Koran older than Mohammed?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Paul and James had extensive dealings, and there are fairly clear indications of tensions between them. But the evidence doesn't point to tensions in beliefs; rather, to tensions in practice; they argued about whether Christians should observe Jewish ritual law, whether Gentile converts to the movement had to become Jews, etc, etc. But if they ever argued about the resurrection, nobody recorded it.

But the substance of these arguments is actually about the difference between Christanity and Judaism, ie whether they were still Jews or not. And the biggest difference of all is whether Jesus was a god or not. I admit I have not read the gospel of James entirely, but AFAIK it does not mention anything about a resurrection? And for this reason Martin Luther was critical of it, saying it was "pithy" and barely deserved to be considered a biblical gospel at all.

Peregrinus wrote: »

James was never a Jewish high priest, or a Jewish priest of any kind. All the evidence is that as leader of the Jerusalem Christians he was at odds with the Temple priesthood.

Quoting the source of all knowledge (wikipedia)

In describing James' ascetic lifestyle, De Viris Illustribus quotes Hegesippus' account of James from the fifth book of Hegesippus' lost Commentaries:

After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees.

Since it was unlawful for anyone but the High Priest of the Temple to enter the Holy of Holies, and then only once a year on Yom Kippur, Jerome's quotation from Hegesippus indicates that James was considered a High Priest.

And even though the source for Hegesippus is indirect, he seems to have been a reliable and knowledgable writer.

So I think its plausible that Paul waited till after the death of James and then steered the movement in a different direction. And who would know more about about the original philosophy and intentions of the movement, a camel kneed priest and the brother of the founder who was there from the start, or an ex-Roman soldier who had a mental breakdown on the road to Damascus, and had never even met Jesus?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

But the substance of these arguments is actually about the difference between Christanity and Judaism, ie whether they were still Jews or not. And the biggest difference of all is whether Jesus was a god or not. I admit I have not read the gospel of James entirely, but AFAIK it does not mention anything about a resurrection? And for this reason Martin Luther was critical of it, saying it was "pithy" and barely deserved to be considered a biblical gospel at all.

The "Gospel of James" is certainly not by James, the brother of the Lord. It dates from about AD 150. It deals exclusively with the infancy of Jesus so, regardless of who it is by, it has nothing to say about the resurrection. It has never been considered canonical scripture by any group that we know of.

The Letter of James is canonical scripture. The author identifies himself as "James", but not particularly as that James. Tradition says he is that James; scholarship says that's possible, but there are other possibilities.

The work is not historical in nature. It's whats called "wisdom literature", consisting of precepts and moral exhortations. It's largely directed towards encouragin the community to be strong in times of tribulation. It doesn't mention the resurrection but, then, it doesn't mention any event from the life of Jesus, so not too much can be inferred from that.

recedite wrote: »

Quoting the source of all knowledge (wikipedia)

And even though the source for Hegesippus is indirect, he seems to have been a reliable and knowledgable writer.

To be a Jewish priest you had to be of the tribe of Levi - the status was hereditary. Jesus wasn't of the tribe of Levi, and therefore neither was James, his brother. So both Hegesippus and his (Jewish) readership knew that it was impossible for James actually to have been the High Priest. I think what Hegesippus is saying here is that, as leader of the Jerusalem Church, James was tantamount to being the High Priest; he fulfilled for the Jesus movement the role that the High Priest fulfilled for the people of Israel, living in (ritual) purity and dedicating his life to interceding before God on behalf of the people.

But nobody at the Temple considered him the High Priest, or a priest at all, and had he tried to enter the Holy of Holies he would have been stopped by the Temple guards and dealt with fairly harshly. Hegesippus and his readership both knew thos.

recedite wrote: »

So I think its plausible that Paul waited till after the death of James and then steered the movement in a different direction. And who would know more about about the original philosophy and intentions of the movement, a camel kneed priest and the brother of the founder who was there from the start, or an ex-Roman soldier who had a mental breakdown on the road to Damascus, and had never even met Jesus?

Nitpick: Paul was never a Roman soldier.

Bigger nitpick: Paul didn't wait for the death of James to try to steer the movement. There were constant tensions, arguments, compromises and power struggles between Paul and James. These are recorded in Acts.

