Doug Shaver

Historicists often act, it seems to me, as if it were their best argument.

If it is, that would explain a thing or two.

ApostateAbe

OK, yeah, it would be great if we knew what Paul's contemporaries were saying about Jesus, if by "contemporaries" you mean people who were writing in exactly the same decade. But, we don't know, because we don't have such writings. That is the nature of history--evidence is scarce. So, we settle on what Christians have said a few decades later. They say that James was a literal brother of Jesus. Maybe the myth drastically changed in the space of those few decades. It is possible.
Paul encourages adherence to "Jesus Christ our Lord," who was crucified, and he regarded James, John and Cephas as reputed pillars. The gospels encourage adherence to "Jesus Christ" aka "Lord," and they regard James, John and Cephas as inner disciples. They belong to the same cult. Now, they certainly don't belong to the same sect of this cult. Paul apparently started his own sect. Maybe that difference is enough, in your mind, that we can't use the gospels or Josephus to clarify what Paul may have meant by saying, "the brother of the Lord." OK, fine. I just have a different way of thinking about this stuff, and I am not going to ask you to accept it.
It would explain why the case for a historical Jesus seems so terribly weak, you think? That makes sense, because this line of evidence all by itself can be explained away with maybe only a little guilt. To me, the strength of the case is decided by consilience, meaning how well many different lines of evidence work together in favor of a conclusion, at the expense of other conclusions. If we had the writings of Paul and nothing else in Christian history, then the historical Jesus camp would have a weaker case. We wouldn't have the gospels listing James as a literal brother of Jesus, nor would we have Josephus (or his interpolator) saying the same thing. And, of course, it doesn't stop there. Paul never makes direct mention of the apocalyptic deadlines set by Jesus, but the gospels do. Without the gospels, we wouldn't know that John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Paul makes plenty of mention of the crucifixion, but never direct mention of Pontius Pilate or the physicality of it, at least not as clearly as we would like, but the gospels do. We can make best sense of all of these things with a historical model of Jesus. Any single line of evidence would probably not seem like enough, in my mind, and I may have taken the position of R. Joseph Hoffman or Toto. They are Jesus-agnostics, and that seems to be a superior position if you have an almost impractical degree of skepticism for all explanations of historical evidence. To accept mythicism, in my opinion, requires evidence with consilience that is stronger than the consilience of the historical Jesus camp.

dog-on

I think that Catholic interpolation of a Marcionite document is the most likely answer to this question.

Toto

You know the famous joke about the drunk who was looking for his watch under the lamp? He actually lost in in the dark alley, but the light was better under the lamp.

This seems to be what you are doing here - looking for evidence where it is easy to find, not where it should be.

It is more than possible, especially of those decades included the destruction of the Temple.

Not quite. Paul uses the word "Lord" interchangably for God and for Jesus, while the Gospels maintain a separation. The "James" who is one of the disciples to see the transfiguration in the gospels is the brother of John, not the brother of Jesus. The James in the gospels who is the biological brother of Jesus thought his brother was crazy, and was not a follower, much less in the inner circle.

This is not a personal religion. If you are going to make these arguments as debate, you have to justify your position based on common standards of historical analysis.

No - these are difficulties that the historicist need to explain away, not support for the historicist case. Why do the details of Jesus' life only appear in religious literature written so long after his death?
Why is this an impractical degree of skepticism? I think it is only an ordinary degree of skepticism.

aa5874

But, you ONLY have one uncorroborated line that claimed Paul met an apostle James and [N]NOT[/B]Jesus to conclude most absurdly that Jesus of the NT was historical.

Paul have described Jesus and he Jesus was BEFORE anything was made. Jesus had the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God. Jesus was the Creator of EVERYTHING in heaven and earth and the FIRST born of the DEAD. See Colossians 1.12-17

So JESUS was a SUPERNATURAL entity based on the Pauline writings alone. Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant.



A list with a name James is totally irrelevant once Jesus was ALREADY described by the authors of the Gospels.

The authors of the Gospels have internally corroborated Colossians 1.12-17 that Jesus was a GOD or a SUPERNATURAL being, the first-born of the DEAD..

1.The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was the CHILD of a HOLY ghost.See Matthew 1.18

2.The author of gLuke claimed Jesus was ALSO the CHILD of a HOLY ghost and SON of God. See Luke 1.35

3. The author of gJohn claimed Jesus was GOD, the Creator of EVERYTHING in heaven and earth. See John 1

4. The author of gMark claimed Jesus WALKED on water, transfigured and was raised from the DEAD. See Mark 9.2, 16.6 and 6.49

Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant. JESUS was GOD and Creator.

