The Best Case for Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Sheshbazzar »

Bernard Muller wrote:to Sheshbazzar,
"The Gospel Which is According to Mark" wasn't around until whoever wrote it, wrote it. And any contemporary of this writer, that knew the life and history of this writer, would have known that this writer was not one of the apostles, and would have discredited the claim.
By the writer of 'Mark' remaining anonymous, and not claiming to be the apostle Mark, the writer shelters himself from exposure as being a fraud. He (whoever he was) is simply a good story teller and writer, nothing to object to, as he claims nothing at all in this work of religious fiction to be about himself.
The writer therefore, no matter how outlandish or contrived his STORY, maintains his total innocence, he has only composed a interesting STORY, his friends and neighbors all know him, and know that its all just a STORY. No problemo
I do not know how you can assume his friends and neighbors knew "Mark" composed the gospel,
and at the same time, tried to remain anonymous.
The only way to remain anonymous was to write that gospel completely in secret.
Hey Sherlock, I didn't say, or even suggest he tried to remain anonymous. He is anonymous to us, and to _everyone who didn't personally know him_, only by virtue of the fact that he, the writer never anywhere identifies himself, nor overtly reveals any details of himself or his life in the text that he composed.
That in no way has any bearing on the circumstances under which he wrote.
There may well have once been an authorial 'introduction', to 'Mark' one that the 'church' leadership 'just happened' to misplace and permanently 'loose' along the way (they have a record of, _being what they profess to be,_ for being mighty proficient at that. They saved only what they wished to save, ...)
The codex was new high-tech at the time, and first pages easily became damaged and detached, and the next copyist may have had no awareness that any such first page intro had ever existed.
Furthermore, the gospel does not look to be a well written novel meant to be interesting.
It is heavily charged with religious assertions in favor of a new religion, answering disbeliefs, doubts, concerns, "proving" the divinity of an otherwise rural Jewish healer, and providing its audience hope for the long awaited kingdom of God coming very soon.
Been called with all reverence and respect, 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' That it draws upon popular religious beliefs, and invents any needed scenes, and fabricates the characters dialog so as to turn these religious tidbits of old sayings and prophecies into an interesting and gripping tale of suffering and triumph, does not in any way prevent it from being a religious novel.
Certainly the writers had a theological, religious, and political agenda. That fact in no way precludes them composing a gripping theological novel to more effectively propagate their religious propaganda to the world at large.

You are really being silly if you think that any of these writers were personally present to see and hear 'Jesus' converse with Satan on the pinnacle of the Temple, overturn tables and use a whip in the Temple, raise Lazarus up from the dead, feed five thousand with a couple of fish, or had ever personally heard any of these contrived religious 'conversations' direct from Jesus lips.
Or are you going to try to tell me that everything written in the gospels is actual history?
No, I doubt that. What you probably want me to accept as 'history' being, ...what, about half a dozen verses out of those 3779 verses in the gospels? That's some mighty slim pickings Mr cherry picker.
But go ahead, list the verses you think are 'history'. I'll be more than happy to discuss each one of them with you.

Sheshbazzar
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Sheshbazzar,
But you don't believe that there was a common tax collector named Zacchaeus? Jesus couldn't have met him and visited his house that day?

Just how in the hell is it that you are able to determine that a first century tax collector of Jericho didn't exist??
or that Jesus never visited his house? What's so impossible about a short tax collector from Jericho that makes him unbelievable?
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Zacchaeus the wealthy tax collectors tomb and mortal remains were uncovered.
So you believe Zacchaeus might have existed, even if he is only "known" from a "book of magical religious fables", as you wrote. If you do, why don't you think other gospels' passages, which do not have extraordinary/divine/bizzare elements, might be true?
there is exactly as much contemporary evidence for the existence of the tax collector of Jericho as there is for the preacher from Nazareth
There are incidental evidence in the existence of Jesus in the 1st century in Paul's Galatians, in Mark's gospel, in Q and Josephus' Antiquities XX (as I stated already on this thread).