Still bigger nitpick: Paul didn't outlive James or, if he did, not by much. What resolved the fights between them was Paul leaving and going off to Rome, while James stayed in Jerusalem. They died within a couple of years of each other and, if Paul did outlive James, he was in prison for most or all of that time. So, whatever accounts for his enduring influence, it's not that.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

The "Gospel of James" is certainly not by James, the brother of the Lord. It dates from about AD 150. It deals exclusively with the infancy of Jesus so, regardless of who it is by, it has nothing to say about the resurrection. It has never been considered canonical scripture by any group that we know of.

......

Pardon the intrusion, but perhaps recedite intended to refer to the Gospel of Thomas? It could be dated to 40 A.D. (though admittedly it could have been composed/compiled up to a century after that) and iirc it also does not mention the Resurrection?

Not that I'm in any great hurry to get back into the Historicity of Jesus debate again...

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But nobody at the Temple considered him the High Priest, or a priest at all, and had he tried to enter the Holy of Holies he would have been stopped by the Temple guards and dealt with fairly harshly.

Although the Jerome/Hegesippus quote does say "He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies".

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Paul was never a Roman soldier.

Gestapo then? He seemed to be a Jewish Roman citizen from modern day Turkey, having some official position that involved arresting and extraditing troublesome Jews in Judea.

pauldla wrote: »

Pardon the intrusion, but perhaps recedite intended to refer to the Gospel of Thomas?

Eh... yes of course. (cough)

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

"He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies"

Just can't read that without suppressing a giggle.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Pardon the intrusion, but perhaps recedite intended to refer to the Gospel of Thomas? It could be dated to 40 A.D. (though admittedly it could have been composed/compiled up to a century after that) and iirc it also does not mention the Resurrection?

It's a sayings gospel. Doesn't contain any biographical information at all - just a collection of sayings, dialogues and parables attributed to Jesus with no narrative context at all.

So, no, it doesn't mention the resurrection, but we can't infer very much from that.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Gestapo then? He seemed to be a Jewish Roman citizen from modern day Turkey, having some official position that involved arresting and extraditing troublesome Jews in Judea.

We have no reason to think that he ever worked for the Romans, or had any official position with them.

He was a Roman citizen from birth, and Jewish by descent, upbringing and practice. He came from a devout Jewish family and was himself devout. He was born in Tarsus, in modern Turkey, but was sent to Jerusalem for his education. He was educated in a tradition which covered not only the Jewish Law and Prophets, but classical literature, philosophy, and ethics. He wrote excellent Greek, and it was probably his first language from birth, but he also had Hebrew and very likely Aramaic.

We don't know how he made his living before his conversion. He tells us himself that he persecuted the early Christians, but he doesn't suggest that he did so on behalf of the Roman authorities, and we have no reason to surmise that he did. (At the time, the Roman authorities had a generally hands-off attitude to Jews, and took no interest at all in intra-Judaic disputes.) If he was acting on anybody's behalf at all, it would have been on behalf of the Temple authorities. On the other hand, as a Pharisee, he would have been somewhat distant from the Temple authorities. So it is most likely that he persecuted the Christians as an enthusiastic amateur - i.e. nobody commissioned him or paid him to do it; he just did it out of zeal.

FISMA.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Considering that science showed quite conclusively that the shroud of turin is a fake from around the 12th Century and not the 1st Century, a discrepancy of over 1100 years

Wrong.

Have a read over Ray Rogers', a self proclaimed atheist and lead scientist for the Shroud of Turin Research Project's, last paper, published by Thermochimica Acta entitled "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin," in which he refutes everything you stated in the above quote.

If reading scientific papers is not your forte, a youtube video entitled Shroud of Turin ..The New Evidence Rogers states in the first 22 seconds: "I can come very close to proving that it was used to bury the historic Jesus."

In the paper's abstract, quoted below, Rogers comments on the results cited by yourself: "The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."

Scroll to 24:19 to see how Sue Benford and her husband Joe Marino, neither of which have a scientific background, were able to show how mistakes made by the "best scientists" led to the incorrect data and now invalid statements scientists concluded in 1988, repeated above by yourself.

Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin
Raymond N. Rogers
Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, 1961 Cumbres Patio, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA
Received 14 April 2004; received in revised form 14 April 2004; accepted 12 September 2004

Abstract
In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.

Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Overheal

The Book of Judah is a legit find though, right?

Chucken

For a gang who don't believe, I have to admire how much is known....about the things that aren't believed in.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a sayings gospel. Doesn't contain any biographical information at all - just a collection of sayings, dialogues and parables attributed to Jesus with no narrative context at all.

