aa5874

If you think Jesus of Galatians 1.19 was just a man then:


Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of Galatians 1.1

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of Galatians 1.10

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of Galatians 1.11-12.

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of Galatians 1.16

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of Galatians 3.13

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of Galatians 4.4

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of Galatians 5.1-2

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of Galatians 6.15.

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of the RESURRECTION.

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of the GOOD NEWS.

Galatians 1.19 FLIES in the face of the PAULINE GOSPEL.

Galatians 1.19 is HERESY if you believe Jesus was just a man.

The Pauline writings are NON-HERETICAL writings about the GOSPEL, the Good News, the Good News of the Resurrection and REMISSION of SINS.

1. Without a NON-HISTORICAL event, a Resurrection, there would be NO REMISSION of SINS.

2. Without a NON-HISTORICAL event, a Resurrection, there would be NO FAITH.

3. Jesus of the NT SUCCESSFULLY carried OUT the FICTITIOUS RESURRECTION WITH WITNESSES.

4. The author of Galatians is a WITNESS of Jesus who successfully pulled off the non-historical resurrection.

The STATUS of James is IRRELEVENT to the STATUS of Jesus since in Antiquity even MYTHS were BELIEVED to have HUMAN mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters.

Romulus had a brother called Remus and both were described as human in Plutarch's "Romulus" but are ALL considered MYTHS.

Now, even if you think that Galatians 1.19 refers to a human ONLY Jesus then please SHOW the sources of Antiquity that SUPPLIED the ADDITIONAL details about Jesus Christ which is COMPLETELY missing from Galatians 1.19.

GALATIANS 1.19 have NO details about the PHYSICAL nature of Jesus.

What do other sources say about Jesus Christ?

What did the author of gMatthew say?

What did "Mark" say?

What did "Luke" say?

What did "John" say?

What did "Jerome" say?

What did "Ignatius" say?

What did "Polycarp" say?

What did Justin Martyr say?

What did Irenaeus say?

They claimed or implied Jesus was NOT of the seed of man.

Galatians 1.19 does NOT AFFECT the STATUS or the nature of Jesus who was NOT a Man in the Pauline writings.

In GALATIANS 4.4, Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

Chili

Sure, just tell them that it is 'enthymematic' but not part of the argument and so 'non-casue' in Mark. It is just pulpit rhetoric that pertains to the whole for the maxin to be received and here the senior critic is just correcting the innocent input of the junior.

Toto

And that argument should shut them up, or reduce them to a quivering mass of incoherence.

Chili

Very simple Toto as it is 'non cause' and not part of the argument from which the conclusion is formed without the 'second term' (or middle) provided in Mark. This missing middle premiss' is called a 'second order entymeme' that allows the reader to fill in the blanks to receive the maxim and here is provided by a junior from an outside source, with was called "paralogism" or "outside talk" which therefore is enthymematic (sound nice) but is not the prime mover on which Mark's conclusion is based.

So I then say that the senior is pointing that out to the junior who's input is based on innocence rather than cynicism or snide, and the rigor of logic makes that possible if not necessary here.

Chili

Without reading any of your citations the argument can be made that in Paul's revelation of truth also its anti-thesis is revealed in that a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other, and so is why Paul "did not meet any other apostles except James, the brother of the Lord" to point at James as the anti-christ that is emphasized first with the need for the line to be there and then by identifying as having seen only James with the word "except." The "three years' there means that he was done with purgation on his own and then went to Jerusalem-on-high also on his own and I would venture to say that his meeting with Cephas was the new NT Peter of Rome.

spin

Take note of the of the basic argument here: Mk 15:40, 47, 16:1 all show some woman called Mary, "mother of James and Joses", rather than Mary, "mother of the lord" or "of Jesus".

If these references were really about the same Mary who was mother of Jesus, we would have analogies to "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" or "Ida Eisenhower, mother of Milton and Edgar". Pure failure to communicate.

What we have before us is evidence of the development of tradition to equate Mary, "mother of James and Joses", with the mother of Jesus. The situation becomes more drastic in the secondary text where Matthew has twice replaced "Mary, mother of James and Joses" with "the other Mary", in so doing diminishing this Mary. The movement has been from the story of this Mary at the deposition of Jesus to Mary, mother of Jesus in Mk 6:3, a later tradition.

You don't seem to be in sync with how we know about developing traditions.

Whatever you theorize, we are left with the fact that this James (brother of Joses) was not, in the earliest gospel tradition, the brother of Jesus. The development would make sense however through a particular interpretation of Gal 1:19.

spin

Yup. Perhaps it is the one straw that they all clutch on to (with such fervor). Astounding, given the assumption level necessary.

sschlichter

I am not sure you are in sync with the tradition. It appears you think the name Joses is referring to Jesus. I am sure I am reading that incorrectly as I know you to be quite knowledgable.

Mary the mother of Jesus had a sister (in-law presumable) named Mary. Her children are the cousins (brethren - adelphos) of Jesus. There names were James, Joseph, Judas, Simon.

Perhaps this is the same James, perhaps there is another. The only reason to assume a development is if you assume there was no Jesus. If that is the case then it appears from the gospels that the mythical Jesus had a mythical brother named James.


~Steve

judge

delete

spin

I have no idea why you'd think that. It's not based on anything I've said. Think about the strange examples I gave, eg "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund". It is meant as analogous. Relative nobodies when someone famous could be mentioned.

You may as well start citing from the Gospel of Peanuts. You are (like everyone is) clueless as to when the gospel of John was written and how it relates to the synoptic literature. Haphazard citation from undated literature will not help you make sense of anything. It's as though you seem to assume that it is an independent witness, when you haven't got any way demonstrating that it is. You may as well cite the gospel according to J.P. Holding for a similar level of relevance.

You have this ass-up. The only reason to assume your conclusion is because you can't use the evidence to get there. Perhapses will get you talking uncontrolledly, unable to say anything meaningful, because it's one perhaps built on another and another.

Start with Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1, "Mary, the mother of James and Joses". There is no mention of Jesus where it should be expected. So, if this were Mary, mother of Jesus, the lack of mention of Jesus as the son is totally unaccountable -- which is the reason I refer to the strange statements: "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" or "Ida Eisenhower, mother of Milton and Edgar". Citing Klara Hitler but saying that she is the "mother of Gustav and Edmund" does not help define who this Klara Hitler is. We may all know Adolf and it would be him who would render the definition meaningful, just as Jesus would render Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1 meaningful. James and Joses would be inconsequential, if one only mentioned Jesus. Not doing so tells the real story. This Mary was not mother of Jesus, but has been absorbed into the family with Mk 6:3.

Here we go to the knee-jerk rubbish about mythicism. When argument fails say something about mythicism/communism/gays/(add shibboleth here).