people who believe in him, to save them from the coking wrath of The Almighty God

What did he forget that he is coming back to pick?

In this 21st century? Have you seen somebody wey die wey return back?

helinues:


What did he forget that he is coming back to pick?

In this 21st century? Have you seen somebody wey die wey return back?

He's coming back. And those that have died too, that believed in him will be resurrected at the rapture... That's why Jesus is called the First born of the resurrection.

obonujoker:


He's coming back. And those that have died too, that believed in him will be resurrected at the rapture... That's why Jesus is called the First born of the resurrection.

Coming back from where?

Heaven perhaps? And where is that heaven located gan gan?

Oladimeji247:
The only thing that makes sense to me is this:

There was a man named Jesus in Judea during the 1st century who many of the Jews of the time considered to be the Christ. He became famous locally around Jerusalem due to his unorthodox teachings, and when many considered him to possibly be a messiah, it caused a lot of problems with the Jewish authorities.

For the population to call him the messiah, it literally meant that he was being proclaimed to be a king. A king of the Jews. That's what a messiah is. But, since Judea was occupied by the Romans, the Jewish leaders feared that word would get to the Caesar that the Jews has anointed a king. If Caesar believed it, it could mean war because only Caesar himself could appoint a king.

So the Jewish leaders plotted against this Jesus dude, and brought him to the governor, Pontius Pilate. Pilate wanted to let Jesus go, but the Jews blackmailed him into crucifying this Jesus guy by saying that if Pilate didn't crucify him, they would tell Caesar that Pilate allowed a king to go free. So, Pilate had the guy strung up on a couple sticks and crucified him.

From there, you get all these insane stories written about this Jesus guy, including what you see in the Gospels. However, you also get all these nutjob conspiracy theories from unbelievers saying the guy didn't exist at all. They deny that any evidence is evidence at all, and do everything they can just to try to make this Jesus guy go away.

The bottom line is that with all evidence, reason, rationality considered, the argument that some dude named Jesus Christ existed is far better than any argument he didn't. It doesn't prove he existed, but it doesn't require twisting the truth at all to accept that he likely did.

And I have no problem with the Christian god getting dealt by the Romans. I have no idea why any atheist would have a problem with that.

are the letters attributed to Paul, the Pauline letters significant ?

auntyvera01:

are the letters attributed to Paul, the Pauline letters significant ?

Yes, because they also speak of this same Jesus fellow. Most hard-core "Jesus never existed" proponents keep bringing up this nonsense that no one in the 1st century wrote anything that could verify the existence of this Jesus fellow.

But the letters of Paul are stand-alone early to mid 1st century historical documents that very strongly indicate the existence of Jesus Christ and all the naysayers can do is create conspiracy theories about them. I have never seen one good argument against them that isn't filled with nonsensical interpretations, conspiracy theories, or other such absurdities.

And Paul was a contemporary of this Jesus fellow. He wrote numerous letters mentioning him, yet the naysayers always come up with some laughable weak argument about them. Very unconvincing.

OgunLaakaye:
The very confusing part is that the Jews do not believe Jesus was a Messiah, prophet or son of God. The Arabs believe in his existence.


But Christianity points to Israel when the acclaimed Jews don’t even believe Jesus and only claim he was a magician.

And the Arabs that believe in him, the Christians detest.


Religion is just one confusing subject you will never unravel.

And now, coming to very height of foolishness of Africans. People who believe a man in the Middle East died for their sins in Africa but detest the Sango and Amadioha in their backyard. The childishness and illiteracy of their ancestors still linger till date.

Imagine someone telling you in 2021 that a man in North Korea died for your sin in Africa. Less than one percent will believe.

But the generational stupidity has become hereditary. No one asking questions.

Religion is every simple to unravel. It’s ran by a bunch of deluded beings making stuffs up every time and never wanting to be questioned.

Oladimeji247:

Yes, because they also speak of this same Jesus fellow. Most hard-core "Jesus never existed" proponents keep bringing up this nonsense that no one in the 1st century wrote anything that could verify the existence of this Jesus fellow.