Zacchaeus is only in gLuke.
Furthermore, this character & his story is suspiciously exactly according to one of "Luke" major theme: giving to the poor provides salvation for the wealthy donor.
Also Zacchaeus' story is inserted during Jesus going through Jericho, where gMark gave the impression something happened in Jericho but got deleted: "And they come to Jericho, and as he is going forth from Jericho ...". I think "Luke" felt compelled to fill up the blank.
And generally, I do not have any confidence the Lukan material is coming from eyewitnesses.
From all that, I think Zacchaeus was an invention of "Luke".
Anyway, Zacchaeus is of no importance in the overall basic backbone Jesus' account of his last year.
They are many other minor characters who do not matter, one way or another.
The tax collector of Jericho, NOT overthrowing tables in the Temple :facepalm: pulling rabbits or fish out of his hat, or raising up zombie cadavers from their tombs, to me, is one hell of a lot more believable, and far more likely to have been a real historical personage, than your contrived to "fulfill that which was written in the Prophets" _preacher cum sky buddy 'Jesus'.
Are you insinuating I accept as true "pulling rabbits or fish out of his hat, or raising up zombie cadavers from their tombs," and " "fulfill that which was written in the Prophets" _preacher cum sky buddy 'Jesus"?
In that case, you are wrong.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Sheshbazzar,
Hey Sherlock, I didn't say, or even suggest he tried to remain anonymous. He is anonymous to us, and to _everyone who didn't personally know him_, only by virtue of the fact that he, the writer never anywhere identifies himself, nor overtly reveals any details of himself or his life in the text that he composed.
"Mark" was not writing for people almost 2000 years later. He was living in his present and writing for his contemporary audience. Anonymous to us is not relevant for your overall argument.
And how could he be anonymous if he let those who knew him personally know he wrote the gospel?
In order to make your point, you need to have "Mark" being anonymous and not anonymous. That's absurd. You cannot have it both way.
And how do you know: "his friends and neighbors all know him, and know that its all just a STORY"?
While "the writer shelters himself from exposure as being a fraud".
That in no way has any bearing on the circumstances under which he wrote.
Oh yes. Either he wrote his piece in secret or not makes a lot of difference.
There may well have once been an authorial 'introduction', to 'Mark' one that the 'church' leadership 'just happened' to misplace and permanently 'loose' along the way (they have a record of, _being what they profess to be,_ for being mighty proficient at that. They saved only what they wished to save, ...)
The codex was new high-tech at the time, and first pages easily became damaged and detached, and the next copyist may have had no awareness that any such first page intro had ever existed.
Pure speculation. You are begging for evidence which does not exist.
Been called with all reverence and respect, 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' That it draws upon popular religious beliefs, and invents any needed scenes, and fabricates the characters dialog so as to turn these religious tidbits of old sayings and prophecies into an interesting and gripping tale of suffering and triumph, does not in any way prevent it from being a religious novel.
But how can you be sure that so-called "religious novel" does not have true elements offering a backbone for Jesus' last year?
Furthermore the final "triumph" is rather toned down: only an empty tomb with a young man offering an explanation ("he has risen") to some women who "said nothing to anyone" about what they witnessed. (furthermore I think the "empty tomb" was an early addition: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html
Certainly the writers had a theological, religious, and political agenda. That fact in no way precludes them composing a gripping theological novel to more effectively propagate their religious propaganda to the world at large.
I do not see what is so gripping about gMark.
And I do not think the gospel authors were thinking as far as "propagate their religious propaganda to the world at large". More like their texts being for local and immediate use.
You are really being silly if you think that any of these writers were personally present to see and hear 'Jesus' converse with Satan on the pinnacle of the Temple, overturn tables and use a whip in the Temple, raise Lazarus up from the dead, feed five thousand with a couple of fish, or had ever personally heard any of these contrived religious 'conversations' direct from Jesus lips.
I do not entertain that. Only that, some elements in gMark & Q were heard from eyewitnesses and recorded. But because these testimonies were not serving Christian beliefs, most of them were very enhanced, added on, modified, etc.
Of course, I reject "Satan on the pinnacle of the Temple, overturn tables and use a whip in the Temple, raise Lazarus up from the dead, feed five thousand with a couple of fish, or had ever personally heard any of these contrived religious 'conversations' direct from Jesus lips" except "overturn tables".
Or are you going to try to tell me that everything written in the gospels is actual history?
No, I doubt that.
Exactly. I do not even know why you would ask such a question.
But go ahead, list the verses you think are 'history'. I'll be more than happy to discuss each one of them with you.
I listed the 17 sayings which I think are likely to be predominantly authentic: http://historical-jesus.info/86.html
For the rest, this is what I kept from the gospels, considering all angles and evidence:
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Details about how I came to that conclusion is all over my website and blog:
http://historical-jesus.info/ and http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by neilgodfrey »

Forgive me for raising one criticism in an otherwise very commendable essay by Peter.

