Clement quotes the Old Testament when quoting Jesus.

[alwayson]

Clement quotes the Old Testament when quoting Jesus.

Like Paul, Clement had no idea about an Earthly Jesus.

When Clement says, ‘Christ himself calls to us through the Holy Spirit’, and then quotes ‘Christ’ at length, what we find in fact is simply a quotation of the Psalms (1 Clem. 22.1-8, which matches Pss 34.11-17, 19; and 32.10). Thus Clement assumes that Jesus ‘speaks’ to us through the scriptures. Clement didn’t even have to say this. He simply assumes that a quotation of the Old Testament can be described as a quotation of ‘Christ’ without explanation or citation—the fact that the Corinthians don’t need this to be explained to them entails this was routinely understood within the churches of the time: that Jesus speaks through the Old Testament, rather than human tradition.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 8 by Mithrae]

Paul viewed Jesus having a human body, manufactured by God, in outer space / lower heavens.

That's certainly an interesting... er... theory. Have you been reading Earl Doherty? [Edit: Never mind, just read your subsequent references to Carrier.]

How did this extraterrestrial Jesus end up having a human brother in Jerusalem?

• Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,[a] and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Paul's first-hand testimony regarding James the brother of Jesus is consistent with the evidence found in Josephus (who if memory serves was a resident of Jerusalem in the year that James was killed there):

• AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim 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: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
  ~ Antiquities 20.9.1

I've heard all the arguments here, but let's have it anyway: On the one single occasion Josephus ventures to use the term 'christ' he was doing so not to conveniently and neutrally identify someone for his Roman readers, but in inexplicable reference to some run-of-the-mill high priest who was in office less than a year? Or maybe the part about 'christ' must have been interpolated, even though there's not a single shred of evidence for that and strong evidence from Origen's quotes that this is what Josephus wrote?

The only plausible conclusion is that there lived in Jerusalem a fellow called James, known to Paul personally and to Josephus by common local knowledge, who was the brother of Jesus "who was called Christ," as Josephus carefully puts it. Outer space Jesus would not have had a brother, so that interpretation of Paul - which is pretty strained to begin with - is obviously false.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

Paul never says Jesus has a brother.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

Paul never says Jesus has a brother.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

Yes he does. I just quoted an example. Carrier struggles mightily to pretend that it means something other than the obvious, but his argument is far from convincing.

Paul calls other Christians 'brethren' almost one hundred times in his authentic letters. But on two and only two occasions he uses the phrase "brother/s of the Lord," each time in reference to specific people and in the company of apostles: In Galatians 1:18 he refers to James the brother of the Lord, as quoted above, and in 1 Corinthians 9:5 he notes that both the apostles and the brothers of the Lord have believing wives who go with them in their work.

With remarkable mental agility - some would say dishonesty - Carrier insists that this phrase "brother of the Lord" which is used only twice by Paul must simply be his generic term for Christians, and that James (and I quote) "is just a rank-and-file Christian." Let that sink in for a moment: In order to try to make his view fit, Carrier has to pretend that someone who Paul specifically and individually names as a witness of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:7) and is named first among the pillars of the church ahead of Peter and John (Gal. 2:9) "is just a rank-and-file Christian."

As if that were not proof enough of how strained Carrier's interpretation is, it's worth noting that there is (at least) one occasion on which Paul clearly uses distinct terms in the same sentence referring to apostleship and 'merely' being a believer. But in his closing words to the Romans, instead of saying that Andronicus and Junia became "brothers of the Lord" before Paul himself, he uses one of his more conventional terms, that they were 'in Christ' before him:

• Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Clearly, "brother of the Lord" was not Paul's generic term for believers, and since the only two times he uses the phrase he's referring to specific individuals (one of them being the first among the 'pillars' of the church!), it is abundantly clear that Paul's meaning is quite literal.

And what about Carrier's would-be proof text to the contrary?

• Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

That would be ambiguous even as it stands - it's talking about predestination, a future happening, which Paul may or may not have believed to have already occurred. A firstborn comes before the others, and the whole context of that passage is about the suffering and labours of a creation still in the process of bringing God's plans to fruition:

• Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Carrier tries to make Galatians 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 mean anything but the obvious, but his would-be proof text is cherry-picked and stripped of context, and ultimately not up to the task that he demands of it. Paul's adoption theology is ambiguous, and Carrier's attempt to stretch that into "brother of the Lord" being a generic term for Christians fails on its own even if we couldn't already see for ourselves that it is not a generic term: In references to Christians generally, Paul uses the terms "brethren," "believers" and those "in Christ"; similarly in references to Jesus Paul never says "our brother Jesus," only "our Lord Jesus."

[Mithrae]

On the assumption that this isn't over yet, I should make further note of this:

Not only does Paul clearly indicate that Jesus had human brothers, but it is central to Paul's theology that Jesus was an earthly human being.

