Toto

How did judgmental get into the argument? You originally claimed you were trying to be neutral. But the words that you chose were not neutral, and did not seem to be descriptive of the state of the evidence.

The Pauline letters include Paul calling God 'Lord.' How do you know whether this usage refers to Jesus or God?

Your point?

My point was that calling someone the brother of God was an accepted practice. Of course, it would not mean literal brother, but most of the usages of the word brother are not literal.

I'm not sure how Hercules helps your case. He was the brother of the god Dionysus, but both he and Dionyus were fathered by Zeus. He also had a mortal brother, Iphicles. Greek mythology is full of twins, one of which was fathered by a god, the other by a mortal (the Dioscuri, for example, who are referred to in the NT.)

aa5874

But that MUST be fundamental to the dating of Paul. If PAUL came up with Christianity in the 4th century what date do you think scholars would give the Pauline writings?

It would not be the 1st century.

Again another fundamental point to establish the dating of Paul.

Once it can be determined or theorised when the Jesus story was written where it was claimed Jesus ascended through the clouds then it can be deduced that the Pauline writings were after the story of the ascension of Jesus.

Well why do you BELIEVE the D-bag when the D-bag also claimed Paul wrote his Epistles before the Fall of the Temple and traveled ALL over the Roman Empire.

You believe the D-bag or the D-bag sources.

Now, I am showing you that the D-bag made certain statements that have caused me to question the veracity of the Pauline writer who ALREADY ADMITTED that he was a LIAR. See Church History 3.4.8

The D-Bag claimed Paul was aware of gLuke and astonishingly Paul used words ONLY found in gLuke, not found in gMark or gMatthew.

Paul claimed he got his gospel from Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead. A dead man did NOT give Paul any Gospel. The D-bag appear to be truthful and Paul a LIAR.

It is more likely that Paul learned about the Jesus story from gLuke rather than a DEAD MAN who could NOT resurrect.

And if Jesus was fiction then Peter was fiction. The abundance of Evidence from sources of antiquity support a fictitious Jesus, apostles and Paul.

Jesus was NOT described as a person but the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost without human father, the Creator of heaven and earth and equal to the God of the Jews.

The Church writers DENIED vehemently that Jesus was just human, he was FIRST a GOD who existed before anything was created and then Created heaven and earth.

Jesus was fiction and so was the disciples and Paul. Paul MET the fictitious apostles and persecuted fictitious Jesus believers after Jesus fictitiously ascended through the clouds.

It is most likely that the Pauline writings were written when the Jesus stories were already ESTABLISHED and Believed to be true.

Justin Martyr writing in the middle of the 2nd century did NOT write one single thing about Paul or the activities of the Apostles as fo.und in Acts and the Pauline writings. And the Synoptics did NOT use any details from the Pauline writings or have any word-for-word copying of any passage except one in gLuke.

Please hurry I can't wait to expose the baseless fallacy that Paul was pre-gospel.

AtheistGamer

@Toto

I wasn't being neutral? For the last time I started with the phrase "as far as I can tell" In other words I wasn't entirely sure and I was open to new evidence. I'd say that's pretty neutral. Now if I wasn't being neutral I would have started with something like... "Gal 1:19 is a damning piece of evidence and I'm sure of it blah blah blah.

I wasn't using Heracles to support any point of mine. I was using it to support your idea that a spirit can have a blood relationship to a flesh and blood person in mythology. In other words I was seeing where you were coming from and agreeing with you.

@aa5874

Paul didn't come up with christianity. He says he persecuted it before converting.

The idea that Jesus came back to life probably slowly developed from the 30's to the 70's with some random dude finally writing the tall tale down after the fall of the 2nd temple. Paul probably wrote when the tall tale loosley based on a historical Jesus was still being formed. In order for your dating idea to work you have to assume that the writer of the first Gospel didn't get his ideas from someone else, who got his ideas from someone else, who told another tall tale, who knew a guy, who knew a guy, who thinks he knew a guy, who knew an apostle.

lol I don't believe anything that any apologetic D-bag from the 1st century says. The D-Bag who wrote luke probably had a copy of Paul's writings, not the other way around.

Paul's letters show a sort of transitional storytelling. For example Paul gives an account of the "Last Supper" story. Only this version hasn't been fully fleshed out and is missing details. I think the Gospel writers took Paul's letters, and other sources and made up their own apologetic BS pseudohistory stuff. So in other words I think Paul's letters predate the Gospels because that would fit a certian evolutionary structure of mythological development.

ApostateAbe

AtheistGamer, just in case you don't know this already, almost all of us typically ignore aa5874.

DCHindley

AG,

Considering it a dative of means would still make "brother" metaphorical. Jews of this period frequently refer to one another as "brothers," and they are so by means of their circumcision (although this is never stated outright as far as I know). I am not sure of this, but Essenes would likely consider themselves "brothers" on account of their common oaths.