But the letters of Paul are stand-alone early to mid 1st century historical documents that very strongly indicate the existence of Jesus Christ and all the naysayers can do is create conspiracy theories about them. I have never seen one good argument against them that isn't filled with nonsensical interpretations, conspiracy theories, or other such absurdities.

And Paul was a contemporary of this Jesus fellow. He wrote numerous letters mentioning him, yet the naysayers always come up with some laughable weak argument about them. Very unconvincing.

But there is certainly no evidence of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.


No evidence of a person who can walk on water,........ a person who turned water into wine and cured lepers with magic.......... or a person who rose from the dead.

No evidence of this Jesus Christ person


... some other dude named "Jesus" obviously doesn't count . That would just be some Jesus who got mythologized into another Jesus that doesn't exist .....
and it's this nonexistent one that all the Christians claim to have existed, but obviously never did.


Some person named "Jesus" is not the same thing as the magical and supernatural Jesus Christ of the Bible.....


The Jesus that all the Christians actually believe in and claim existed (and exists, they still think the mumu is alive in Heaven now and will come back later ) ... such a Jesus most certainly doesn't exist and there most certainly isn't any evidence of such a Jesus.

It is certainly true that Jesus never existed...... if we're referring to the Jesus that the Christians actually believe in.....

Read The Synopsis well.

GodHead85:

But there is certainly no evidence of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.


No evidence of a person who can walk on water,........ a person who turned water into wine and cured lepers with magic.......... or a person who rose from the dead.

No evidence of this Jesus Christ person


... some other dude named "Jesus" obviously doesn't count . That would just be some Jesus who got mythologized into another Jesus that doesn't exist .....
and it's this nonexistent one that all the Christians claim to have existed, but obviously never did.


Some person named "Jesus" is not the same thing as the magical and supernatural Jesus Christ of the Bible.....


The Jesus that all the Christians actually believe in and claim existed (and exists, they still think the mumu is alive in Heaven now and will come back later ) ... such a Jesus most certainly doesn't exist and there most certainly isn't any evidence of such a Jesus.

It is certainly true that Jesus never existed...... if we're referring to the Jesus that the Christians actually believe in.....

No reasonable person, expect perhaps the religious, believes that Jesus, as he was portrayed in the Gospel records as being a magic man, actually existed in that state. What reason does dictate, however, is that with all the evidence considered, the Jesus portrayed in the Gospel records is an exaggerated portrayal of an actual human being.

The safest assumption is what I explained earlier. He was an ordinary man with an unorthodox religious philosophy who fell afoul of the Jewish Sanhedrin and ended up getting crucified by Pontius Pilate. As time passed on, his life morphed into legend and the Christians turned him into some kind of Superman all in the name of attracting followers.

It was quite common to attribute supernatural qualities to the great leaders in the past. Jesus, Muhammad, even the Roman Caesars were flattered by their followers with crazy claims of supernatural abilities. It's just the way it was back then. Even today we still see this rubbish with the various cults that keep crawling out of the sewers.

Jesus is serapis. Read my thread on that..

Jesus never ever existed. Even the birth narrative will tell you that it was all made up.

Christianity started as the worship of serapis in Egypt.

The Messiah God promised the jews is coming to rule and usher in an era of peace, end all wars and oppression..NEVER TO DIE FOR SINS. God hates human sacrifice..

Oladimeji247:

Yes, because they also speak of this same Jesus fellow. Most hard-core "Jesus never existed" proponents keep bringing up this nonsense that no one in the 1st century wrote anything that could verify the existence of this Jesus fellow.

But the letters of Paul are stand-alone early to mid 1st century historical documents that very strongly indicate the existence of Jesus Christ and all the naysayers can do is create conspiracy theories about them. I have never seen one good argument against them that isn't filled with nonsensical interpretations, conspiracy theories, or other such absurdities.

And Paul was a contemporary of this Jesus fellow. He wrote numerous letters mentioning him, yet the naysayers always come up with some laughable weak argument about them. Very unconvincing.

But Paul never met Jesus so whatever he wrote about Jesus was either second hand knowledge or completely made up. Paul doesn't make reference to any of Jesus' teachings as recorded in the gospels.