But, you have FAILED to mention what happened when John baptised the Child of the Holy Ghost, the Creator, son of God and GOD called Jesus. The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus like a DOVE internally corroborating that JESUS was a SUPERNATURAL entity.

Again, you have FAILED to mention what happened AFTER the Creator, the Son of God, the Child of the Holy Ghost called Jesus was crucified. You ONLY give half of the story.

Jesus, the Creator was RAISED from the dead.

Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant once Jesus was described as the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God and was RAISED from the DEAD.


It is just completely absurd to even suggest that Jesus of the NT was just a man.
What nonsense.

The EVIDENCE for a MYTHICAL Jesus have been supplied by the authors of the NT and Church writers.

The MYTHICAL conception of Jesus can be found in the Gospels.

The MYTHICAL attributes of Jesus can be found in all the NT and Church writings.

Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant.

spamandham

In another thread we are discussing various aspects of the historical method, one of which is primacy. Even scholars trained at Bible colleges typically agree that Paul is primary chronologically as a minimum. If Paul *is* primary not only chronologically, but also in terms of dependency, then it's easy to see how a biological brother of Jesus is *derived* from this very scripture by later writers dependent upon Paul, resulting in a net zero of additional weight from the Gospel James.

That being the case, the entire HJ/MJ discussion should focus primarily on what Paul has to say. Even thousands of gospels would not add up to 13x an assessment based on the original source (6.5 vs 0.5). They can do no better than to boost a primary argument by a fractional amount.

AtheistGamer

So paul wasn't pre-gospel yet somehow he opens the floodgates to mythicism?

Paul Admitted he persecuted Jesus believers



ORLY? Then where are the miracles? Where is the story of hiding in egypt? Where are the parables? Where are Jesus' teachings? Where is any of that stuff?



That's only one detail missing from the synoptics. I have three above.


I hope you don't mind if I skip a bit of your empty rhetoric where you repeat yourself.

Hallucinations. And I never said Jesus himself was halfway fleshed out. Just the stories surrounding him. Stop distorting what I say or I'm going to start a count WLC jr.




There I fixed it for ya.




So he couldn't have possibly also used Paul?



*sigh* Hallucinations. How else?







As I've told you before you are making the massive assumption that the Gospel stories did not slowly develop over time like most myths do.

And in your post you did not claim that you were writing before the post I am writing right now. Therefore your post must not predate my post.

lol so how does Paul "open the flood gates to mythicism" if he wasn't pre-gospels? If Paul was post-gospels then that would make the gospels the earliest christian documents. And if they are the earliest christian documents then you should be using *them* to construct your theory of christian origens. Not Paul's writings.





No when paul wrote "according to the scripture" he means according to OT prophecy. And paul thought the OT was one gigantic metaphor for Jesus.



Do you think I'm a christian or something? Give me a break. The OT isn't going to say that because christianity is a lie.


Well the problem is that that book is 2,000 miles away right now. Hopefully I can get my family who is visiting in a few days to rummage through my old stuff, find the book, and bring it to me on the plane.

Besides I don't need that book's arguments to show that you are crazy. As I said before you are holding two contradictory positions.

1. Paul "OPENS THE FLOODGATES TO MYTHICISM".

2. Paul is after the gospels.

So please answer this question. If paul is post gospels then why use paul's writings to construct a theory of christian origins? Wouldn't you want to use THE GOSPELS? I mean they are closer to ground zero(chronologically speaking) if we believe your idea that they are post gospels.

Here let me lay it out for you.

1. If mythicism is true then the paul must predate the gospels.

2. Mythicism is true (for argument's sake)

3. Therefore paul predates the gospels.

Unless of course you would like to argue that premise one is somehow incorrect? But no you'll just ignore this point of mine like you've done before and continue to spout your useless rhetoric.



2.

aa5874

The agreement by scholars has NO VALUE as EVIDENCE. Training in a Bible college is not EVIDENCE from antiquity about PAUL.

It is because that they have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that they have used their supposed authority to impose Fallacies.

What is the EVIDENCE from antiquity to agree Paul is primary when Paul himself places himself LAST?

1.Paul claimed he persecuted Jesus believers.