So, no, it doesn't mention the resurrection, but we can't infer very much from that.

Yes, it IS a sayings gospel. And yes, it doesn't mention the resurrection. And yes, we can't infer very much from it, though it does strike me as VERY odd that there is no mention at all to the central, defining moment of Christianity.

When my mate Kevin rises from the dead, I'll be sure to put together a collection of his works that mention nothing about his return from the dead but that does include his opinion of Fine Gael. ((102) Jesus said, "Woe to the pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat.")

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Yes, it IS a sayings gospel. And yes, it doesn't mention the resurrection. And yes, we can't infer very much from it, though it does strike me as VERY odd that there is no mention at all to the central, defining moment of Christianity.

When my mate Kevin rises from the dead, I'll be sure to put together a collection of his works that mention nothing about his return from the dead but that does include his opinion of Fine Gael. ((102) Jesus said, "Woe to the pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat.")

I dunno. if a book of quotations from Oscar Wilde omits to mention his homosexuality, does that mean he wasn't really homosexual?

What you're really saying here, Paul, is that when your mate Kevin rises from the dead you won't write a sayings gospel. Well, bully for you. But we know that the author of Thomas did write a sayings gospel because, look, there it is.

A sayings gospel would only be of interest to people who already regarded Jesus as a significant figure, and presumably that was Thomas's intended readership. We can't tell, from the sayings gospel alone, why they regarded Jesus as a significant figure; in the nature of things, a sayings gospel doesn't address that. So it tells us nothing, one way or the other, about whether they regarded him as significant because he rose from the dead, or for some other reason.

Peregrinus

Overheal wrote: »

The Book of Judah is a legit find though, right?

Well, it's not really a "find" in the sense that it's been known (to Western Christianity" since at least the 13th century, and more or less forever to Eastern Christianity. So it was never "lost".

As to whether it's "legit", probably not, in the fundamentalist biblical sense. It purports to have been written by, or is traditionally attributed to, Judah, one of the twelve sons of the Old Testament patriarch Jacob. SFAIK, no scholar thinks it could possibly be by Judah, or from that period. It may be old enough to predate Christianity, or it may have been written (in Greek, and by Christians) as late as the second century, but based on some pre-existing semitic-language text, now lost.

For obvious reasons, it makes no claims about Jesus, his family, his resurrection, etc. It doesn't mention him at all.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. if a book of quotations from Oscar Wilde omits to mention his homosexuality, does that mean he wasn't really homosexual?

Is homosexuality as remarkable as coming back from the dead three days after a gruesome public execution, though?

What you're really saying here, Paul, is that when your mate Kevin rises from the dead you won't write a sayings gospel. Well, bully for you. But we know that the author of Thomas did write a sayings gospel because, look, there it is.

Well I just might. Kevin really has no time for pharisees at all. 'East Romans', he insists on calling them (though I point out to him that that isn't actually a correct term). He's quite witty when he's had a glass of wine or two, actually (though he never seems to buy any. I wonder where he's getting it from).

But yes, the author of Thomas DID write a sayings gospel. Which contains no mention of the resurrection.

A sayings gospel would only be of interest to people who already regarded Jesus as a significant figure, and presumably that was Thomas's intended readership. We can't tell, from the sayings gospel alone, why they regarded Jesus as a significant figure; in the nature of things, a sayings gospel doesn't address that. So it tells us nothing, one way or the other, about whether they regarded him as significant because he rose from the dead, or for some other reason.

Yes, this is true; a collection of sayings would seem to indicate a noteworthy individual (which is probably why 'The Collected Wit of pauldla' remains sadly unpublished. And it's not even that long). But The Most Significant Event In Christianity warrants not even a hint of a mention in Thomas. It's as if he never talked about it, either before or after the event, and neither did anybody else. The discerning reader must ask, why such coyness?

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Is homosexuality as remarkable as coming back from the dead three days after a gruesome public execution, though?

Well, it was much remarked upon at the time, I believe.

pauldla wrote: »

But yes, the author of Thomas DID write a sayings gospel. Which contains no mention of the resurrection.

If it contained any mention of the resurrection, Paul, it wouldn't be a sayings gospel, would it?

pauldla wrote: »

Yes, this is true; a collection of sayings would seem to indicate a noteworthy individual (which is probably why 'The Collected Wit of pauldla' remains sadly unpublished. And it's not even that long).