OgunLaakaye:
The very confusing part is that the Jews do not believe Jesus was a Messiah, prophet or son of God. The Arabs believe in his existence.


But Christianity points to Israel when the acclaimed Jews don’t even believe Jesus and only claim he was a magician.

And the Arabs that believe in him, the Christians detest.


Religion is just one confusing subject you will never unravel.

And now, coming to very height of foolishness of Africans. People who believe a man in the Middle East died for their sins in Africa but detest the Sango and Amadioha in their backyard. The childishness and illiteracy of their ancestors still linger till date.

Imagine someone telling you in 2021 that a man in North Korea died for your sin in Africa. Less than one percent will believe.

But the generational stupidity has become hereditary. No one asking questions.

That stupidity must also extend to Europeans, Americans, Asians etc who believe that Middle-Eastern Man died for their sons also, don't you think? Have you ever wondered why Europeans spread a religion that didn't originate from Europe with such fervency?

Oladimeji247:

No reasonable person, expect perhaps the religious, believes that Jesus, as he was portrayed in the Gospel records as being a magic man, actually existed in that state. What reason does dictate, however, is that with all the evidence considered, the Jesus portrayed in the Gospel records is an exaggerated portrayal of an actual human being.

The safest assumption is what I explained earlier. He was an ordinary man with an unorthodox religious philosophy who fell afoul of the Jewish Sanhedrin and ended up getting crucified by Pontius Pilate. As time passed on, his life morphed into legend and the Christians turned him into some kind of Superman all in the name of attracting followers.

It was quite common to attribute supernatural qualities to the great leaders in the past. Jesus, Muhammad, even the Roman Caesars were flattered by their followers with crazy claims of supernatural abilities. It's just the way it was back then. Even today we still see this rubbish with the various cults that keep crawling out of the sewers.

i agree with this fully..... That is also my belief as well.

I just wouldn't call the guy who actually existed "Jesus Christ" .
I agree that no one here (well, almost no one here) believes that Jesus Christ actually was a magic man ...... but the vast majority of Christians do .......or in other words the people who actually follow and believe in Jesus Christ believe that's what he is.......


......Being a magic man is implictly part of the definition of Jesus Christ whether us atheists like it or not.


And, is there really evidence that the guy was really called "Jesus Christ" ? That I also doubt...... There's plenty of evidence of multiple messiah types that the Jesus Christ character was clearly based on

...... but I know of no historical evidence of an actual Jesus Christ (outside of the Bible which is about as far from a trustworthy historical document as you can get, for obvious reasons) .......

LordReed:


But Paul never met Jesus so whatever he wrote about Jesus was either second hand knowledge or completely made up. Paul doesn't make reference to any of Jesus' teachings as recorded in the gospels.

I agree. No argument there. But he was a contemporary who persecuted the followers of Jesus because they claimed Jesus was the foretold messiah.

GodHead85:

i agree with this fully..... That is also my belief as well.

I just wouldn't call the guy who actually existed "Jesus Christ" .
I agree that no one here (well, almost no one here) believes that Jesus Christ actually was a magic man ...... but the vast majority of Christians do .......or in other words the people who actually follow and believe in Jesus Christ believe that's what he is.......


......Being a magic man is implictly part of the definition of Jesus Christ whether us atheists like it or not.


And, is there really evidence that the guy was really called "Jesus Christ" ? That I also doubt...... There's plenty of evidence of multiple messiah types that the Jesus Christ character was clearly based on

...... but I know of no historical evidence of an actual Jesus Christ (outside of the Bible which is about as far from a trustworthy historical document as you can get, for obvious reasons) .......

Actually, from Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian, we see:

"... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned ..."

Oladimeji247:


Actually, from Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian, we see:

"... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned ..."

Jesus had no brothers named James, unless one is using the Christian appellation as in "brother Christian". We know the gospels stated lineage (parents) of the two apostles named "James". They are not the brothers of Jesus.

James the Just (the "less", the son of Alphaeus.

James the Great was said to be the son of Zebedee.

Using Josephus' reference fails to establish anything.

Tamaratonye1:

Jesus had no brothers named James, unless one is using the Christian appellation as in "brother Christian". We know the gospels stated lineage (parents) of the two apostles named "James". They are not the brothers of Jesus.