It's the basis of most mainstream Christian theology since, that Jesus had to live a perfect life under the Law in order to 'fulfill' it and offer redemption to everyone else. Paul explains this at length in that same letter to the Galatians (Romans being his other major exposition, particularly chapter 5):

• Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.â€� 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.â€� 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.â€� 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a treeâ€�). . . .
  
  
  Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Paul obviously and unequivocally believed that Jesus was a Jew, born under the law to redeem those under the law.

[alwayson]

Galatians is explicitly an allegory.

[alwayson]

Clearly, "brother of the Lord" was not Paul's generic term for believers, and since the only two times he uses the phrase he's referring to specific individuals (one of them being the first among the 'pillars' of the church!), it is abundantly clear that Paul's meaning is quite literal.

How did you jump to biological brother?

There is zero logical progression to biological brother.

[Mithrae]

Clearly, "brother of the Lord" was not Paul's generic term for believers, and since the only two times he uses the phrase he's referring to specific individuals (one of them being the first among the 'pillars' of the church!), it is abundantly clear that Paul's meaning is quite literal.

How did you jump to biological brother?

There is zero logical progression to biological brother.

Paul in various places says that Jesus:
A) Was descended from Abraham, Israel and David
B) Came of a woman, came under the law to redeem those under the law
C) Had a brother named James who was first among the 'pillars' of the church and other brothers who were married like the apostles
D) Broke bread and shared wine on the night he was betrayed, likening them to his own flesh and blood, before he was crucified and buried

That's not a "jump" to a biological Jesus, it's both the most obvious and the only reasonable way to understand his views - particularly his broader theological views with regards to B, as I noted above.


Josephus also confirms the existence and death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," in the same city where Paul locates him (and in similar circumstances as mid 2nd century Jewish Christian chronicler Hegesippus records James' death).

[alwayson]

Paul in various places says that Jesus:
A) Was descended from Abraham, Israel and David

Not in the original Greek.

B) Came of a woman, came under the law to redeem those under the law

This is an allegory.

C) Had a brother named James who was first among the 'pillars' of the church and other brothers who were married like the apostles

Paul indicates brother is a term designating a Christian.

Josephus also confirms the existence and death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," in the same city where Paul locates him (and in similar circumstances as mid 2nd century Jewish Christian chronicler Hegesippus records James' death).

The Josephus passages are definitely fake.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives ... y/josephus

[Mithrae]

Paul in various places says that Jesus:
A) Was descended from Abraham, Israel and David

Not in the original Greek.

B) Came of a woman, came under the law to redeem those under the law

This is an allegory.

C) Had a brother named James who was first among the 'pillars' of the church and other brothers who were married like the apostles

Paul indicates brother is a term designating a Christian.

Josephus also confirms the existence and death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," in the same city where Paul locates him (and in similar circumstances as mid 2nd century Jewish Christian chronicler Hegesippus records James' death).

The Josephus passages are definitely fake.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives ... y/josephus

You obviously have no interest in actual discussion. And while Carrier might please his fans by calling his peers and critics "gullible" and "asscranks," to my mind it rather suggests an immaturity and lack of objectivity regarding his pet theories.

As with his far-fetched insistence that James (who Paul named first of three pillars of the church) "is just a rank-and-file Christian," Carrier makes some absolute doozies in his effort to pretend that the Josephus passage is not genuine:
> He falsely claims that the passage is unknown to Origen (who in fact attributed that phrase to Josephus word-for-word on three occasions, specifically referencing Judaic Antiquities on one of them)
> He displays a shocking and perhaps wilful ignorance of the thematic structure of Acts in an effort to insist that Luke "never noticed this passage" (even though Luke/Acts may well have been written before Antiquities to begin with!)
> And contrary to the whole corpus of Josephus' works which otherwise skirt around any reference to the historical sect of Jewish Christians, Carrier assumes that Josephus should have been eager to add much more detail further explaining the identity of James and nature of the priests' complaint with him (rather than just simply and neutrally identifying a catalyst for the change in priesthood, as we see). This is actually a hugely important point, because if (as Carrier believes) the James killed was the son of Damneus, then we'd have much more reason to expect that Josephus would explain why priests were killing other priests! The lack of further clarification only makes sense if they were victims who Josephus A) felt needed no further identification (and by the late 90s CE, many if not most Romans would have heard of this "Christ" sect) and/or B) didn't want to go into much detail on (again, consistent with Josephus' reluctance to otherwise mention the Christian sect).

And as I said, these are all arguments which I've seen in 2011 and earlier. Carrier's not very subtle attempt to pretend that the scholars disagreeing with him simply don't count, unless they're opinions from after 2014 - and sometimes not even then, apparently - is pretty clearly shown to be nothing more than hollow rhetorical spin when it's so easily seen that he hasn't offered anything substantially new.

[alwayson]

Paul never mentions Mary.

Paul never mentions Jesus had a ministry.

Paul never mentions Jesus had disciples.



Paul explicitly says Jesus is from the Scriptures, referring to the Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 which gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, ‘rising’ from his place below, and building up God’s house, given supreme authority over God’s domain and ending all sins in a single day.