My concern relates to the message in the following passages:
However it is not really the historical method to go about completely discounting every possible testimony as false. It must be admitted as offering a degree of positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus, even if the testimony might be false.
They say that quantity has a quality all its own. Is it not at least interesting that in the first half of the second century (if not earlier) we witness such an explosion of written material regarding Jesus, his story and sayings? Again, as we mentioned in the discussion of Tacitus, this kind of evidence is far from conclusive but it may at least meet the standard of prima facie evidence. It is the kind of thing that should put the shoe on the other foot and require us to have good reason for doubt about the historical existence of Jesus.
Anyone being fair about the matter should admit that this brings the historicity of Jesus to the status of “some positive historical evidence.” If there were absolutely zero evidence against, then we’d have to give the balance of evidence to the historicity of Jesus. No doubt the failure of some skeptics to make these kinds of admissions proves frustrating in this discussion. It is perfectly alright to have a high evidentiary standard and to judge that the historicity of Jesus does not make it. It is perfectly alright to have considered the entire case in the round and to judge the evidence against the historicity of Jesus to be better than the evidence for. But it is just a bit off to attempt to argue that there is nothing at all, zero degrees Kelvin, to give heat to the positive case for the historicity of Jesus and thus to declare that the balance of evidence is simply nil-nil.
What I think is overlooked when such statements are made is a point made by Niels Peter Lemche recently in response to Eric Cline's newest publication, 1177:
What I was really referring to was the traditional craft of the historian: Source criticism. It is the alpha and the omega of an historian’s craft. Then we can put everything else on top of that. . . . But few archaeologists (including also people such as Israel Finkelstein) have had the training in textual analysis which has been a must in historical research since the days of Barthold Niebuhr c. 1810.
One can find online the sort of thing Lemche sees as the sine qua non of historical method since Niebuhr:
But the consideration that the early history, such as it has come down to us, is impossible, must lead us to enquire whether the earliest annals are deserving of credit. Our task now is to prove that the earliest history does contain imposslbilitics, that it is poetical, that the very portions which are not of a poetical nature, are forgeries, and, consequently, that the history must be traced back to ancient lays and to a chronology which was invented and adapted to these lays at a later period. (Neibuhr, Lectures on The History of Rome, p. 1)
And Neibuhr is addressing work that has all the appearance of being a genuine (by ancient "definitions") historical narrative.

I believe one cannot validly place content found in a work by, say, Tacitus, alongside content found in a canonical gospel, and consider the two "historical evidence" that needs comparison and evaluation.

We need first of all to establish that our sources were ever intended to contain "historical evidence". One sees the assumption regularly in historical Jesus studies that the gospels must be read as "historical reports" despite all their theological and metaphorical spin. Stevan Davies, for example, uses the language of "report" (connoting the idea that information is being relayed with some sort of historical or newsworthy belief -- even if mistaken or deluded or false) scores of times in his new work Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity. He speaks throughout of the "reports of Jesus' activities" even in places where other scholars have seen entirely "midrashic" or theological or "parabolic" narratives.

I have made the following analogy before to try explain this point. Police can receive reports about a murder from persons calling them, from old files, from other files and information sent by outside authorities, etc. All of these would be worthy of investigation as genuine "reports". But to come across a manuscript of a story alone that purports to be a report of a murder is a nonstarter. Context and provenance of the source is everything. Lemche's textual analysis is also a fundamental part of source criticism. If textual analysis can establish the entirely literary character of the manuscript it is even less of a nonstarter.

Yet many biblical scholars do not work this way and I think it is a mistake for anyone else to buy into their methods. Some scholars even say that the job of the "historian" is to bypass analyses of the structure and nature of the text itself and try to peel away that surface dirt and find history "behind" the text.

Historians normally give some credence to a source when they can have some knowledge of its provenance (meaning knowledge of who produced it, and something about whoever that was, their interests etc), of its sources, and also some independent corroborating evidence. Taken for granted, here, is an understanding of a sources genre (a historiography, an epic, a letter, etc). Genre alone can be deceiving, though, as many scholars have been learning in relation to Herodotus. The "father of history" appears to many in fact to have "lied" about inscriptions he supposedly saw, places he supposedly traveled to and people he supposedly spoke with, etc.

If we don't have these things then that does not mean our source does not contain historical information but it does mean we have no way of knowing if it does at all until we do the sorts of analysis Lemche and Niebuhr spoke of. In other words it cannot be used either way, either for or against.

If analysis of the document (necessarily by comparison with other evidence) does lead us to have some general idea of when and where it was produced and something about the kind of writing it is (genre) then it can be used as historical evidence. But all of this information may only allow us to validly use it as evidence for something of the beliefs, culture, ideas at the time of its author/audience. Its narrative contents cannot be used as "reports" of past events unless other criteria (mentioned above) are met.