James the Just (the "less", the son of Alphaeus.

James the Great was said to be the son of Zebedee.

Using Josephus' reference fails to establish anything.

Except

1. Paul said that Jesus had a brother named James.

2. The Gospel records clearly name James as a brother to Jesus

3. Josephus clearly says James was the brother of Jesus

4 Eusebius says: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles."

5. Jerome says: "Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says 'Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'"

6. The Gospel of the Hebrew says Jesus said to James: "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead."' And so he ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is, until the seventh year of Nero."

So, there's actual evidence to support that James was the brother of Jesus, and there's no good reason to doubt it nor any good argument otherwise.

So there's that.

Oladimeji247:
Paul said that Jesus had a brother named James.

Who cares? Paul said a lot of crazy shit, including that he was transported to heaven.

Oladimeji247:
The Gospel records clearly name James as a brother to Jesus

Citation required. Where? And how do you know how it was meant?

Oladimeji247:
Josephus clearly says James was the brother of Jesus

He also said Vespasian was the messiah. You don't know in what way he means "brother".

Oladimeji247:
Eusebius says: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles."

He also said he would use pious fraud if it was useful.

Oladimeji247:
Jerome says: "Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says 'Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'"

Jerome also said he would lie when it was useful.

Oladimeji247:
The Gospel of the Hebrew says Jesus said to James: "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead."' And so he ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is, until the seventh year of Nero."

Gospels are proclamations of faith, not history.

Oladimeji247:
So, there's actual evidence to support that James was the brother of Jesus, and there's no good reason to doubt it nor any good argument otherwise.

So there's that.

Nope. There is nothing reliable. There is every reason to doubt all of it. Pious fraud was the name of the game.

Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
-Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

Tamaratonye1:

1. Who cares? Paul said a lot of crazy shit, including that he was transported to heaven.


2. Citation required. Where? And how do you know how it was meant?


3. He also said Vespasian was the messiah. You don't know in what way he means "brother".


4. He also said he would use pious fraud if it was useful.


5. Jerome also said he would lie when it was useful.


6. Gospels are proclamations of faith, not history.


Nope. There is nothing reliable. There is every reason to doubt all of it. Pious fraud was the name of the game.

Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
-Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

1. That's not a retort, and you know it.

2. Mat 13:55 -56 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas, and his sisters, are they not all with us? Then from where does this man have all these things?"

Mar 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at Him."

Now, also here is something for you to think about:

Joh_7:3 "Therefore His brothers said to Him, Move away from here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see the works that You do."

Joh_7:5 "For His brothers did not believe in Him"

So I have a question for you. If the word "brother" is only a reference to the "brotherhood of Christ," how then could this gospel entry have brothers who did not believe he was the Christ? After all, if they didn't believe he was the Christ, how then could the word "brother" in respect to "brotherhood of Christ" apply to those who didn't believe he was the Christ?

I know you see the logic. And I know that you know I have a valid point here. There's simply no way the brotherhood of Christ applies to the brothers in John 7:5, therefore it can only refer to his natural brothers.

3. He means brother in the same way he uses the word in regards to other people in his works. Nowhere in Antiquities does Jospehus refer to a brother as meaning anything other than a physical relative.

So why single this out? An uncomfortable truth, perhaps?

4. And that- if true- somehow invalidates his mundane statement that James was the brother of Jesus? How?

5. And that- if true- somehow invalidates his mundane statement that James was the brother of Jesus? How?

6. That does not in any way invalidate any historical value they may have. They are two separate and distinct things.

Oladimeji247:
That's not a retort, and you know it.

It's one you don't want to hear. He was clearly delusional

Oladimeji247:
Mat 13:55 -56 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas, and his sisters, are they not all with us? Then from where does this man have all these things?"

Mar 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at Him."

Now, also here is something for you to think about:

Joh_7:3 "Therefore His brothers said to Him, Move away from here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see the works that You do."

