Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 05-01-2012, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

....Anyway, Mark speaks of brothers and sisters and a carpenter father in a manner that suggest they were known to be a commonplace family.

Why do you make such BLATANT erroneous statement when you ought to know there is NO such statement in gMark???

This is the terryfying problem in this forum.

People here make statements that cannot be shown be correct and do not even admit their blatant mis-leading statements.

There is ZERO mention that Jesus had a human father in gMark.

In gMark, someone asked some questions about Jesus which was NEVER answered by the author.

Mark 6:3 KJV

Quote:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

The question itself did NOT even ask about a father of Jesus.

Please, stop the propaganda. This is a serious discussion.

gMark's Jesus had NO known human father, was NOT claimed to have a human father and was identified as the Son of God.

We cannot be going over the same ERRONEOUS propaganda day after day by posters who have been on this forum for YEARS.

I was quoting from memory, but I will be more careful in the future.

Quote:

Joseph was a carpenter from Nazareth. He was engaged to be married to Mary. Probably he was just a little bit older than her, though it is not likely that he was such an old man as you sometimes see in pictures of the Holy Family. In those days marriages would be arranged by the family. The parents of two young people would get together and decide that they should get married.
Joseph found out Mary was going to have a baby, and he knew he wasn't its father, so he decided that he would not get married to her. Instead he would break off the engagement and divorce her. Because Joseph liked Mary he decided that he would do things quietly and not get her into trouble. However, when he was asleep one night, Joseph had a dream. In the dream an angel appeared to him and told him not to worry, that Mary's child was very special, a child not of another man, but of the Holy Spirit. So Joseph believed what he had been told in his dream was true and decided to marry Mary after all. Everybody naturally thought that Joseph was the father of Jesus............................................. .................................................. ............................................

http://www.catholicireland.net/churc...-the-carpenter

Mark 6
3;Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary* and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence* at him.

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark+6

Matt. 13:53–56: “And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, ‘Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?’” (parallel Mark 6:3)

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Mark also has no knowledge of a virgin birth. Neither does Paul, for that matter, or Q or GJohn or Thomas.

The author of Mark does NOT need a virgin birth for his Son of God. In the 2nd century it is claimed Marcion's Son of God did NOT need a virgin birth but came DIRECTLY from heaven to Galilee at the same time as gMark's Jesus was in Galilee WITHOUT a birth narrative.

It is not easy to reconstruct Marcion’ biblical writings, since they were destroyed by his enemies—write Professor Diarmid MacCulloch.

Why are you quoting Marcion in support of your fancy?

Are you quoting from memory or from your imagination???

Well, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephrem did NOT destroy Marcion's teachings they appear to destroy Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" appears to be a Massive work of fiction and is CONTRADICTED by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephrem the Syrian.

Ephrem the Syrian wrote THREE PROSE "Against Marcion" and they are NOTHING at all like Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

Hippolytus in "Refutation against All Heresies" also claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings.

Iskander · 05-01-2012, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

It is not easy to reconstruct Marcion’ biblical writings, since they were destroyed by his enemies—write Professor Diarmid MacCulloch.

Why are you quoting Marcion in support of your fancy?

Are you quoting from memory or from your imagination???

Well, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephrem did NOT destroy Marcion's teachings they appear to destroy Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" appears to be a Massive work of fiction and is CONTRADICTED by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephrem the Syrian.

Ephrem the Syrian wrote THREE PROSE "Against Marcion" and they are NOTHING at all like Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

Hippolytus in "Refutation against All Heresies" also claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings.

Aa the inerrant poster.

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Aa the inerrant poster.

Why do you spread propaganda under the guise of a faulty memory???

Iskander · 05-01-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Aa the inerrant poster.

Why do you spread propaganda under the guise of a faulty memory???

What else could you do with yourself?

Steven Carr · 05-01-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is no contradiction between saying we don't have original manuscripts and saying it's not rational to assume that any given portion of the text is an interpolation without a reason.

It is Bart who says the manuscripts do not exist to provide 'some assurance' that we known the original text.

This is not the same thing as saying all of the extant text should therefore be presumed to be forged.

So Bart can provide 'some assurance' that we can know the original text, despite his claim that we just don't have the manuscripts to let us do that?

Steven Carr · 05-01-2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Why would the letters of James and Jude be expected to claim any sibling relationship to Jesus? There is no reason to connect those authors to those Gospel characters except for the names, which were both extremely common.

So who were they? And why were there letters regarded as important?

The fact is that the Epistles of James and Jude give no idea of knowing that a James was supposed to be a sibling of Jesus.
'
And nor does Luke/Acts, despite Ehrman's recent claim on his blog that 'we know from other sources that the James who headed the church in Jerusalem was in fact known to be the brother of Jesus).’

When asked what sources, Ehrman said ' In the NT, just Acts.'

No wonder his recent book was so bad.

For God's sake, Bart, get your graduate students to check what you write, like you used to....

andrewcriddle · 05-01-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I thought Galatians 1:19 was supposed to be the definitive knock-out punch to mythicism? Early manuscripts don't exist, but since all of our fourth century or later manuscripts say "brother of the Lord," then we can say with "some assurance" that it was there in the original manuscripts (which don't exist).

Brilliant logic there Ehrman. You can't have it both ways.

P46 normally dated c 200 CE has Galatians 1:19 with the reference to the Lord's brother.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I thought Galatians 1:19 was supposed to be the definitive knock-out punch to mythicism? Early manuscripts don't exist, but since all of our fourth century or later manuscripts say "brother of the Lord," then we can say with "some assurance" that it was there in the original manuscripts (which don't exist).