I’d buy it!

pauldla wrote: »

But The Most Significant Event In Christianity warrants not even a hint of a mention in Thomas. It's as if he never talked about it, either before or after the event, and neither did anybody else. The discerning reader must ask, why such coyness?

Oh, I get you. Your point is not so much that there’s no authorial mention of the resurrection, which we wouldn’t expect in a sayings gospel, as that none of the sayings Thomas attributes to Jesus appear to refer to his own resurrection.

That’s (almost) true. But reflect that very few of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the canonical gospels appear to refer to his resurrection either, and the authors offer reasons for this. Even after his resurrection, Jesus doesn’t talk about his resurrection. The evidence for the resurrection in the canonical gospels largely consists of forensic accounts of the empty tomb, plus accounts of the Christophanies. You wouldn’t expect those to be replicated in a sayings gospel.

There are a couple of rather elliptical sayings in the canonicals that the authors tell us refer to the resurrection (notably “destroy this temple . . . “). The authors say things to the effect that, later, we came to understand that this was a reference to the resurrection but at the time we had no clue. (And, as it happens, there’s a version of the “destroy this temple . . . “ saying in Thomas, minus of course the authorial commentary.)

So, if we assume Thomas to be an authentic account of things Jesus said, or an authentic account of what the early Christian community believed or understood Jesus to have said, and if we assume that it is earlier than any other accounts we have, all it tells us is that Jesus didn’t talk about his own resurrection. And the canonicals tell us the same thing, so I don’t think that gets us very far.

robindch

Chucken wrote: »

For a gang who don't believe, I have to admire how much is known.

Two reasons:

Firstly, religion is a potent social force in most societies including our own, so it's useful to understand why this might be the case and what can be done to minimize its many downsides.

Secondly, some people here were religious in the past. Hell, some still are

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

We have no reason to think that he ever worked for the Romans, or had any official position with them. ..

We don't know how he made his living before his conversion. He tells us himself that he persecuted the early Christians, but he doesn't suggest that he did so on behalf of the Roman authorities, and we have no reason to surmise that he did. (At the time, the Roman authorities had a generally hands-off attitude to Jews, and took no interest at all in intra-Judaic disputes.) If he was acting on anybody's behalf at all, it would have been on behalf of the Temple authorities. On the other hand, as a Pharisee, he would have been somewhat distant from the Temple authorities. So it is most likely that he persecuted the Christians as an enthusiastic amateur - i.e. nobody commissioned him or paid him to do it; he just did it out of zeal.

Yes, I've looked into it a bit more and Paul did not work for the Romans. He worked for (or at least derived his authority from) Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem. This is the same guy who headed up the religious court (the Sanhedrin) when Jesus was interrogated and handed over to the Roman prefect/governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, just prior to the crucifixion.
Damascus was in a different jurisdiction, outside Judea, governed locally by Nabateans (arabs) But the Romans had granted Caiaphas the authority to extradite dissident Jews from other provinces, and so Caiaphas provided Saul/Paul with "letters" giving him the power of arrest in Damascus, as ultimately sanctioned by Rome.

The interesting thing about this is that the dissident Jews which were considered heretics, were largely fleeing Judea. These were the ones that said the prophet Jesus had resurrected from the dead and was a god.

Whereas James was happily ensconced in Jerusalem as leader of the official christian Jewish sect, and able to saunter in and out of the holiest temples without any bother at all. Why was he not arrested, or forced to flee Judea? Maybe because his was the original version of Christianity which saw Jesus as a prophet and a martyr, but not a god. A sect within Judaism.
"As it happens" according to modern Christianity, James and company never mentioned anything about a resurrection. But we are "not to read anything into that".

After Saul had his nervous breakdown and became Paul, he himself ended up fleeing Judea and presumably had to live out his days trying to avoid his successor in his old job, who was still extraditing heretical jews back to Jerusalem. It all turned out for the best though, because the pagans to the north proved receptive to the heresy and eventually outnumbered and eclipsed those who stayed behind in Judea.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

. . . Whereas James was happily ensconced in Jerusalem as leader of the official christian Jewish sect, and able to saunter in and out of the holiest temples without any bother at all. Why was he not arrested, or forced to flee Judea? Maybe because his was the original version of Christianity which saw Jesus as a prophet and a martyr, but not a god. A sect within Judaism.

