Geoff Hudson

{ } = read in (proposed original text)
[ ] = read out (proposed editor's changes)

Chapter 15

JAMES THE FIRST DISCIPLE REMINDS THEM OF THE SPIRIT HE PREACHED

(1)Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the [gospel] {Spirit} I preached to you, which you received and
[on which you have taken your stand].
{obeyed}

(2)By [this gospel] {the Spirit} you are [saved] {purified} if you [hold firmly to] {obey}
[the word I preached to you]
{him}.

Otherwise [you] {I} have [believed] {laboured} in vain.

(3)For [what] {the Spirit} I received,
[I passed on to you as of]
first…

[importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
(4)that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
(5)and that he]

…appeared to [Peter] {John}, and then…

[to the Twelve.
(6)After that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
(7)Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
(8)and last of all]

…he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(9)For I am the [least] {first} of the [apostles] {disciples} and do not even deserve to be called
[an apostle] {disciple}, because I [persecuted] {rejected} the [church] {Spirit} of God.

(10)But by the [grace] {Spirit} of God I am what I am, and his [grace] {Spirit} [to] {in} me was not without effect.

No, I worked harder than all of them -- yet not I, but the [grace] {Spirit} of God that was [with] {in} me.

(11)Whether, then, it was I or they, this is [what] {the Spirit} we preach, and this is [what] {the Spirit} you [believed] {obeyed}.

Notes:
v.(1) and (2) ”Receiving” is spirit language. A spirit is received by a body. “Have taken your stand” and “hold firmly” imply self-effort, not dependence on God or simply obeying him.
v.(2) “laboured in vain” agrees with v.58.
v.(3) and (4) The catechetical phrases: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”, “was buried”, “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” are clearly later insertions.
v.(5), (6), (7) and (8) The sequence of appearances of the resurrected Christ to the believers is fabricated so that the fictitious Paul is the last to see him: James was the first disciple (Andrew in John1:40) of the Spirit under the prophet John, and that is why he says he was abnormally born. “Falling asleep” is resurrection language to describe the time when souls or spirits go into an unconscious limbo for a resting period. In spirit language, souls or spirits remain conscious when they leave a body. Resurrection is an overwrite.
v.(9) [Paul] {James} never did persecute the church. That was down to the Sadducean priests of the likes of Annas and his son [Apollos] {Ananus}. Being Rechabite, James may have initially rejected the Spirit in favour of the law.

Haran

Geoff,

No offense, but what reasons do you have for the changes you make in the Bible?

keyser_soze

Why not, everyone else does it....

Point being, that creative interpretation seems to be commonplace in the various sects of christianity.

Haran

Hmm... Who does it that bad?

Is this really your reason Geoff, just because that's what you think it must have originally said? Why?

keyser_soze

You're kidding right?

Haran

No. I suppose it depends on what "sects" of Christianity you are talking about and whether they are ancient or modern. I would not say "everybody else is doing it"...

I'm just not sure what kind of modifications you're talking about. I don't think I have seen any mainstream Christians treat the text of the Bible in the fashion that Geoff does.

keyser_soze

Haran, I love you man, you are an excellent mind indeed. But you have to see that there is a HUGE difference between the protestant church and the catholic church in the way that they interpret the bible. Do you think that other sects did not exist prior to the protestant movement that disagreed with the catholic church or the older church order?

keyser_soze

But my point from above remains, a lot of sects DO interpret the bible with WIDELY divergent conclusions...Widely enough that they can be called heretics from one sect to another. And it was no doubt the same in more ancient climes. Just read a few threads here to see that there is a wide range of beliefs in HOW a particular section is read.

Geoff Hudson

If you have read any of my previous submissions, you will have seen that in my interpretations I try to be as consistent as I can with common themes. I wouldn't do this work if I wasn't convinced that the original writers had Jewish backgrounds and that much of their writing was subsequently overwritten by people with Graeco-Roman backgrounds.

The concepts of the original writers were much closer to those of the Jewish writers of the DSS, than those of the subsequent editors, espoused for example by the Jesus mysteries following. People have paid far too much attention to the second, third and fourth century literature, and ignored the best (and about the only) contemporary Jewish writing. When you read the Scrolls, you read the commonly understood language and concepts of the day.

I can't believe that there wasn't a powerful story about little people that was later hijacked by the rich and powerful, so that what we read today is corrupted. I reject ideas that say most was fabricated.

Just too much of what I have produced falls into place naturally, time and time again without force. I hope that what I produce does stimulate some thought about original meanings.

Geoff

Haran

Sorry... What does the Protestant/Catholic issue have to do with it? I'm confused.

I can only think of the Jehovah's witnesses who's leader mistranslated the Bible. I cannot think of any modern, mainstream Christians who propose changing names and pronouns. I would assume there is no physical evidence for any of these proposed changes (though I have not looked yet).

Interpretation I can understand, but Geoff seems to be taking interpretation somewhat further than any I am familiar with unless you can elaborate. {Oops... Cross-posted with Geoff...}