Scholars found first known copy of Jesus’ forbidden teachings to his bro James in original Greek

[Spoken]

I don't have a lot of reading time, but I'm always listening to documentaries while I do my art. And documentaries you know of?

I'll take a look around. Everything history channel does is terrible; I've not found anything I'd take seriously, but I've got some NT scholar friends that might have an idea.

Sorry, but the Bible contradicts itself on the peace tip. Jesus repeatedly says if you dont believe in him, he will punish you forever in the starkest of agonies. Turn the other cheek is nothing but a momentary truce, quite like Islamic conquerors loved to talk about before their fire and judgement took place.

I'd be interested in those passages, your interpretation of the historical context, and how they're situated within the particular task of the given author.
The Quran, the Hebrew Bible, the NT... there is far less conspiracy going on than people think. Various hermeneutical principles (often formed by non-religious thinkers) usually do a fine job of giving reason why prima facia contradictions aren't really contradictions.

That said, there are some SERIOUSLY problematic theological paradigms in the whole Bible that absolutely conflict. Go read Jesus' sermon on the mount and then the book of Joshua. That shit DOES NOT cohere, lol.

 

[Spoken]

Not hundreds of years, and not 20. Around 70 CE is the rough date for the gospels being floated about. However, the speculative work, Q, is thought to be an older text, how old is unknown.

Epistles are older than the Gospels. 1 Thessalonians and Galatians, attributed to Paul by just about every scholar, float around 50 and 55 AD (don't have anything in front of me to check this... google might disagree).
Q is probably an oral tradition (I think?), and apparently has lost favor is the most contemporary scholarship....which I can't be bothered to keep up with.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Epistles are older than the Gospels. 1 Thessalonians and Galatians, attributed to Paul by just about every scholar, float around 50 and 55 AD (don't have anything in front of me to check this... google might disagree).
Q is probably an oral tradition (I think?), and apparently has lost favor is the most contemporary scholarship....which I can't be bothered to keep up with.

That's the thing. These narratives were floating, but nobody can really agree on their authors. Q is speculative because while we dont have any direct evidence of it, biblical scholars are convinced of it's existence because of Mark and John's narratives having some striking similarities. Q is the thought of common narrative.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I'll take a look around. Everything history channel does is terrible; I've not found anything I'd take seriously, but I've got some NT scholar friends that might have an idea.



I'd be interested in those passages, your interpretation of the historical context, and how they're situated within the particular task of the given author.
The Quran, the Hebrew Bible, the NT... there is far less conspiracy going on than people think. Various hermeneutical principles (often formed by non-religious thinkers) usually do a fine job of giving reason why prima facia contradictions aren't really contradictions.

That said, there are some SERIOUSLY problematic theological paradigms in the whole Bible that absolutely conflict. Go read Jesus' sermon on the mount and then the book of Joshua. That shit DOES NOT cohere, lol.

Jesus said love thy neighbor in one verse, hate your family and even your life the next. He says turn the cheek in one, says he will damn all to eternal suffering for rejecting him, and says he will come back with a sword in others.

 

[Spoken]

That's the thing. These narratives were floating, but nobody can really agree on their authors. Q is speculative because while we dont have any direct evidence of it, biblical scholars are convinced of it's existence because of Mark and John's narratives having some striking similarities. Q is the thought of common narrative.

Well, there's a lot of evidence for a shared source, but no, like, physical or tangible evidence it exists as a written document. The old theory goes that Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark, and share another source that Mark doesn't have, which is the mysterious Q. John has nothing to do with it. Totally different gig.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Well, there's a lot of evidence for a shared source, but no, like, physical or tangible evidence it exists as a written document. The old theory goes that Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark, and share another source that Mark doesn't have, which is the mysterious Q. John has nothing to do with it. Totally different gig.

I miswrote, thanks for the clarification. saves me an edit.

 

[Spoken]

Jesus said love thy neighbor in one verse, hate your family and even your life the next. He says turn the cheek in one, says he will damn all to eternal suffering for rejecting him, and says he will come back with a sword in others.

Yeah, and if you dig a bit deeper into those texts you'll find it's problematic than you'd expect. Theological idea of the given gospel and the passage itself tends to soften this stuff a lot. The gospels have their own inconsistencies on stuff, but not on this kind of shit.

 

[fartJokes]

No, atheism is not just a lack of belief in gods. Atheism is the belief that god(s) doesn't exist.

A distinction without a difference.
Do you lack belief in god(s)? A: Yes, B: Yes
Do you believe god doesn't exist? A: Yes, B: Yes
Are you certain god doesn't exist? A: No, B: No

 

[fartJokes]

Yeah because atheists would never have faith over evidence lol

 

[splendica]

Yeah, and if you dig a bit deeper into those texts you'll find it's problematic than you'd expect. Theological idea of the given gospel and the passage itself tends to soften this stuff a lot. The gospels have their own inconsistencies on stuff, but not on this kind of shit.