There was no “official Christian Jewish sect”; Christian Jews were always looked upon with suspicion by the Jewish authorities, subjected to varying degrees of persecution and eventually formally expelled. James only became leader of the Jerusalem church when his predecessor, Peter, escaped from prison and fled Jerusalem; does this suggest to you that he was going to have an easy time of it? We have no reason to think that James was able to “saunter in and out of the holiest temples without any bother at all”. There was only one Temple, and James was never able to go further than the inner courtyard, which any male Jew could do. And he couldn’t even do that in safety for much of the time.

As for why he was not arrested, do you know that he wasn’t? Josephus reports that he was not only arrested but tried and executed by stoning; your friend Hegesippus agrees.

recedite wrote: »

"As it happens" according to modern Christianity, James and company never mentioned anything about a resurrection. But we are "not to read anything into that".

I don’t know what modern Christian has told you this but, whoever he is, you should be a bit less credulous of what he tells you. We know little of what James said; the one text we have that is possibly by him doesn’t mention resurrection, but it’s about an entirely different topic. I don’t think we can infer that, because he doesn’t mention it here, he never spoke of it at all. Still less can we infer that no other Jerusalem Christian spoke of it either.

Plus, we should note that in 1 Cor 15 Paul names James as one of the people to whom the risen Christ has appeared. As James was still alive at this time, and a significant figure in the Christian movement, Paul must have been reasonably confident that James wasn’t likely to contradict him on this point. And the one Jewish-Christian text that has partly survived, the Gospel of the Hebrews, also has the risen Jesus appearing to James. And it has James celebrating the Eucharist explicitly as a celebration of the resurrection.

Finally, we should note that accounts of the arguments between Paul and the Jerusalem Jewish Christians appear both in Paul's own writings and in Acts. There is no suggestion that the resurrection was a point of argument.

So the evidence that James in particular, or Jewish Christianity in general, denied or lacked any belief in the resurrection is really not that strong.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

There was no “official Christian Jewish sect”; Christian Jews were always looked upon with suspicion by the Jewish authorities, subjected to varying degrees of persecution and eventually formally expelled.

We don't know that what labels they used, but we know that Saul was being sent all the way to Damascus to round up a certain type of christian, while another type of christian was able to live freely in Jerusalem right under the noses of the "persecuters".

Peregrinus wrote: »

James only became leader of the Jerusalem church when his predecessor, Peter, escaped from prison and fled Jerusalem; does this suggest to you that he was going to have an easy time of it?

Peter was supposedly broken out of jail by an angel, and subsequently fled to Antioch in Greece/modern Turkey, and then on to Rome where he became the head honcho. Far away from the clutches of the Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem.
Whereas James was obviously of a different ilk, because he was allowed to stay. Those who stayed had to be careful what teachings they were spreading, and to avoid any heresies. Even Stephen who was stoned to death, had protested that he was only following jewish/mosaic law, and he referred to Jesus as the son-of-man, not the son of god. He still got himself martyred though.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We have no reason to think that James was able to “saunter in and out of the holiest temples without any bother at all”. There was only one Temple, and James was never able to go further than the inner courtyard, which any male Jew could do. And he couldn’t even do that in safety for much of the time.

You're still not addressing that Jerome/Hegesippus quote which says he did go inside. Right into "the holy of holies". So I assume you don't accept that as being accurate?

As for why he was not arrested, do you know that he wasn’t? Josephus reports that he was not only arrested but tried and executed by stoning; your friend Hegesippus agrees.

Yes, but that was 18 years later, after a dispute with a different High Priest, aptly known as Ananus. And the motivation was suspect; there was some political turmoil at the time, which Ananus seems to have taken advantage of to settle a personal score. But when the new Roman procurator arrived, people complained about the killing, and Ananus was then removed from his position as High Priest of Jerusalem by the civil authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus#Death
So James lasted a comparatively long time in Jerusalem, as the top man in the christian sect of the pharisees from about CE 44 to CE 62.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

We don't know that what labels they used, but we know that Saul was being sent all the way to Damascus to round up a certain type of christian, while another type of christian was able to live freely in Jerusalem right under the noses of the "persecuters".

Hold on, hold on. We don't know anything of the kind.

In the first place, the suggestion way back in post #30 was that "Christianity", incorporating a belief in the resurrection, was a Pauline invention, distinct from the original Jewish Christiantity, not incorporating that belief.

But, obviously, there is no Pauline Christianity before the conversion of Paul. So who exactly were these Damascene Christians, and in what point did they differ from the Jewish Christians? What is your evidence for the existence of this schism, and what was the schism about?