I don't believe any of this is "hyperscepticism" (whatever that's supposed to mean). It's how historians generally treat their sources routinely. Maybe that's the problem: they do so so routinely that the method is taken for granted and rarely spelled out and is thus easily forgotten and overlooked. Since it seems that historians just intuitively know what narratives to treat as sources for past events, it appears that when it comes to a history so embedded in our cultural consciousness as Christian origins that would-be "historians" simply assume their major documents are also intuitively "historical sources". Michael Grant is a classic example of this error. When he came to writing about Christian history he jettisoned all the taken-for-granted methods of historians and embraced in toto the assumptions and methods of the theologians.

In their more reflective moments theologians know this fallacy. Sanders, Allison and Davies have all conceded that their starting point for their study of a historical Jesus is necessarily based on a circular argument: in short, the gospels tell us Jesus was X and we know this because Jesus was X and the Gospels confirm this.

Back to the OP and the best case for historicity ----

A best case in my view would understand the fundamentals of how (nonbiblical) historians (at least ideally) treat their sources. They would not make unsupportable or circular assumptions about them. The best case would not rest on invalid treatment of sources. It would seek to explain the sources we have given what we know (or don't know) of their literary character and provenance.

Bizarre as it would seem to many here, that would mean that someone like John Spong poses one form of a "best case" argument by declaring that only a truly great individual could have inspired virtually completely mythical tales. In fact that's a thesis that could seriously be investigated.

"Memory theory" is a new thing now that is trying to uncover what we can most closely consider historical about Jesus. But as it is being applied today by LeDonne and Keith and others it is still based on the logically flawed criteria of embarrassment. LeDonne still appeals to those criteria as his starting point.

A best case scenario might attempt to apply memory theory to the literary evidence without any assumptions that need to be supported by logically fallacious criteria. I imagine this sort of inquiry would overlap with the one above.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Sheshbazzar »

Bernard Muller wrote:to Sheshbazzar,
Hey Sherlock, I didn't say, or even suggest he tried to remain anonymous. He is anonymous to us, _and to everyone who didn't personally know him_, only by virtue of the fact that he, the writer never anywhere identifies himself, nor overtly reveals any details of himself or his life in the text that he composed.
"Mark" was not writing for people almost 2000 years later. He was living in his present and writing for his contemporary audience. Anonymous to us is not relevant for your overall argument.
And how could he be anonymous if he let those who knew him personally know he wrote the gospel?
For your deficient reading comprehension, I suggest that you try read slower and concentrating real hard.
Read it through a couple of times.
If that doesn't work, perhaps you can try asking for help from Jesus ...I've been told he still works miracles.

.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Sheshbazzar wrote: What you probably want me to accept as 'history' being, ...what, about half a dozen verses out of those 3779 verses in the gospels? That's some mighty slim pickings Mr cherry picker.
But go ahead, list the verses you think are 'history'. I'll be more than happy to discuss each one of them with you.
I listed the 17 sayings which I think are likely to be predominantly authentic: http://historical-jesus.info/86.html
Your biased one man band hymn and dance act does not in the least impress me.

Bring your favorite Jesus texts hymnal HERE. And we will _mutually_ examine and discuss the pros and cons of each of these verses.

Sheshbazzar
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Sheshbazzar »

Bernard Muller wrote:to Sheshbazzar,
But you don't believe that there was a common tax collector named Zacchaeus? Jesus couldn't have met him and visited his house that day?

Just how in the hell is it that you are able to determine that a first century tax collector of Jericho didn't exist?? or that Jesus never visited his house?
What's so impossible about a short tax collector from Jericho that makes him unbelievable?
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Zacchaeus the wealthy tax collectors tomb and mortal remains were uncovered.
So you believe Zacchaeus might have existed, even if he is only "known" from a "book of magical religious fables", as you wrote. If you do, why don't you think other gospels' passages, which do not have extraordinary/divine/bizzare elements, might be true?
First, I (and anyone else reading this) can see how you are trying to dodge answering my question.
Perhaps you couldn't read it? I need to employ a bigger font?

Just how in the hell is it that you are able to determine that a first century tax collector of Jericho didn't exist?? or that Jesus never visited his house?
What's so impossible about a short tax collector from Jericho that makes him unbelievable?


Inquiring minds would like to know your 'methodology' for 'personally' determining that Zacchaeus the tax collector didn't exist.
If it isn't any of those that I formerly suggested, what is?
So you believe Zacchaeus might have existed, even if he is only "known" from a "book of magical religious fables", as you wrote. If you do, why don't you think other gospels' passages, which do not have extraordinary/divine/bizzare elements, might be true?

Pilate existed, Herod existed, Caesar existed, Rome existed, tax collectors were a fact of life.
None of these needed to be invented by theology writers so "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets"
But every major 'event' (and many minor ones) of 'the life of 'Jesus', were written by theologians so "that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."
These 'prophecies' culled from the Tanakh, were not written to fit a character, but a prophecy fulfilling character was invented and written by theologian writers, tailored from beginning to end, to fit to the 'prophecies'.

'Jesus of Nazareth' is a literary 'prophecy fulfillment' figure. A literary theological/political/religious propaganda tool of unidentified writers.
'Jesus of Nazareth' and his "prophecy fulfilling"' life _and "prophecy fulfilling" suffering and death, is entirely a myth.
there is exactly as much contemporary evidence for the existence of the tax collector of Jericho as there is for the preacher from Nazareth
There are incidental evidence in the existence of Jesus in the 1st century in Paul's Galatians, in Mark's gospel, in Q and Josephus' Antiquities XX (as I stated already on this thread).
Horse shit Bernard. Pure apologetic and ignorant horse shit;
Paul by his own admissions never met any flesh and blood Jesus. His Jesus, be it in his epistles, or in Acts, was long dead and gone. Paul's 'visions' and other sundry claims, are of no evidence at all that there ever was a flesh and blood 'Jesus of Nazareth'.

Mark's gospel is a 'prophecy fulfillment' theologically contrived religious fiction cult propaganda production.
The contrived 'prophecy fulfillment' 'events' reported therein NEVER HAPPENED.

Josephus IF he actually wrote any of that disputed "Jesus the Christ" material now found within those texts, also never claims to have ever set eye on the mythical Jesus of Nazareth.
While Josephus may have heard circulating legends, that would only be incidental evidence that these stories were in circulation. It would NOT BE any incidental evidence that there ever had been a living, breathing, bleeding 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
Are you insinuating I accept as true "pulling rabbits or fish out of his hat, or raising up zombie cadavers from their tombs," and " "fulfill that which was written in the Prophets" _preacher cum sky buddy 'Jesus"?
In that case, you are wrong.
Yeah, I know. And unless you are utterly stupid, you well know that I am only yanking your chain.
You made it clear enough that even you, with your "17 authentic sayings of Jesus", accept that 99.9+ % of the 7958 verses in 'The New Testament' are untrustworthy.

As I find the 'Crucifixion of Jesus' story to be composed as a 'prophecy fulfillment' theological fiction, any identifiable 'historical Jesus of Nazareth' is no more ethically tenable than is acceptance of the existence of a 'historical Casper the Friendly Ghost'.

Bottom line, if you disbelieve and scorn as much of the NT text as you profess, I disbelieve less than one percent more than you, finding no reasons at all to believe the substance of the tale, nor in any worldly physical existence of its theologically contrived 'prophecy fulfillment' protagonist

Sheshbazzar
Last edited by Sheshbazzar on Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:59 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Sheshbazzar,
First, I (and anyone else reading this) can see how you are trying to dodge answering my question.
Perhaps you couldn't read it? I need to employ a bigger font?
Just how in the hell is it that you are able to determine that a first century tax collector of Jericho didn't exist??
or that Jesus never visited his house?
What's so impossible about a short tax collector from Jericho that makes him unbelievable?
Just bother to read my posts: I explained it here, today at noon: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1261&start=200#p28674
BTW, you are the one who has been dodging many of my questions.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Sheshbazzar »

And you didn't happen to notice that I just quoted and replied to that very post? :facepalm:
Your above post was posted 20 minutes after my reply to your 'noon' post.

To put it mildly, your tendered 'explanation' was so much equine excrement.

how in the hell is it that you are able to determine that a first century tax collector of Jericho didn't exist??
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Sheshbazzar,
And you didn't happen to notice that I just quoted and replied to that very post?
But you did not notice I answered your question.
Mark's gospel is a 'prophecy fulfillment' theologically contrived religious fiction cult propaganda production.
But Mark's friends and neighbours knew it was just a gripping STORY!
Paul by his own admissions never met any flesh and blood Jesus.
Why do we have to meet someone in person to know he/she exists/existed?
Paul saw Jesus' brother, James. Did James invent his brother?
Josephus was living in Jerusalem when James was executed. Why would he rely on "heard circulating legends"?
There are billions of people now, including you, I did not meet in person: shall I conclude they did not exist?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Paul saw Jesus' brother, James. Did James invent his brother?
Josephus was living in Jerusalem when James was executed.
Cordially, Bernard
More
  • Paul allegedly saw Jesus alleged brother James (who could have been a 'fellow-brethren brother' rather than being a sibling)

    & when "a James was executed"
Post Reply