FWIW, πεποιθοτας (PEPOIQOTAS, Philippians 1:14) is the perfect active accusative masculine plural participle of the verb PEIQW, to instruct or confide. While I doubt that EN KURIW would have modified that, the RSV does translate it as though it does:

RSV Philippians 1:14 and most of the brethren have been made confident in the Lord because of my imprisonment, and are much more bold to speak the word of God without fear.

Young's Literal Translation renders it, IMHO more correctly, as

YLT Philippians 1:14 and the greater part of the brethren in the Lord, having confidence by my bonds, are more abundantly bold -- fearlessly to speak the word.
.

DCH

aa5874

So you admit Paul did not come up with christianity and persecuted BEFORE yet he predated the Gospel?

A most ILLOGICAL deduction.

Paul was AFTER the Gospel once you ADMIT that he did not come up with christianity and persecuted before converting.

That is a basic and most fundamental logical deduction.

Galatians 1:23 - It is virtually impossible for you to DEMONSTRATE that Paul predated the Gospel based on the words of the Pauline writers, the author of Acts and the Church writers.


What source of antiquity shows that some "random dude" wrote down a tall tale from the 30's to 70's?

You are just making stuff up.


What source of antiquity shows that Paul wrote when a "tall tale loosely based on a historical Jesus was still being formed."

Once Jesus was just a man then Paul wrote TALL TALES about Jesus.

Paul claimed Jesus was raised from the dead, that he and over 500 people SAW the resurrected DEAD, and that the resurrected DEAD revealed certain things to him.

PAUL must be a D-bag once Jesus was ONLY a man.

You REALLY have no idea what you are talking about.

Once Jesus was a man then Paul was a 1st century D-bag. He wrote TALL TALES about Jesus even writing that Jesus a mere man was the Creator of heaven and earth, that EVERY KNEE should BOW before Jesus and that Jesus was given a name above EVERY other name.

What a D-bag!

But, the Pauline writer claimed he received the "Last Supper" story from the LORD.

But, the LORD was ALREADY dead. Paul was a D-bag.

It is more likely that he got the "Last Supper" story from a human source and in "Church History" 3.4.8 it was claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

And in 1 Corinthians 15.3-7, the Pauline writers ADMIT that there were already WRITTEN sources about the DEATH, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Jesus.

Only the NT SCRIPTURE mentions that a character called Jesus DIED, BURIED and RESURRECTED. You will NOT find ONE single passage in Hebrew Scripture about a character called JESUS.

Jesus already had "FLESH" when Paul wrote that according to the Scriptures, according to WRITTEN sources, JESUS had died, and was buried.

1. The Last Supper is only in NT Scripture
2. Jesus died only in NT scripture.
3. Jesus was buried only in NT Scripture.
4. Jesus was raised from the dead only in NT Scripture.
5. The apostles saw the resurrected Jesus only in NT Scripture.


The ABUNDANCE of Evidence from the Pauline writer himself SHOWS that he was AWARE of and did use available WRITTEN sources about the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of Jesus.

The Pauline writings did not predate the Jesus story.

Doug Shaver

No, it does not. "Jesus' brother" is not what Paul wrote. It is an interpretation of what Paul wrote.

Toto

You must use a different definition of neutral.

yalla

Yep that is really the crux of it isn't it?
Gospel coloured glasses.
There are a whole stack of kin terms [mother/brother/son/brethren/sisters] used by Paul in Galatians and other epistles none of which really signify a direct kin relationship so this alleged mention of JC, oops 'the lord' actually, help the historical JC mob not one iota.

ApostateAbe

I think it helps the historical JC mob a little more than an iota. At the least, it helps to convince very many critical scholars with doctorates and teaching positions in the field. It doesn't have to convince a bunch of lay people on the Internet in order to have an iota of evidential power.

If we are reading the texts critically, and not willy-nilly to suit any arbitrary theory, then we need to look at evidence on the outside--what did Paul really mean? Then we choose the argument that has the best explanation (ABE). Where do you look to resolve the uncertainty of what Paul meant, if you wish to resolve it? Yes, there are plenty of times that Paul uses the word for "brother" in a religious metaphorical sense. Score one for the mythicists. But, if Paul needed to use a word for "brother" in a literal sense, then he would still have no choice but use that same word. Score a half-point for the JC mob.

The score is 1 to 0.5. A very compelling way to resolve the issue is to see whether Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother named James. And, yes, he did. In two of the synoptic gospels and in Josephus. I wrote a long post on this point near the beginning of the thread.

I think that makes the score 1 to 6.5, the JC mob taking a very strong lead.

Do not take my word for it. Follow the link and read about the Argument to the Best Explanation. Choose what you think would be the best alternative to the JC mob hypothesis that "James, the Lord's brother" was the literal brother of Jesus. Then go down the list and compare the two hypotheses. I am not asking you to believe it. I am only asking you to grant that there is more than an iota of strength to this explanation.