2. Paul claimed he was now preaching the very Faith which he tried to destroy.

3. Paul claimed there were people in Christ before him.

4. Paul claimed Jesus revealed to him that he was betrayed.

4. Paul he was the LAST to see Jesus AFTER he was RAISED from the dead.

PAUL was LAST by his own words. Paul's revelations began AFTER Jesus ascended to heaven. Paul's so-called knowledge of Jesus began AFTER Jesus ascended to heaven. It was Jesus AFTER his ascension to heaven who made Paul blind with his special blinding bright light for "Paul's eyes only".

Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant.

The Pauline writings are all non-historical since the Pauline writer claimed to be in contact with a DEAD character that has not been accounted for ALIVE.

spin

(I just waded through this thread without having logged on so I got a very strange perspective on the conversation, ie I saw a lot of the rot I usually miss out on. I'm happy I've logged on now. I get to see more of the content of the thread, ie the content to text ratio is higher.)
I think spamandham has clearly stated the major issue in dealing with what Paul says.

Paul's statements were made before any of the ones that people want to inject into his materials to "shed light". It is a blunder to go to later sources and expect that they will make Paul clearer. Things said later cannot elucidate what Paul has said. They may be developments on Paul. They may be reactions or "corrections" or "misunderstandings" to Paul and we have no way of being able to tell.

Paul says that James was the brother of the Lord. The use of the term kurios here is what I've called "non-titular". In Gal 1:3 for example, we read of the lord Jesus Christ, where "lord" is clearly a title. In the statement about James, ie that he was the brother of the lord", the use of kurios is not titular. It is used as a reference in lieu of a name, usually god.

There are a few times in 1 Corinthians where a non-titular kurios is used for Jesus, though I'd argue that all of them are obvious interpolations for numerous reasons including the fact that Paul clearly shows a tendency of using the non-titular kurios for god in contexts where its usage is clear, such as in Hebrew bible quotes.

Remember the Psalm (110) that starts "The lord says to my lord". The first use of "lord" is non-titular, the second is titular, so a person reading the verse would understand the difference indicated: the first is god, the second is a person with power over me.

There is a prima facae case for the non-titular kurios here not referring to Jesus, especially because it would mean that Paul would then be using the non-titular kurios without distinction for both Jesus and god, leading to a chaotic understanding of his writings. And we can see that at least one later interpolator has been responsible for inserting a non-titular kurios for Jesus in 1 Cor 11:28 found in the AV but not in the newer versions.

Reading "the brother of the lord" in Gal 1:19 doesn't allow us to assume that it refers to Jesus. We are dissuaded from doing so because it is a non-titular kurios, which Paul clearly uses for god and which is seen referring to Jesus in at least one instance as an interpolation.

We only think about the "James the brother of the lord" referring to James the brother of Jesus because of later literature, literature which may have started with this reference in Paul and rationalized it, based on the later notion that Jesus could be refered to with the non-titular kurios.

The notion that spamandham has outlined in the quote of his at the start of this response needs to be appreciated. Given the primary position of Paul's writings in christian literature--there is no christian literature before Paul--, one has to deal with what he says free of the incrustations of later christian dogma. His terms are the earliest we have and we have to eke out their meanings from what he says, not from what later pundits have said based on his writings. There is no way to know the relevance of what the later writers say when considered in the light of Paul. This means that retrojecting gospel into Paul is nothing more than eisegesis.

Paul seems to be saying that James is a brother of god. Paul consistently uses "brother" to mean a fellow believer, so there is no obvious reason to think that he is not doing the same here. If one cannot make sense out of Paul's acc.(τον αδελφον) gen.(του κυριου) then don't waste time injecting later ideas, whose relevance you'll never be able to establish. The first part is accusative because it is the object of the verb "to see" earlier in the verse. The genitive is used to establish a relationship between αδελφος and the non-titular κυριος.

Can anyone working from what Paul says make anything else out of his phrase "τον αδελφον του κυριου" other than what the phrase appears to mean, ie "the brother of god"?

To some that meaning is unpalatable for, a priori, they don't want Paul to have said such a thing because it doesn't make sense to them (as though Paul needed to make sense to them), allowing them to commit the cardinal sin of then retrojecting whatever they like into the phrase. I and others have suggested to help people that the phrase "brother of the lord" may reasonably have referred to a believer of god, perhaps one of a specific group of believers, for we find the phrase "brothers of the lord" in 1 Cor.


spin

Doug Shaver

No, it doesn't explain why it is so weak. It's just evidence of how weak the case is, if the best argument historicists can come up with is that when Paul referred to James as "the lord's brother," he just had to have meant "Jesus' sibling."