You seem to be assuming that there must have been a schism, because Paul was persecuting the Damascene Christians on behalf of the Temple authorities while the Jerusalem Christians were "living freely in Jerusalem right under the noses of the persecutors". But on what do you base the latter claim? Bear in mind that this was before Jame's time as leader; Peter was the leader of the Jewish Christians. He was repeatedly arrested and arraigned before the Sanhedrin, along with other Christians, and eventually had to leave Jerusalem. Not much there to support your "living freely" theory, then.

recedite wrote: »

Peter was supposedly broken out of jail by an angel, and subsequently fled to Antioch in Greece/modern Turkey, and then on to Rome where he became the head honcho. Far away from the clutches of the Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem.
Whereas James was obviously of a different ilk, because he was allowed to stay. Those who stayed had to be careful what teachings they were spreading, and to avoid any heresies. Even Stephen who was stoned to death, had protested that he was only following jewish/mosaic law, and he referred to Jesus as the son-of-man, not the son of god. He still got himself martyred though.

James wasn't "allowed to stay"; he simply didn't choose to flee. And look what happened.

recedite wrote: »

You're still not addressing that Jerome/Hegesippus quote which says he did go inside. Right into "the holy of holies". So I assume you don't accept that as being accurate?

I addressed it back in post #33. For the reasons pointed out there, it is absolutely impossible that James would ever have been allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, or that he could have survived any attempt to do so. Hegesippus knew this; his (Jewish) intended readership knew this; he knew that they knew this. I suggested back in post #33 that Hegisippus meant what he wrote allegorically; James was to the Christian community what the High Priest was to the Jewish people, and he underlines this by figuratively assigning to him the purity rituals and intercessory functions of the High Priest.

I suppose another possibility is that Hegesippus never wrote this at all. We only have this at second hand, in a passage quoted in Eusebius. But Eusebius quotes are generally reliable, so I think the more likely explanation is that Hegesippus did write this, but intended it figuratively. If you know of a scholar who thinks it was literally true, now would be a good time to name him.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but that was 18 years later, after a dispute with a different High Priest, aptly known as Ananus. And the motivation was suspect; there was some political turmoil at the time, which Ananus seems to have taken advantage of to settle a personal score. But when the new Roman procurator arrived, people complained about the killing, and Ananus was then removed from his position as High Priest of Jerusalem by the civil authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus#Death
So James lasted a comparatively long time in Jerusalem, as the top man in the christian sect of the pharisees from about CE 44 to CE 62.

James lasted about 18 years to Peter's about 12. But, given the circumstances in which he came to office, and the circumstances in which he left, I really don't buy the picture you paint of bucolic harmony prevailing in between. We know that during this time the Christian movement formalised the admission of Gentiles (AD 50) and this was one of the major things that angered the Temple authorities.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the first place, the suggestion way back in post #30 was that "Christianity", incorporating a belief in the resurrection, was a Pauline invention, distinct from the original Jewish Christiantity, not incorporating that belief.

Nobody is saying that Paul invented the belief, it must have been already circulating. But he became one of its leading proponents, and with Peter, he took this heretical version of the originally Jewish Christian sect northwards to Greece and Rome where it caught on.

Bear in mind that this was before Jame's time as leader; Peter was the leader of the Jewish Christians. He was repeatedly arrested and arraigned before the Sanhedrin, along with other Christians, and eventually had to leave Jerusalem. Not much there to support your "living freely" theory, then.

Peter apparently fell in with the resurrection/son of god camp at some point. Its not clear that he had been the leader in Jerusalem though. Another James, "the son of Zebedee" may have been more influential. Anyway, the point is, Peter had to flee just like Paul because he subscribed to the heretical version of events.

I addressed it back in post #33. For the reasons pointed out there, it is absolutely impossible that James would ever have been allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, or that he could have survived any attempt to do so. Hegesippus knew this; his (Jewish) intended readership knew this; he knew that they knew this. I suggested back in post #33 that Hegisippus meant what he wrote allegorically; James was to the Christian community what the High Priest was to the Jewish people, and he underlines this by figuratively assigning to him the purity rituals and intercessory functions of the High Priest.

I see. It was just a metaphor then.
Funny how when all other arguments fail to explain something, the religious stance always resorts to "it was just a metaphor".

