The Rationale Of Jesus's Mates

[SacredBishop]

For the sake of this post, let's assume the New Testament is unreliable. Let's abandon dogmas, doctrines, apologetics, and Christianity altogether. Why would Jesus's mates say "he was the Son of God who rose from the dead on the third day"? What possible train of events could account for them mistakenly believing " the Son of God " wasn't dead anymore on the third day? If they fabricated the whole thing, then what possible motive could they have for this? I look forward to reading your theories.

[Thomas123]

 'According to Zoroastrian cosmology, in articulating the Ahuna Vairya formula, Ahura Mazda made the ultimate triumph of good against Angra Mainyu evident.[37] Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil Angra Mainyu, at which point reality will undergo a cosmic renovation called Frashokereti[38] and limited time will end. In the final renovation, all of creation—even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to or chose to descend into "darkness"—will be reunited with Ahura Mazda in the Kshatra .........

........On the fourth day after death, the urvan is reunited with its fravashi, whereupon the experiences of life in the material world are collected for use in the continuing battle for good in the spiritual world.  ........

......... In Middle Persian literature, the prominent belief was that at the end of time a savior-figure known as the Saoshyant would bring about the Frashokereti, while in the Gathic texts the term Saoshyant (meaning "one who brings benefit") referred to all believers of Mazdayasna but changed into a messianic concept in later writings.'


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

[SacredBishop]

[Replying to Thomas123 in post #50]

" Listen all who have ears". Thank you buddy, I needed that. I laughed hard on that. We're gonna figure this fiasco out and shout it from the house tops. He that has ears to hear, behold, Thomas and I have solved the Galilean puzzle once and for all! Ha ha

[Thomas123]

Well Done, SB!

This even explains why Jesus is going up and down in the lift in the Apostles Creed, thank you Zoro!

[neverknewyou]

Also a commentary from the dead sea scrolls apply Isaiah 11 and 53 to this teacher of righteousness. Some people can't resist the similarity and say Christians named this mystery savior from 150 BCE Jesus, and build a religion around him. However, Paul considered James to be Jesus's brother in Galatians, this disproves the theory for me. They'll say James was brother by descent, rather than an actual sibling, but it doesn't fly with me. To each their own. I believe Jesus was an actual person, but theories to the contrary are getting better and more persuasive all the time.

There is no reason to read "the brother of the Lord" to mean a literal sibling, especially considering the dozens of times Paul refers to brothers as fellow believers, and the number of times Lord is interchanged to mean God or saviour. The gospel writers did not interpret Paul's reference that way. The gospels portray Jesus' brothers as non believers. The gospels portrayed Peter, James, and John as disciples and this disciple James was not a brother of Jesus. Paul referred to his ancient scriptures as well as visions as a source for Jesus and Isaiah was probably a very good source for Paul's Christ figure.

[SacredBishop]

Also a commentary from the dead sea scrolls apply Isaiah 11 and 53 to this teacher of righteousness. Some people can't resist the similarity and say Christians named this mystery savior from 150 BCE Jesus, and build a religion around him. However, Paul considered James to be Jesus's brother in Galatians, this disproves the theory for me. They'll say James was brother by descent, rather than an actual sibling, but it doesn't fly with me. To each their own. I believe Jesus was an actual person, but theories to the contrary are getting better and more persuasive all the time.

There is no reason to read "the brother of the Lord" to mean a literal sibling, especially considering the dozens of times Paul refers to brothers as fellow believers, and the number of times Lord is interchanged to mean God or saviour. The gospel writers did not interpret Paul's reference that way. The gospels portray Jesus' brothers as non believers. The gospels portrayed Peter, James, and John as disciples and this disciple James was not a brother of Jesus. Paul referred to his ancient scriptures as well as visions as a source for Jesus and Isaiah was probably a very good source for Paul's Christ figure.

You make an excellent point. I'm reading brother of the Lord from Galatians, and using the Gospels to force the meaning into sibling. I'll definitely take your words to heart. Thank you

[TRANSPONDER]

I have heard this before - that James is just a brother like the other 'brothers', meaning just one of the beleivers.

But the reading IS different.

Galatians 118 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Now we see a distinction between Cephas as one of the apostles, and James, singled out as the Lord's brother. In other cases Paul talks of his brothers - his own companions. Other times the brothers and sisters. Nobody else but James is the Lord's brother.

There's also a question of why James rather than Peter or John, say, is the evident leader of the church. He may have been particularly good as an administrator, but -it's odd that he is ruling and deciding and not one of the others. If he was the next brother of the Jesus family, that would explain it.

There's also the passage in Josephus Antiquities where (apart from doubts about whether this refers to the Jesus and James of the gospels at all) the passage shows a particular identification of James as Jesus' brother. If the early Christians thought so, maybe there is something in it.

So I don't think that the generic 'brothers and sisters' explains away James' particular status. Nor that only he is addressed as 'The Lord's brother'. If anything it is forcing 'James - the Lord's brother' to mean no more than any of the other Christian brothers. It's not a great doctrinal or critical thunderclap, but I think it is a significant point about how the early church was organised.