Bart Ehrman defends belief in a historical Jesus.

[Jagella]

According to the Huffington Post article, Did Jesus Exist?, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has the following to say:

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world — the Christian church — was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today — is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

What's so important about Ehrman's position on the historicity of Jesus to Christian apologists is that not only does Ehrman insist that Jesus did exist, but Ehrman is an atheist! Since he's an atheist, he cannot be biased toward a real Jesus or so apologists seem to believe. So here we have a distinguished professor of New Testament who believes in a historical Jesus and without a Christian bias, or so we are told.

Question for Debate: But how unbiased is Ehrman really?

Of course, we all have biases that can skew our thinking, but there are many different kinds of bias and different degrees of bias. Some biases can be overcome with sufficient evidence, and other kinds of bias will remain regardless of the evidence. I think it's safe to say that an atheist can indeed have a pro-historical-Jesus bias. After all, depending on your theology, a real Jesus doesn't necessitate a real God. So Ehrman might well have a real-Jesus bias, and his being an atheist does not preclude his having such a bias.

There's plenty more I can say about Ehrman's article, but I will save that for later in the discussion.

[Jagella]

I posted my argument that James is not the sibling of Jesus in another forum, and they all immediately understood and agreed with my reasoning.

Yes, I noticed that earlier. It's very interesting.

How did you notice the response I received in the other forum? I don't recall linking to that thread.

Virtually all experts acknowledge that James was the brother of Jesus; but you've found a few amateurs who didn't refute your argument to the contrary...

I'm not sure if I agree on whom you're designating as "experts" and whom you wish to call "amateurs" although I haven't failed to notice that those you seem to believe are experts are those who agree with you. In any case, I don't know the educational backgrounds of the members here or in that forum, so I will withhold judgment regarding who is or is not an expert in determining if Bart Ehrman is basing his views on a pro-real-Jesus bias.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned everybody has a brain and a right to use it whether they agree with the presumed experts or not. That's why I think you have a right to come to your own conclusions.

...and you think the latter is a persuasive point worth raising on more balanced forums while simultaneously trashing experts' conclusions as irrelevant.

Actually, I just posted my point that if people are not Christians or anybody else who has a stake in a historical Jesus, then they very often are readily able to accept the very reasonable conclusion that there is no good evidence for a historical Christ. Why is that the case?

I do acknowledge that we cannot know what biases Ehrman may have...

Excellent; that at least is progress.

Don't break out the champagne just yet. What I'm saying is that yes, we cannot know for certain that Ehrman is very biased toward a historical Jesus. Mind readers are scarce. However, if we insist on certainty, then we can never judge anybody to be biased. What we do is observe the person's actions and words to see if that person wants to believe something despite the evidence and the reasons to the contrary. That's the common-sense, practical approach I've taken on this thread to judge Ehrman's position on the historical Christ.

Now, if you disagree with this approach to determining bias, then do you have a better approach to take? How might you judge if Ehrman has a bias?

You remain unable or unwilling to make a cogent case for your unusual claim that Paul, Josephus, Mark, Luke and John in their references to Jesus' brothers were all either wrong or somehow meant something besides brother.

What definition of "brother" are you referring to here? Webster defines the word six different ways including the obvious "one related to another by common ties or interests." But even the New Testament uses "brother" with different meanings. We see that Paul did not necessarily mean blood relation (Romans 10:1). Even Jesus used the word in a way that does not refer to blood-relation: Mark 3:35 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.�

So why don't you get the very simple fact that the James in Galatians 1:19 is not necessarily the blood-brother of Jesus?

In summary, your arguments fail for several reasons. They rely on an appeal to authority, they are based on a denial of a common-sense, commonly practiced way of determining bias, and they wrongly conclude that the word "brother" in the context of the New Testament can only refer to a sibling.

[Mithrae]

I posted my argument that James is not the sibling of Jesus in another forum, and they all immediately understood and agreed with my reasoning.

Yes, I noticed that earlier. It's very interesting.

How did you notice the response I received in the other forum? I don't recall linking to that thread.

You mentioned it in post 76.

Virtually all experts acknowledge that James was the brother of Jesus; but you've found a few amateurs who didn't refute your argument to the contrary...

I'm not sure if I agree on whom you're designating as "experts" and whom you wish to call "amateurs" although I haven't failed to notice that those you seem to believe are experts are those who agree with you.

