Understand the language and read. When I wanted to understand the world I studied English for example; I don't blame an English native speaker when I don't understand their message to me, I rather blame my ignorance and go learn more. You should do the same

But I expect a lord to give you his message in a book. Your understanding of the message depends on your understanding of the message's language; it can't be simpler than this

The thing that gets me about Christianity, Islam, etc. is the book they claim "has all the answers" has to be translated and interpreted by "scholars" and "experts" to verify its meaning. It's the Oracle At Delphi grift.

Sure, I frequently side with Catholics, like that Mohammed is a false prophet.

But hey you get to be on the side of Catholics in this bit of the debate. Doesn't that make you proud?

Brother of the Lord means brother of Jesus in this context. And he doesn't call Peter brother of the Lord. He calls James brother of the Lord. And there's nothing to suggest brother isn't being used here in the familial sense. It's ok to have a different interpretation but it needs to not be done out of pure fantasy.

Why are you even asking me this since you consider yourself an expert on my posts so you should know better https://atheistforums.org/thread-58808-p...pid1900727

I didn't say anything about that. You do realize James, brother of Jesus is mentioned by Paul in one of the epistles, right? And you seem to have a skewed view of what exactly has been debunked, being misinformed by mythicist sources and all.

Really, you're referring to testimonium flavianum nr. 2? Hasn't that been debunked to death already?

I respect Elvis Presley for Rock influence, but Beatles i consider hippie band. So i always disliked that band. But i respect Rolling Stones atleast

not amalgamation or vague remotei nfluential character

That's the mainstream conclusion

and legendized*

Nope, a singular historical person that was inflated in the NT texts, nature-wise, character-wise, deed-wise. A historical person whose brother was James who in turn was known by other historical people of the time, like Paul. Sorry to disappoint

Not exactly historical, more like Robin Hood - some guys existed which influenced the made up and impossible life of Jesus.

The number of credible NT scholars that reject the existence of Jesus, I can easily count with my one hand. The overwhleming majority go for Jesus being historical.

I have to disagree a little, WinterHold. The documented evidence (that matters) for Jesus is scant, and how NT scholars/historians get to whether or not Jesus [probably] existed is through textual analyses, applying certain criteria to the relevant texts to determine such things as what is theologically loaded, what is neutrally said, what is inconvenient for the authors that they had to explain them away. Add Occam's razor to the mix, and the likely conclusion (given what we currently know) is that Jesus was a historical person. It doesn't mean it's conclusive, though.

Jesus didn't exist and Wikipedia's claims have all be refuted a million times . Historicity is a big pile of bunk.

@Grandizer , @Fake Messiah saying that Jesus didn't exist is just like saying that history is fake. It's quite a childish argument considering the massive sources that spoke about him, including non-Christian sources like Roman texts and Jewish texts: