aa5874

Why do you presume the Galatians writer is credible?? The Galatians writer claimed his Jesus was NOT human at the very start.

We have NO idea when the Pauline Jesus was crucified if we use ONLY letters of Paul.

When was the Galatians Jesus crucified???

Where was the Galatians Jesus crucified???

Was Galatians Jesus from Nazareth????

I reject your PRESUMPTIONS. I need corroboration for whatever you claim about Galatians.

The present bishop of Rome also PRESUMES that Galatians is credible without a shred of corroboration from credible sources of antiquity.

Why are you any different to Ratzinger????

LegionOnomaMoi

1) It's a letter, so there isn't really a "storyline."
2) There would be no churches until the English language.
3) He doesn't say "all over."
4) According to the timeline in galatians, Paul converted sometime after there were already christians, and then three years after this went to Jerusalem. Then he left to go to Syria and Cilicia.
5) He connects his statement about being "unknown by face/sight" to the communities in Judaea to his statement about going to Syria and Cilicia through the particle de.

So according to this timeline, all that Paul asserts is that sometime after three years after he was conerted (which was itself after the sect began), there were assemblies in Judaea.
And what does that have to do with anything?

Which early date, and again what does that have to do with anything.

I could assume that. I can assume god created the heavens and the earth to. I like evidence though. And Paul states that when he went up to meet with Peter, he also came across James, Jesus' brother. This James is also mentioned in Mark/Matthew as Jesus' brother, and in Josephus as Jesus' brother. This James is identified (to distinguish him from any number of others with the same name) by his kinship to Jesus. The form of identification is quite common: X the Y of Z (where "of Z" is genitive). Often, it's "X the Son of Z" but places and titles and other relations are used. James is identified as the brother of Jesus to distinguish him from other people named James. And Paul mentions this James in galations.

LegionOnomaMoi

It depends what you mean by credible.
He didn't. Attributing supernatural abilities to a person doesn't make them not human, and Jesus wasn't the first or the last person to have such "powers" attributed to them.


Lucky for us then we have more than the letters of Paul.

Is there an apostrophe missing somewhere in there? It's hard to tell with you.

Oh I know. The historical method just isn't for you. That's ok. There are lots of Christians who don't like applying it either. You won't lack for company.

I'm not sure what you need. But corroboration isn't it.

I can't speak to what the bishop of Rome presumes, but the rabbi Neusner, the agnostic Ehrman, the jewish scholar (and scholar of Judaism) Vermes, and many, many other non-christian historians find that we have enough corroboration and convincing evidence that Galatians is credible in certain ways.

Why am I? Well it would be impossible to be the same without BEING Ratzinger. I guess the reason why I am different than Ratzinger is because we aren't the same person, don't believe the same things, and I'm only a quarter German. And german jew at that.

aa5874

The same Galatians writer who claimed he SAW Peter and James also claimed he SAW the resurrected Jesus who was NOT human.

Unless you get corroboration for Peter/Cephas, James and Jesus from credible sources then I reject the Pauline writer as credible.

The Galatians writer SAW things that did NOT exist.

Who else SAW Peter/Cephas, James and Jesus???

Only people in the Bible!!!

The Bible is NOT a reliable history book and must FIRST be corroborated.

LegionOnomaMoi

That's true. I've met honest and intelligent people (if things like SAT scores, GPAs, capacity for verbal expression and mathematical reasoning can say anything about intelligence) who believe they have successfully cast spells, seen ghosts, etc. I don't believe they are lying, I just believe they are wrong. There's a better explanation for what happened.

I've never met anybody who has claimed to have seen a vision/revelation of Jesus, but I doubt that every single such claim over the past 2 millenia or so has been a lie. Schizophrenics aren't they only people who have such experiences. In fact, any person under the right circumstances can. It doesn't make these things real, but it does mean it is possible for Paul to have actually had a vision of Jesus.

It's also possible he simply lied. Something else converted him. Either way, claiming that Jesus rose from the dead is not the equivalent of saying Jesus isn't human. Supernatural claims about historical individuals have been made throughout history.

How did they fit? It must have been quite large.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
As I told you before, these churches in Judea did not need to be in existence yet when Paul was still persecuting in Jerusalem, before going to Damascus (and Arabia, and Cilicia, and Syria).
Actually 'Acts" explains that rather well:

Paul, in Galatians, had Jesus as a descendant of Abraham and from a woman.

aa5874

Well, the Pauline writer not only claimed Jesus was resurrected he also claimed his Jesus was NOT HUMAN, that he did NOT get his gospel from man and that he was LAST VISITED by the resurrected Jesus.

Galatians 1:1 KJVGalatians 1.11 The Galatians Jesus was non-human which is compatible with the doctrine of the Church.

The Canonized Pauline writings do NOT support the Heresy that Jesus was human.

The claim that the Pauline Jesus was human is a modern HERESY.

aa5874

Paul in Galatians claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a man and did NOT get his gospel from and did NOT please man to be a disciple of Jesus. Galatians 1

Now, Jesus the Son of a Ghost was born of a woman--Mary his mother was WITH CHILD of a Ghost --See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.26-35.

The author of gMark made sure Jesus WALKED on water to SHOW he was NON-HUMAN

The Pauline Jesus was GOD in the Flesh and the First born of the DEAD.

Colossians 1:18 KJV The Pauline Jesus was God incarnate and also a ZOMBIE--total MYTH.

LegionOnomaMoi

Alas, though, he does not say Jesus "was NOT HUMAN." Even in your translations (poor as they are) this does not hold true.

I know logic isn't something you particularly care for, but just for fun let's look at what one could validly conclude given your translations, starting with Gal. 1:1
The question is, given the above translation (particularly without the commas, which are not in the greek), can you conclude that Paul is arguing Jesus' isn't human?

He claims to be an apostle because of Jesus Christ and God. Logically, if Jesus was human and God was not, then if he was made an apostle by Jesus and God, then it is true that he was not made an apostle by men or man, but it is not necessarily true that Jesus is not a man. If Jesus Paul thought Jesus were human, he could still say "I was not made an apostle by humans, but by Jesus and God." Because Jesus alone did not make him an apostle, so whether or not Jesus is human is irrelevant.

Things get even better with your second translation:

Grammatically, in the english translation you are providing, Paul states that he received the gospel from a revelation. A revelation is not human. If the revelation is from a human, the revelation itself is still not human. I could receive a revelation from my brother. The revelation would not be human, but my brother would be. Again, alas, even your translations don't support your conclusions.


You might want to let the Ebionites know. Or Reimarus.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
OK, let's see how it applies to your views on AH 2.22 and Against Heresies.
Can you show an un-interpolated passage of AH 2.22? NO you can't.
Can you show an un-interpolated text of 'Against Heresies? NO you can't.
And for point 1, we have to assume Irenaeus was honest, that really John and other apostles were preaching the 20 years for Jesus' ministry some 80 years before AH, even if we do not have any corroboration from any other sources.

Yes, I did, as far as not written by Paul, with eight reasons.
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc

And you are claiming that AH 2.22 and the whole of 'Against Heresies' are heavily interpolated because of one reason: to allow for your theory.

Don't you think a 20 years ministry is much better than a flash in the pan of only one year?

AH 2.22 shows that Irenaeus knew all the pertinent passages of gLuke and gJohn and addressed them. Acts and the Pauline epistles are not obvious in limiting Pilate's rule to 10 years. And Irenaeus might not have known or remembered Josephus' antiquities which set Pilate's rule to 10 years only.
And since you think that AH 2.22 was interpolated, then why did the interpolators help Irenaeus to "prove" the 20 years with gJohn and gLuke?