Expertise generally means formal study and professional experience. Trying to redefine words to suit your whim is truly feeble. Your strawman, even moreso; if it was 'those who agree with me' I would said all experts. Carrier and Price, are obviously experts; even Murdock, in spite of her material for popular audiences.

You remain unable or unwilling to make a cogent case for your unusual claim that Paul, Josephus, Mark, Luke and John in their references to Jesus' brothers were all either wrong or somehow meant something besides brother.

What definition of "brother" are you referring to here? Webster defines the word six different ways including the obvious "one related to another by common ties or interests." But even the New Testament uses "brother" with different meanings. We see that Paul did not necessarily mean blood relation (Romans 10:1). Even Jesus used the word in a way that does not refer to blood-relation: Mark 3:35 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.�

So why don't you get the very simple fact that the James in Galatians 1:19 is not necessarily the blood-brother of Jesus?

In summary, your arguments fail for several reasons. They rely on an appeal to authority, they are based on a denial of a common-sense, commonly practiced way of determining bias, and they wrongly conclude that the word "brother" in the context of the New Testament can only refer to a sibling.

'Brother' means sibling; adelphos in Greek, coming directly from delphos, the womb. From context we might infer that specific uses are more metaphorical, exceptions to the rule, but you have singularly failed to show any evidence suggesting that is the case of Galatians 1:19; your best argument was a spectacular failure. From Paul alone, we would rightly conclude that this Jewish man Jesus had brothers. Furthermore, that fact is even more unambiguously clear in Josephus, Mark, Luke and John.

[Jagella]

Expertise generally means formal study and professional experience.

That sounds about right, but you're not explaining what study and experience a person should have within the context of this discussion. Personally, I'll accept the judgment of any person as long as that judgment is reasonable and based on what I have good reason to believe is true.

Trying to redefine words to suit your whim is truly feeble.

I didn't redefine any words.

Carrier and Price, are obviously experts; even Murdock, in spite of her material for popular audiences.

I don't accept or reject anything Carrier, Price, or Murdock have written or said because I think they're experts. I agree or disagree with them based on what they claim and how logical and factual those claims appear to be. For example, Carrier has disputed Ehrman's claim about our having no narratives for Pilate from the first century saying that Philo has written about Pilate. I checked, and sure enough Ehrman lied and Carrier is right. Philo did write a narrative about Pilate.

So the moral of the story is don't naively swallow everything a supposed expert says. Do some fact checking!

'Brother' means sibling; adelphos in Greek, coming directly from delphos, the womb.

The Greek word translated "brother" in Mark 3:35 (nominative case) is ἀδελφός. Bill Mounce defines ἀδελφός as "a brother, near kinsman, or relative; one of the same nation or nature; one of equal rank and dignity; an associate, a member of the Christian community." So your definition of ἀδελφός is wrong by omission. You should consider all the meanings of the word. ἀδελφός need not mean "a sibling." The word has other meanings.

From context we might infer that specific uses are more metaphorical, exceptions to the rule, but you have singularly failed to show any evidence suggesting that is the case of Galatians 1:19...

The Greek word translated "brother" in Galatians 1:19 is ἀδελφὸν (accusative case), and it has the same meanings as ἀδελφός as defined above. It can refer to merely a member of Paul's Christian community rather than a blood brother. James then need not be a blood-brother of Jesus.

Again we see that the word "brother," in English or in Greek, does not necessarily refer to a sibling.

...your best argument was a spectacular failure.

I checkmated you way back on Post 25. I'm just continuing this dialogue to correct the errors in your arguments.

From Paul alone, we would rightly conclude that this Jewish man Jesus had brothers.

All we know is that Paul said he knew "James, the Lord's brother." Isn't it amazing how real-Jesus apologists reveal a real Jesus from those four words?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 82 by Jagella]

James then need not be a blood-brother of Jesus.

I think you may have missed the point way back before post 25.


A person named James might not need to be a blood-brother to Christ. But when Paul used the phrase, "James, the Lord's brother", he is referring to the blood-brother of Christ.

From the verse in Galatians:

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.




Paul specifically refers to only James as the Lord's brother here, but does not refer to Peter or the other apostles as the Lord's brothers. If Paul meant only a spiritual brother, then why single James out as the Lord's brother?


James is singled out as the Lord's brother in this instance because Paul is referring Christ's brother in the flesh, not just Christ's brother in the spirit.


