capnkirk

And I retorted, "Show me where Paul DOES apply it to someone else and I'll concede the point." You haven't done that.

Now let me provide the complete context of your statement:
To which I responded:This was a refutation to your argument that it "is because that seems utterly contrary to his stated theology." I fail to see why you perceive that Paul's use denotes a conflict with his theology and Catholic's making the same statement about another member of Jesus' family isn't.

Amaleq13

You have entirely ignored the point of my reply. Paul never refers to anyone else as the brother but that, as I tried to explain, is completely irrelevant if it was a special title (not related to siblingship but to piety) or if it is the result of editing ("a" becomes "the") or if the entire phrase is marginal gloss. We would not expect any other similar reference given any of these clearly plausible scenarios. I acknowledge that I have not directly answered your question but I have pointed out why the question is irrelevant.

Quite unlike Paul's theology, the historical existence of Jesus, including his family, is a fundamental part of Catholic theology. Granted they offer arguments denying the literal sibling relationship but the fact remains the concept of a historical Jesus is central to their theology. Paul's entire focus, on the other hand, is on the Risen Christ and it is really quite strange that, when he for no apparent reason decides to assert a special relationship with James that he chooses to connect him to a title associated with the Risen Christ rather than the name of the executed man. If Paul believed James to have been a literal brother, it seems obvious that Paul would consider him to be "the brother of Jesus" rather than "the brother of the Risen Christ". Once Jesus had been raised, ALL earthly considerations about him were rendered irrelevant. This unique reference stands in clear contrast to Paul's expressed views.

You have not addressed the issue of why Paul, in the context of your views, would choose to offer such a blatant admission of James' relationship when ignoring it clearly better serves his purposes and would be consistent with the entire body of Paul's remaining writings.

capnkirk

From 1 Corinthians:

1: Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2: by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. 3: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4: that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5: and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6: Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7: Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8: Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Here in the red-highlighted verses, Paul makes specific reference to the resurrected Jesus appearing to Peter, then to the disciples, then to a group of 500, then to James, and finally to himself. There can be no misunderstanding that he believed that these events happened on Earth, not in some cosmic otherworld. This is irrespective of his beliefs concerning the place and nature of the origin of Christ. His reference to "the twelve" here in this context makes it very difficult to believe that he is referring to anyone but 'the twelve' disciples of the pre-crucifixion earthly Jesus.

Amaleq13

Doherty doesn't claim otherwise. His claim is that the sacrifice and resurrection took place in the heavens. The appearances are the "historical events" that start the whole movement. Whether they took place anywhere except the minds of the "witnesses" is another question.

First, Toto has suggested elsewhere that there are reasons to suspect this apparent kerygma to be interpolated. Perhaps he will provide the link. Second, you are reading Gospel details into Paul with no justification. Paul never mentions any "disciples" and this reference makes it appear that Cephas was not a member of "the twelve". All this reference supports is the notion that one subgroup of believers was called by that name.

We have no good reason to assume that GMark's depiction of 12 disciples is historically true. It serves an obvious literary purpose with the connection to the 12 tribes.

Toto

Here you go - Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a Post-Pauline Interpolation by Robert Price.

Also reproduced here in a better format.

Gawen

*sitting at my desk at work...reading these threads...and all I can say at this moment is*....Fascinating

But bugger, now I have to go back to work...which is not fascinating at all...

But will have to find time to stop in at Borders....

capnkirk

from the referenced refutation:
Unfortunately, I cannot find a definition for "tradents", but if my understanding is correct that is not necessary. Paul is here referring (as he has in other passages) to his receipt of this gospel from his vision-borne acquaintance with what he calls Christ.Paul is again quoting the same source and the same means of delivery.IMHO, this seeming conflict is manufactured.

I am still reading this rether long and very scholarly reference, but it appears thus far that the scholars are not agreed on this matter. Perhaps I will post again after I have finished and digested it.

Toto

From hereChristians on this forum have used that passage to try to prove that Paul received knowledge about Jesus from earlier Christians, most likely Peter or James.

Ted Hoffman

Amaleq, those were good counterarguments to good arguments from capnkirk .

Capnkirk
Robert Price has "provided a plausible explanation for the motivation of the interpolations, both of the list into the apologetic fragment, and of the fragment into 1 Cor 15. The first sought to homogenize Paul and the other apostolic worthies, while the second sought to buttress the argument for the resurrection by adding a passage listing eyewitnesses to it"

Which events? The appearances? Of course the appearances took place on earth. When we have visions and dream dreams and get revelations, we do so while we are on earth.
But whether the subjects of the visions themselves actually take place on earth is another matter. There are arguments about the use of the word parambaloo sp? that I cant remember but you can dig further if you want.

Secondly, this is passage bears post-Pauline christian apologetics. The attempt at creating a semblance of consensus regarding the resurrection of Jesus plus the number 500 are clear indicators.

The 500, as Price argues, creates the impression "if you lived during those times, (you doubting Thomas!), you would have asked any of them about the truth of the resurrection". Pure apologetics.
"All the apostles" signifies a huge body of believers - a post-Pauline phenomena: we had wandering (and competing) preachers and scattered communities. All the apostles implies a huge, monolithic, homogeneous group sharing the same theology and with a clear identity - hence the definite article "the".
Capnkirk, how do you date Corinthians by the way? We can then place the passage in context and rip it apart.

Plus, the Gospel writers could have found it noteworthy to include Jesus' appearance to the 500 in their gospels. It would have bolstered the credibility of their apologetics - but they don't include it now do they?
They didn't know about it - now how could they not have known about it?
Evidence of a Paulinist who got carried away.

Even if those were Paul's words himself, they are demonstrably false based on the rounded figure of 500. Who counted them, they weren't 510? 550? 600? And where are the 500? Its reminescent of the 2000 pigs that Jesus drowned in Mark.
Who were these apostles who were not among the 12?

Price adds:
My stand is that the passage seems to have been interpolated. And as Amaleq has argued, if Paul believed in a HJ, it would be inconsistent with his theological stance and it would raise the question:

If Paul believed Jesus walked on earth, why doesn't he refer to Jesus' teachings as a source of authority of what Paul was preaching? How come Paul never quotes Jesus even once? How come he doesn't mention Jesus' mother, his disciples and his miracles? His triumphant entry in Jerusalem on a donkey? chasing out the moneychangers from the temple? feeding the 5000? raising Jairus' daughter? Lazarus?

How come he doesn't ground his Jesus anywhere on earth?

Plus the "high priest in heaven" parallel that is in Hebrews would be totally shattered.

GakuseiDon

Holy cow, Jacob. Why this sensitivity about any criticism of Doherty??? Although Gregg agrees with Doherty on many points, it is to his credit and shows his objectivity that he is able to post a point of disagreement.

JA, I quoted from Gal 1:3, JA. That has the word "Lord" (kurios) as a title for Jesus Christ, the same word used in Gal 1:19. Why you are looking at Gal 1:1, I have no idea.

It is "Lord Jesus Christ" in Gal 1:3, and "brother of the Lord" in Gal 1:19. So, can YOU admit that on that single point, Doherty's point is weak?

I agree with Gregg that it is a cumulative case. That means each point must be argued as it arrives. My main criticism of Doherty is that most of his case is built on speculation. That Paul has few historical details in his letters is a fact. The implications of that is what I disagree with.