None of this is true.

 

[Fawlty]

That's the thing. These narratives were floating, but nobody can really agree on their authors. Q is speculative because while we dont have any direct evidence of it, biblical scholars are convinced of it's existence because of Mark and John's narratives having some striking similarities. Q is the thought of common narrative.

I think Richard Carrier has done a nice job lately of kicking the shit out of Q. It needs to go, imo.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12352

 

[MicroBrew]

They had the same mother didnt they?

Jesus was a virgin birth. The traditional Catholic upbringing I had made no mention of him having any siblings.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Jesus was a virgin birth. The traditional Catholic upbringing I had made no mention of him having any siblings.

Really? The bible has a few verses about his family, siblings, and especially James. Why would Catholics think he had no siblings? There's even a gospel passage about his family being so large, it was a talked about thing in the Nazareth community.

 

[JbModest]

Blasphemy.

That's not very diplomatic.

 

[Seaside]

Sorry, but the Bible contradicts itself on the peace tip. Jesus repeatedly says if you dont believe in him, he will punish you forever in the starkest of agonies. Turn the other cheek is nothing but a momentary truce, quite like Islamic conquerors loved to talk about before their fire and judgement took place.

Yep but they not want to hear it. Christianity also invented hell which judaism not have. Oh and gay is still inferior and women still subrodinate to man.

 

[tramendous]

Jesus was a virgin birth. The traditional Catholic upbringing I had made no mention of him having any siblings.

We know Jesus had a virgin birth. In Christianity he is also suppose to be God and the son of God (trinity). If Mary did indeed have other children then that make them the brothers of God in that line of thinking

 

[shinkyoku]

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/sc...s-to-his-brother-james-in-its-original-greek/



More info about it's discovery at the link.

I've never heard of his forbidden teachings before. Anyone have some insight?

I dont really get what so important. It is dated around the 3-4th century AD. Just another book out of many that didnt make the cut and declared heretical when the bible was put together by vote (after imperial approval) at the council of Nicaea, 325.
I mean, historically it is interesting for theologians regarding the evolution of the church of christianity and its failed branches, but that is about all.

The religious cant accept it as real because it is not accepted by any church dogma. It is several hundred years, and a long way geographicaly, removed from the things it talks about (and in a language foreign to what james would have spoken). To atheists it is just another made up text among many.

 

[Spoken]

Really? The bible has a few verses about his family, siblings, and especially James. Why would Catholics think he had no siblings? There's even a gospel passage about his family being so large, it was a talked about thing in the Nazareth community.

Traditionally, Mary was perpetually virgin. Early Greek interpretation says James is Jesus' cousin. This is still debated by masters of Greek today.

 

[Spoken]

I dont really get what so important. It is dated around the 3-4th century AD. Just another book out of many that didnt make the cut and declared heretical when the bible was put together by vote (after imperial approval) at the council of Nicaea, 325.
I mean, historically it is interesting for theologians regarding the evolution of the church of christianity and its failed branches, but that is about all.

The religious cant accept it as real because it is not accepted by any church dogma. It is several hundred years, and a long way geographicaly, removed from the things it talks about (and in a language foreign to what james would have spoken). To atheists it is just another made up text among many.

None of this is true.

I'd be interested in how you situate each text with the particular gospel and pay attention to who Jesus is speaking in the given verses,.
An example: Jesus does talk about hell and damnation a number of times, but to who? Almost always the religious authorities, who reject him as messiah and scheme to end his ministry. Jesus talks about bringing a sword rather than peace (matthew 10:34), but later, in matthew 26, he says to peter, "those who live by the sword die by the sword." Did the author of Matthew fail to see that these ideas as totally incongruent? No, Jesus is after a totally different distinction in Matthew 10. In a prima facia interpretation, it seems clear that Jesus is literally not brining a sword, but is prioritizing the importance of recognizing him as messiah over and against familial relationships. Considering the text and how Jesus says in just a few verse 34, Jesus notes how folks, including family, will persecute his followers for their following him, it's pretty obvious that this section of Matthew isn't, in any way, inconsistent with the rest of Jesus' message, whether it's the sermon on the mount or anything else.

Again, the Gospels have inconsistencies that are actually worth wrestling with... but it isn't this stuff. But hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong. In fact, if you'd like, we can compare notes on 1st century jewish theologies and cultures, read the gospels in Greek, and compare notes. I just finished translating a bit of Plato's republic, so my Greek is on point right now.

 

[MicroBrew]

We know Jesus had a virgin birth. In Christianity he is also suppose to be God and the son of God (trinity). If Mary did indeed have other children then that make them the brothers of God in that line of thinking

"If" is the operative word here. It is by no means settled she had other kids. It is a very controversial and alternative understanding.