Joh_7:5 "For His brothers did not believe in Him"

So I have a question for you. If the word "brother" is only a reference to the "brotherhood of Christ," how then could this gospel entry have brothers who did not believe he was the Christ? After all, if they didn't believe he was the Christ, how then could the word "brother" in respect to "brotherhood of Christ" apply to those who didn't believe he was the Christ?

Oh, so now he has not only James, but also a whole bunch of other siblings as well. LOL.

Oladimeji247:
I know you see the logic. And I know that you know I have a valid point here.

How arrogant of you. Nope. YOU don't get to tell me what I think.

Oladimeji247:
He means brother in the same way he uses the word in regards to other people in his works. Nowhere in Antiquities does Jospehus refer to a brother as meaning anything other than a physical relative.

So, now you're mind reading also. There was no other comparable situation for Josephus to use a similar word, thus your "no other" is meaningless, and invalid.

Oladimeji247:
And that- if true- somehow invalidates his mundane statement that James was the brother of Jesus? How?

He was untrustworthy and he damns himself with his own pen.

Oladimeji247:
That does not in any way invalidate any historical value they may have. They are two separate and distinct things.

Yes it does. They are reflections of BELIEF, not historical facts. Are you saying that 500 people rising also on Easter has historical value? LOL. You sound like a Christian apologist. Are you?

It has already been point out here, (as it also says in Galatians) 1:19, Paul says he met James, "the Lord's brother", and none other of the apostles except Peter, when Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion.

James was an apostle. The James he is talking about is an apostle, and we know the two apostles names James had family lineages which were not Mary and Joseph, thus you cannot claim James was a physical sibling.

Tamaratonye1:

1. It's one you don't want to hear. He was clearly delusional


2. Oh, so now he has not only James, but also a whole bunch of other siblings as well. LOL.


3. How arrogant of you. Nope. YOU don't get to tell me what I think.


4. So, now you're mind reading also. There was no other comparable situation for Josephus to use a similar word, thus your "no other" is meaningless, and invalid.


5. He was untrustworthy and he damns himself with his own pen.


6. Yes it does. They are reflections of BELIEF, not historical facts. Are you saying that 500 people rising also on Easter has historical value?



7. It has already been point out here, (as it also says in Galatians) 1:19, Paul says he met James, "the Lord's brother", and none other of the apostles except Peter, when Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion.

James was an apostle. The James he is talking about is an apostle, and we know the two apostles names James had family lineages which were not Mary and Joseph, thus you cannot claim James was a physical sibling.

1. He was a religious fanatic. He was a victim of his own belief system. But none of that puts any disqualification to his mundane statement that James was the brother of Jesus.

2. When viewed with the perspective that he was just an ordinary man, why wouldn't he have brothers and sisters? There is absolutely nothing odd about that, especially given ancient Jewish history.

But at least now you know that the Gospel records do indeed show he had brothers and sisters, including James.

3. If you don't see that simple logic, then obviously someone has to teach you how to think. My point is solid, and you have made no attempt to refute it.

4. The point is "consistency." All through Antiquities we see Josephus using the word "brother" in reference to blood relatives, and we do not see him using it at all in relation to your assertion. Basically, the evidence completely supports my position, while you have not a shred to support yours.

5. It doesn't matter in the slightest what you think of him. Personally I think he was an arrogant ass. But neither your nor my opinion of his character changes one iota of what he wrote, and he wrote that James was the brother of Jesus.

6. He claimed it to be factual. And don't compare apples to oranges here. Jerome of course stated his beliefs, but that does not negate the fact that not everything he stated was per his religious beliefs.

7. I find it interesting that since you claim the Gospel records have no historical value, yet here you are attempting to use them as historical records to make a point.

Nonetheless,

And does that somehow mean that James, his brother, did not become an apostle sometime shortly before, or after the crucifixion? The Gospel records chronicle the situation in real time, during the purported life of Jesus. Also, the Gospel records have different lists of the 12 apostles. (Matt 10:2, Luke 6;13). This either shows inaccuracy, or possibly how apostles were changed as the ministry progressed.

And if we are going to glean any history out of the NT, we can refer to Acts where they assigned apostleship to Mattias because Judas was dead. This is proof again that apostles were changed out as the religion progressed.

Therefore, his brother James could have easily be appointed as an apostle.