Who was James the brother of Jesus?

[Minimalist]

Yes. You see, Tack (you really are not as clever as you think you are) Suetonius was not trying to "prove" that Livy existed. It is an "aside." A piece of otherwise useless information in the text meant only to show that Claudius had contact with the literary brain trust of the Roman Empire.

As I told rj, even a single such reference anywhere in first century literature ( which was not put there by later xtians to make up for what they saw as the embarrassing lack of notice paid to their so-called "god,") would be enough to get me to concede the point that there was a Yeshua bar Yosep doing something in first century Palestine. Can you not see that trying to suggest that Caligula or Livy did not exist either does not at all help your godboy into existence?

[tackattack]

I'm not trying to be clever(I'm pretty sure it's transparent), I just think it's humorous. So you're saying that only a antagonistic historically verifiable outside source of the bible, whos intentions and motives are not in question, and have physical taters of their writings is necessary for you to believe. So how can you objectively assume the moral constraints and motives of the writers such as Suetonius, yet claim a major conspiracy on the parts of Flavius, Pliny, etc. How do you explain 40+ writers in the bible alone, with more physical shreds of documentation than yours for Livy and conclude that Jesus emphatically doesn't exist, yet Livy does? I'm not arguing that neither existed but I accept both most likely exist, I just don't assume the intentions of writers of an area I wasn't present in.

[chatpilot]

tackattack wrote: "How do you explain 40+ writers in the bible alone, with more physical shreds of documentation than yours for Livy and conclude that Jesus emphatically doesn't exist, yet Livy does?"

What you left out in the above statement is that those so called 40+ writers had several things that worked against them. The first is that they were all alleged believers or followers of the Christian religion. None of them knew Jesus personally and so all the accounts we have of him are 2,3,4 person accounts of him. Not to mention that those so called 40+ authors you boast about are anonymous authors and many of those books were not even written by the names that were attached to them.

The synoptic gospels which are supposed to be a sort of biography of Jesus were not introduced till about 40 years after his alleged death, when they were first known they were anonymous works with no authors names attached to them, this did not happen until the middle of the second century. It is my opinion that Jesus was a sort of after thought due to the length of time it took to present his story and the fact that the epistles were much earlier works. This assessment does not include the fact that there are many inconsistencies in the gospels regarding the life of Jesus and his works. There are also times in the bible where it would state that Jesus was alone in prayer and the apostles slept, yet they still were able to narrate what he said and even thought as he prayed!! If that does not stink of fiction to you then I don't know what fiction is.

[Minimalist]

Why does it have to be "antagonistic?"

Consider this from Book VII 3:4 of Pliny's Natural History.

(4) The change of females into males is undoubtedly no fable. We find it stated in the Annals, that, in the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus and C. Cassius Longinus,17 a girl, who was living at Casinum18 with her parents, was changed into a boy; and that, by the command of the Aruspices, he was con- veyed away to a desert island.

Simple reporting of an alleged miraculous event. There is no apparent hostility or antagonism. I don't think anyone in his right mind believes such bullshit but Pliny wrote it down. Pliny, who died in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, simply seems to have never heard of such a miraculous event as your godboy coming back from the dead, and it was more than 40 years earlier according to your fables so time enough I would think for the story to have gotten around--had it ever happened. Curious but perhaps you are willing to overlook such things in your zeal to "believe?"


But you wish to equate 40+ writers...all copying from each other and pushing different variants of the same story... as evidence that the story is true, if I get your as-you-say "transparent" attempt. Does that make Captain Kirk real because of all the fan books which have been written about the Star Trek series?

"Antagonistic" is not required. But someone who does not have a vested interest in pushing this bullshit story most certainly is. You need to concentrate on the observation "one lies and the other swears to it" before pursuing this line of reasoning. Only believers tell us about jesus. How very convenient.

[LEDO]

I would think as atheists we would all agree that the miracles of Jesus, his resurrection, and virgin birth are fictional. I would claim his crucifixion and nativity scene along with Herod's role is also fictional. I would say it was highly improbable he was from Nazareth with heavy doubts about John the Baptist being historical.