James lasted about 18 years to Peter's about 12. But, given the circumstances in which he came to office, and the circumstances in which he left, I really don't buy the picture you paint of bucolic harmony prevailing in between. We know that during this time the Christian movement formalised the admission of Gentiles (AD 50) and this was one of the major things that angered the Temple authorities.

18 years is a long time. Converting gentiles to Judaism without requiring them to be circumcised was about the most controversial thing James the Just ever got involved in. That's how he survived so long as a priest in Jerusalem.
Converting the gentiles was nothing compared to preaching that a dead prophet rose from the dead and was actually god. Now that's a real heresy, from a Jewish point of view. And a Muslim one too BTW.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Nobody is saying that Paul invented the belief, it must have been already circulating. But he became one of its leading proponents, and with Peter, he took this heretical version of the originally Jewish Christian sect northwards to Greece and Rome where it caught on.

If it was already circulating before Paul, then it’s a very, very early Christian belief, since Paul’s conversion is thought to have happened by, at the latest, AD 36. And if Peter, the first leader of the Jerusalem church, was one of the proponents of belief in the resurrection, your theory that the Jerusalem church did not hold this belief looks a bit shaky.

recedite wrote: »

Peter apparently fell in with the resurrection/son of god camp at some point.

Or, the parsimonious explanation, Peter was in that camp all along. You may be prepared to rule this out a priori, but I am not. Evidence, please.

recedite wrote: »

Its not clear that he had been the leader in Jerusalem though. Another James, "the son of Zebedee" may have been more influential. Anyway, the point is, Peter had to flee just like Paul because he subscribed to the heretical version of events.

That’s only the point if we assume without evidence that this version of events was “heretical”. Peter was at the very least a significant figure in the Jerusalem Christian movement but, even if we assume that James the son of Zebedee was more influential, have we any reason to think that he denied the resurrection? Can you, in fact, name a single Jewish Christian who did? I have yet to see you produce any evidence at all that the Jerusalem Christians denied the resurrection.

recedite wrote: »

I see. It was just a metaphor then.

Funny how when all other arguments fail to explain something, the religious stance always resorts to "it was just a metaphor".

Whereas the non-religious stance is apparently to insist on the literal truth of a claim which we know, historically, cannot be true. I had no idea that Hegesippus was your revealed scripture, rec, and that you approached his writings with the narrow mindset and unquestioning faith of a fundamentalist primitive Baptist.

I have never found fundamentalist literalism appealing. I am surprised to find you togging out, intellectually speaking, with some of the stupidest and most insecure people on the planet. Still, there we go. I suppose it at least puts the lie to the notion that atheism is more intellectually respectable than religious belief.

recedite wrote: »

18 years is a long time. Converting gentiles to Judaism without requiring them to be circumcised was about the most controversial thing James the Just ever got involved in. That's how he survived so long as a priest in Jerusalem.
Converting the gentiles was nothing compared to preaching that a dead prophet rose from the dead and was actually god. Now that's a real heresy, from a Jewish point of view. And a Muslim one too BTW.

Oh, that he was actually god, yes, definitely a heresy. But you’re confusing belief in the resurrection with belief in the divinity of Christ. Claiming that somebody rose from the dead is not heretical in Jewish terms; the OT contains several instances. If you want to argue that the Jewish church did not, in James’s time at any rate, preach the divinity of Christ, go for it. I will back you up. But the issue in this thread is whether they preached the resurrection of Christ. And so far I’ve seen you support your position on that with a lot of strong assertions, a fundamentalist biblical literalist interpretation of the writing of Hegesippus and, now, a convenient confusion of the notions of resurrection and divinity. You can see why I’m not convinced, rec. Or, at least, I hope you can.

Nodin

Really must have been a click bait article if we're back on the Bible this quick.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you want to argue that the Jewish church did not, in James’s time at any rate, preach the divinity of Christ, go for it. I will back you up. But the issue in this thread is whether they preached the resurrection of Christ.

If you're saying the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem must not have preached the divinity of Jesus, otherwise they could not have stayed there, then we are in agreement.
As for the resurrection of Jesus, you're right that its not necessarily a heresy if God did it. On this basis Jesus would just be an ordinary mortal who was the subject of an external miracle. But in the previous OT resurrections, the resurrectees just got up and resumed their lives, whereas Jesus disappeared. But allegedly he appeared to a few people before ascending into heaven. I think this is the heresy; if he had resumed his normal life, it would have been a miracle attributed to the Jewish god. If he ascended bodily to heaven, it implies that he was god.