**

It also makes sense for him to do that, because there are (at least) two James:

1 - The apostle James

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John... Matt 10:2


2 - James, the (flesh and blood) brother of the Lord

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Matt 13:55





Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Mithrae]

'Brother' means sibling; adelphos in Greek, coming directly from delphos, the womb.

The Greek word translated "brother" in Mark 3:35 (nominative case) is ἀδελφός. Bill Mounce defines ἀδελφός as "a brother, near kinsman, or relative; one of the same nation or nature; one of equal rank and dignity; an associate, a member of the Christian community." So your definition of ἀδελφός is wrong by omission. You should consider all the meanings of the word. ἀδελφός need not mean "a sibling." The word has other meanings.

So your argument is that Mithrae is obliged to gaze steadily or reflectively on nothing but significant qualities of the promise or declaration, yes? Ah... maybe not? Maybe most words have a primary meaning which, absent contextual indications to the contrary, should be taken as given: Especially when that word's etymology quite literally refers to sharing the same parent, coming from the same womb.

...your best argument was a spectacular failure.

I checkmated you way back on Post 25.

Right on brother, you keep telling yourself that!

[Jagella]

A person named James might not need to be a blood-brother to Christ. But when Paul used the phrase, "James, the Lord's brother", he is referring to the blood-brother of Christ.

From the verse in Galatians:

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Paul specifically refers to only James as the Lord's brother here, but does not refer to Peter or the other apostles as the Lord's brothers. If Paul meant only a spiritual brother, then why single James out as the Lord's brother?

I don't know why Paul referred to only James as "the Lord's brother." None of us know. We'll never know.

But let's consider some possibilities:

• A. Paul knew that James was the blood-brother of Christ.
  B. James convinced Paul that he was the blood-brother of Christ, but Paul never knew for sure if James really was Christ's sibling.
  C. Paul agreed to give the title "the Lord's brother" to James granting James special status in the church knowing that James was not related to Jesus by blood.
  D. Paul's referring to only James as "the Lord's brother" in the passage in Galatians is merely due to happenstance in Paul's writing. He simply neglected to refer to the others the same way.

There may be other possibilities, but let's take a look at these four.

I think A can be ruled out because Paul had no way to know if James was the blood brother of Christ because Paul never knew Christ.

As far as I can tell B looks to be very possible. James could have been a con-artist who was very adept at pulling the wool over people's eyes. Many people have fooled others claiming to be related to some god. Even if James was sincere, he may have been sincerely deluded.

C also looks very possible. Catholics grant special status to the pope giving him the title "holy father." James in the same way may have been given a similar title.

And finally D is also very possible. We all write differently at different times, and Paul referring only to James as "the Lord's brother" may be just a fluke.

I think D may be most likely. What say you?

[tam]

Peace to you Jagella,

A person named James might not need to be a blood-brother to Christ. But when Paul used the phrase, "James, the Lord's brother", he is referring to the blood-brother of Christ.

From the verse in Galatians:

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Paul specifically refers to only James as the Lord's brother here, but does not refer to Peter or the other apostles as the Lord's brothers. If Paul meant only a spiritual brother, then why single James out as the Lord's brother?

I don't know why Paul referred to only James as "the Lord's brother." None of us know. We'll never know.

But let's consider some possibilities:

• A. Paul knew that James was the blood-brother of Christ.
  B. James convinced Paul that he was the blood-brother of Christ, but Paul never knew for sure if James really was Christ's sibling.
  C. Paul agreed to give the title "the Lord's brother" to James granting James special status in the church knowing that James was not related to Jesus by blood.
  D. Paul's referring to only James as "the Lord's brother" in the passage in Galatians is merely due to happenstance in Paul's writing. He simply neglected to refer to the others the same way.

There may be other possibilities, but let's take a look at these four.

I think A can be ruled out because Paul had no way to know if James was the blood brother of Christ because Paul never knew Christ.

As far as I can tell B looks to be very possible. James could have been a con-artist who was very adept at pulling the wool over people's eyes. Many people have fooled others claiming to be related to some god. Even if James was sincere, he may have been sincerely deluded.

C also looks very possible. Catholics grant special status to the pope giving him the title "holy father." James in the same way may have been given a similar title.

And finally D is also very possible. We all write differently at different times, and Paul referring only to James as "the Lord's brother" may be just a fluke.