Brilliant logic there Ehrman. You can't have it both ways.

P46 normally dated c 200 CE has Galatians 1:19 with the reference to the Lord's brother.

Andrew Criddle

Please, please, please!!! c 200 CE is nowhere close to c 60 CE.

Again, it is unheard of that the resolution of Galatians 1.19 is based SOLELY on the very verse itself. Such a solution is preposterous and defies all logic.

Other sources Must be employed.

Any claim of genealogy must be resolved by the available evidence for the genealogy of James the Apostle and the Lord Jesus.

Who was the father and mother of James the Apostles according to Apologetic sources???

Alphaeus or Clophas, or Joseph was the father and the supposed sister of Mary was the mother of James the Apostle. See De Viris Illustribus, the fragments of Papias.

Who was the father and mother of the Lord Jesus???

In gMatthew and gLuke, the Father of Jesus was the Holy Ghost of God and Mary was his mother.

The Pauline writer is a LIAR. James the Apostle was NOT the Lord's brother.

Now, if Jesus did NOT EXIST how could he have apostles???

There is NO record of any Apostles of Jesus in non-apologetic sources and NO records of Paul except in Forgeries.

graymouser · 05-01-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

And between that, and totally ignoring the possibility or denying it on no basis that, even if it was original to Paul, it can only mean sibling of an historical Jesus, and not “brother” in the sense of “brethren,” (with “of the Lord” being moreover ambiguous as a reference to Christ or to God) for which there is plenty of support in Paul’s overall use of the term “adelphos”.

But not in his general use of "αδελϕος τον κυριον," which is the problem for you.

Quote:

“Brother of the Lord” is fully understandable as a member of the sect, and the presence of the word “the” defining brother is absolutely irrelevant, as I’ve pointed out in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (p,62), since it is generally expected in Greek grammatical usage, even if Paul only meant “a brother of the Lord”. Paul is simply identifying for his readers that this James was a member of the sect, “a brother of the Lord”. (I also provided a reasonable analogy in the book to illustrate why Paul could have pointed this out: see note 28.)

Except that this specific reference does not make sense at all. "James the brother of the Lord" was being used to differentiate the James that Paul met from any other apostle named James. If all sect members were "brothers of the Lord," then this hasn't named anyone specific. It requires there to be a differentiation between "James the brother of the Lord" and other apostles, which your definition fails at.

Quote:

Incidentally, 1 Cor. 9:5 contains a reference to “the brothers of the Lord” (as a group, thus the “the”). This, too, has the sound of ‘brethren’ of the sect. That they are referred to distinct from the “apostles” is not a problem, as I outline in JNGNM (p.60-1). The whole “brethren of/in the Lord” could well refer to a core group, the original ‘monastic’ order (whether led by James or not), which then acquired other members dedicated to outside apostolic work.

Actually, in context it doesn't. The brothers of the Lord are singled out along with Cephas and the Apostles as moral exemplars in this case. You have now had to invent an ad hoc religious order to explain it away, which has no other evidence than your preferred reading of a couple of lines in the Greek NT. This should be a sign of the weakness of your case, but you regard it as perfectly adequate, and then wonder why you aren't taken more seriously.

Quote:

And note in the very same verse, the female version of “adelphos” is referred to: “allowed to bring along a sister (“adelphēn”) wife.” What—they married their sisters? This is universally understood as a female believer within the sect, with no sign that any dramatic distinction is to be made for the succeeding reference to “brothers of the Lord”. Indeed, to convey such a difference, Paul need only have altered his words and said “brothers of Jesus.” A phrase that would be perfectly normal but is never used of something claimed to mean a sibling of a recent human being.

"Of the Lord" is a fairly dramatic distinction, and it's telling that he didn't use it to mean the sect-member "αδελϕην."

Quote:

And let’s not forget that “brother of the Lord” is one little preposition away from Phil. 1:14’s “brothers in the Lord”, which is universally taken as meaning “brethren in the Lord” in the sense of referring to the members of the sect. So we have the identical word “brother” here unmistakeable as a sect member, and the identical “Lord” as a reference to the object of the faith’s worship with no possible association of sibling. (Whether Christ or God is still ambiguous.) One preposition separates Gal. 1:19 from being unmistakeably a similar reference to a sect member of a divine figure, and yet none of this has any effect whatsoever on Ehrman, Diogenes or Steve (and countless others) and their preferred interpretation.

This is not true, and you should know it. Brother of the Lord is αδελϕος τον κυριον while Phil 1:14 has των αδελϕων εν κυριω. There's clearly a distinction between τον κυριον and εν κυριω, as Greek doesn't make it so easy to make a simple slip and substitute the wrong preposition. It's disingenuous of you to imply that it could so easily be a slip of the pen.

Quote:

If anything, it is all this alternative evidence for a non-sibling meaning in Gal. 1:19 which is “inconvenient” to historicists, who can only counter it all by largely ignoring it and pretending it doesn’t exist. Probably nothing better speaks volumes about the intransigence of historicism and those who hold to it by any desperate means.

"Alternative evidence" in this case meaning that you have to invent religious orders out of whole cloth. Clearly people rejecting that are intransigent.

Quote:

To ignore all this, along with the failure of the letters of James and Jude to make any sibling relationship of the writer to Jesus (almost inconceivable if it were true), is simple closed-minded pig-headedness, an ailment too common in these parts.

The epistles of James and Jude are held by most scholars to be pseudonymous. Why on earth would we expect a sibling relationship to be explicitly discussed?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.