Which takes us back to the start of this tangent; could the two brothers James and Jesus both have been buried in the family mausoleum? Yes, if James had not preached the combined resurrection/bodily ascension. James could have continued to live in Jerusalem as head of a sect which remembered his brother as a dead prophet. When James himself was killed much later under similar circumstances (denounced by the High Priest) James' epitaph could have been that he was the brother of the more famous martyr, because by then, those who preached the divinity of Jesus would have been quite numerous outside Jerusalem.

josephryan1989

Tom Holland's book The Shadow Of The Sword appears to suggest that with Byzantine and Persian on the wane that Arab mercenaries and rulers who fought as proxies one side or the other rival empire decided to go it alone and create their own empire.
Islam appears to be an Arab version of Judaism in the same way Roman Christianity stole the clothing of Judaism to create a pan European religion. Who Muhammad actually was is anybody's guess. Probably one of many Arab prophets just as Jesus centuries before was just one of many Jewish religious leaders who gained a following.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Which takes us back to the start of this tangent; could the two brothers James and Jesus both have been buried in the family mausoleum? Yes, if James had not preached the combined resurrection/bodily ascension. James could have continued to live in Jerusalem as head of a sect which remembered his brother as a dead prophet. When James himself was killed much later under similar circumstances (denounced by the High Priest) James' epitaph could have been that he was the brother of the more famous martyr, because by then, those who preached the divinity of Jesus would have been quite numerous outside Jerusalem.

But I think you and I are coming at this from opposite ends.

If Jesus, James and Joseph were all buried in the same tomb I would agree that (obviously) this is evidence against the resurrection but, more to the point, it's also evidence that the early Jesus movement did not preach the resurrection.

The thing is, there is no great evidence that Jesus, James and Joseph were all buried in the same tomb. You seem to be arguing that it's plausible that they would have been, because the early Jesus movement did not preach the resurrection. But in fact we have no evidence that the EJM did not P the R, do we? Such evidence as we have suggests strongly that they did - Acts records Peter preaching it pretty much from the get go, and the diverse strands of the Jesus movement that we know of all seem to have shared the belief - we have no record at all of a resurrection-denying Christianity. Hence, even if we do find a tom with a Jesus, a James and a Joseph in it, I'd think it improbable, in the absence of further evidence, that the was the Jesus, James and Joseph.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Acts records Peter preaching it pretty much from the get go, and the diverse strands of the Jesus movement that we know of all seem to have shared the belief - we have no record at all of a resurrection-denying Christianity.

Just as history is written by the victor, so the gospels were assembled by Christians who believed in the divinity and the resurrection of Jesus.
Those original followers of Jesus that existed in Jerusalem under James the Just (apparently Jesus' brother) considered themselves to be a sect within Judaism. Eventually they dwindled away, and we will probably never know exactly what they believed. But it was sufficiently Jewish to allow them to stay on in the holy city, while the more heretical types who believed that Jesus had become a god were forced to flee or be rounded up.

Wibbs

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Islam appears to be an Arab version of Judaism in the same way Roman Christianity stole the clothing of Judaism to create a pan European religion. Who Muhammad actually was is anybody's guess. Probably one of many Arab prophets just as Jesus centuries before was just one of many Jewish religious leaders who gained a following.

It makes sense alright, though I would suggest Islam like Christianity is Judaism rebranded, I'd call it more a rebranded Christianity. It has some commonalities with other "heresies" of the time(EG Jesus being a prophet not the son of god). Some early sources refer to it as a Christian heresy. There's even one report that says they used the cross as a symbol. Others claim(with more likelihood) that it sprang from a mishmash of Jewish and Christian beliefs filtered through a paganism in the area.

It's a very murky era though and virtually all contemporary sources are Islamic sources and most aren't very contemporary at all. Mecca a supposed great trade hub is mentioned on no maps or correspondence until much later. It's also really off the beaten track of any even halfway major trade routes. The earliest coins minted by the nascent Islamic empire make no mention of Mohammed. That came later. The stories of his life come later again. There is a much greater historical gap between Mohammed the possible man and Mohammed the legend than there is between Jesus the possible man and Jesus the legend. Even Mohammed's name is more like an honorific title(Praiseworthy).

Tar.Aldarion

Nodin wrote: »

Really must have been a click bait article if we're back on the Bible this quick.

Don't think it was up to much since it's not unheard of for paper to be much older than what was written on it and for paper to also be reused back then, you scrape off the old writing.