I think D may be most likely. What say you?

B and C are both unlikely.

I would dismiss B out of hand. It is far too conspiratorial, would require multiple people to be involved in said deception, and there is no evidence upon which to base this belief.

I must dismiss C as well. C would have been out of character for Paul, who rebuked people for boasting in men, and for elevating and following individuals such as himself, or Cephas, or Apollos. (1 Corinth 3:4; 4:6; 3:21)



A and D are both possible in my opinion, but A is the plain reading of the text AND we have corroborating information that Christ has a flesh and blood brother named James. Since we have that corroborating information (and for the reasons stated in my previous post), I would suggest that A is most likely.





Peace again to you!

[Jagella]

I would dismiss B out of hand. It is far too conspiratorial, would require multiple people to be involved in said deception, and there is no evidence upon which to base this belief.

Obviously it's necessary to deny the possibility of the members of the early-Christian sect cooperating together to pull the wool over people's eyes if you wish to preserve faith in what they claimed. If you accept that people can and do conspire, and they often do in the context of religious activities, then you may end up like I am, Tam! Examples of such collusion include the TV-evangelist scandals of the 1980s and faith-healing.

But really B doesn't necessarily involve conspiracy. Paul may have sincerely believed James' claim that James was the sibling of Jesus, and Paul was duped by James.

With these facts in mind, can you still rule out B especially considering that Paul would never have been able to check out James' story?

I must dismiss C as well. C would have been out of character for Paul, who rebuked people for boasting in men, and for elevating and following individuals such as himself, or Cephas, or Apollos. (1 Corinth 3:4; 4:6; 3:21)

I'm not sure if I agree with your interpretation of what those passage say. Paul was preaching against divisions in the Corinthian church. He never said that James could not have special status in the church; it was OK as long as people didn't fight over it.

Besides, many members of Paul's church did have special status including Paul himself not to mention Peter (Cephas) as well as James.

So I see no problem with Paul granting status to James giving him the title, "the Lord's brother." Besides, even if Paul refused to grant James such status, it's possible that somebody else granted James that status.

...A is the plain reading of the text AND we have corroborating information that Christ has a flesh and blood brother named James.

We have no unambiguous evidence at all that James was Jesus' blood-brother. If we did, then we wouldn't be arguing the whole matter. In addition, I see no "plain" meaning of Galatians 1:19. The text is ambiguous as I have documented throughout this thread.

Finally, I just did a quick search of the NRSV Bible, and whenever Paul referred to Jesus specifically, he uses the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ." Yes, in some passages he might say "Lord Jesus Christ," but whenever he uses only "Lord" or some variation of "Lord" alone, he refers to God. So it appears that Galatians 1:19 is referring to James' relation to God rather than to Christ. I hope you agree that God had no blood-brothers!

[Mithrae]

Finally, I just did a quick search of the NRSV Bible, and whenever Paul referred to Jesus specifically, he uses the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ." Yes, in some passages he might say "Lord Jesus Christ," but whenever he uses only "Lord" or some variation of "Lord" alone, he refers to God. So it appears that Galatians 1:19 is referring to James' relation to God rather than to Christ. I hope you agree that God had no blood-brothers!

That's obviously false even off the top of my head 1 Corinthians 7 is a direct contradiction of Yahweh's Mosaic law about divorce, but a direct reflection of Jesus' teaching (Mark 10).

[Jagella]

Finally, I just did a quick search of the NRSV Bible, and whenever Paul referred to Jesus specifically, he uses the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ." Yes, in some passages he might say "Lord Jesus Christ," but whenever he uses only "Lord" or some variation of "Lord" alone, he refers to God. So it appears that Galatians 1:19 is referring to James' relation to God rather than to Christ. I hope you agree that God had no blood-brothers!

That's obviously false even off the top of my head 1 Corinthians 7 is a direct contradiction of Yahweh's Mosaic law about divorce, but a direct reflection of Jesus' teaching (Mark 10).

I don't follow your logic. How does 1 Corinthians 7 falsify what I said about Paul's use of some variation of the word "Lord" used alone as referring to God rather than Jesus? 1 Corinthians 7 seems to serve as a distinction between Jesus and God which supports what I said about the word "Lord's" in the context of Galatians 1:19. Paul appeared to be speaking of James as being the "brother of God," which of course is a metaphorical use of the word "brother" rather than a literal sibling.