However, after we "strip away the myth from the man" what do we have left? Is it possible that some teacher/rabbi named Jesus whose brother was James existed in Jerusalem about 20-30 AD or so and made a name for himself?

If we conclude that Jesus is 100% fictional we now enter into a conspiracy theory which would involve Paul as well as the mouth piece of the conspiracy. Clearly this would be the biggest conspiracy theory outside of Pippy's attempt to control the world with his Sleestack army.

[Minimalist]

If we conclude that Jesus is 100% fictional we now enter into a conspiracy theory which would involve Paul as well as the mouth piece of the conspiracy.

What about Zeus, Ledo? The first people to claim that he was "100% fictional" are our resident theists, yet we have exactly the same kind of devotional writing and religious practices growing up about the Olympian gods. Same for Osiris who was worshiped in Egypt for at least 3,000 years (twice as long as jc.) Was Zeus a "conspiracy", too?

To assert that there MUST be a historical kernel about jesus and not allow a similar claim for every other god invented by the fertile minds of men is simply special pleading. Jesus is merely the last manifestation of the Dying/Resurrected god which was a common motif throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.

[LEDO]

Zeus was a long standing cosmic diety. I don't believe anyone saw him as a god who was a man on earth. I would agree there is a long standing myth element to Jesus. There were myth elements added to a number of real people such as Alexander, Caesar, and Pythagoras. That was common to the Roman writings of the day. It would be equally possible they added myth elements to an historical Jesus in order to deify him. The OT is filled with cosmic myth combined with a touch of history. It was how they wrote. Osiris was the constellation Orion. Nimrod was Orion. Herod, an historical figure was also Orion.

[Minimalist]

I don't believe anyone saw him as a god who was a man on earth.

Agreed, with the exception of Zeus' occasional forays to earth to grab a little tail, but so what? At some point humanity invented these tales about Zeus and his fellow Olympians just like every other god. And Asclepius and Apollonius of Tyana were also considered earthly "gods." "Paul's" vision of god has him operating on the same heavenly plain as Zeus and all the rest....Paul doesn't know jack shit about Nazareth, Pilate, Mary, Joseph, etc.

Could the xtians greatest ploy have been a marketing strategy that claimed that their boy was "real?" Perhaps.

Still doesn't seem as if anyone in the first century knew anything about it.

[LEDO]

I don't believe anyone saw him as a god who was a man on earth.

Agreed, with the exception of Zeus' occasional forays to earth to grab a little tail, but so what? At some point humanity invented these tales about Zeus and his fellow Olympians just like every other god. And Asclepius and Apollonius of Tyana were also considered earthly "gods." "Paul's" vision of god has him operating on the same heavenly plain as Zeus and all the rest....Paul doesn't know jack shit about Nazareth, Pilate, Mary, Joseph, etc.

Could the xtians greatest ploy have been a marketing strategy that claimed that their boy was "real?" Perhaps.

Still doesn't seem as if anyone in the first century knew anything about it.

I agree Paul did not know anything about the mythical Jesus, or if he did, he didn't say anything. I don't think he would have mentioned Jesus' mother even if he knew her personally. What would be the point? I know a lot of people I never write about.

[theVOID]

I don't believe anyone saw him as a god who was a man on earth.

Agreed, with the exception of Zeus' occasional forays to earth to grab a little tail, but so what? At some point humanity invented these tales about Zeus and his fellow Olympians just like every other god. And Asclepius and Apollonius of Tyana were also considered earthly "gods." "Paul's" vision of god has him operating on the same heavenly plain as Zeus and all the rest....Paul doesn't know jack shit about Nazareth, Pilate, Mary, Joseph, etc.

Could the xtians greatest ploy have been a marketing strategy that claimed that their boy was "real?" Perhaps.

Still doesn't seem as if anyone in the first century knew anything about it.

I agree Paul did not know anything about the mythical Jesus, or if he did, he didn't say anything. I don't think he would have mentioned Jesus' mother even if he knew her personally. What would be the point? I know a lot of people I never write about.

That's because none of your friends mothers claim to have been a virgin when they conceived the son of God.