Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jjramsey · 12-26-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Later tradition is little help for understanding earlier tradition.

As a blanket statement, it is misleading. Obviously, there is a risk of anachronism, but the level of risk depends on the question at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Now if you want to argue that it is more parsimonious to posit a special group of believers called "brothers of the Lord" that somehow left no trace and was universally misinterpreted by Christians, be my guest.

If we have references to "brother of the lord" and the "brethren of the lord" then obviously it is false to say they left no trace.

Oh, please. It's pretty obvious that I meant that there is no trace to indicate that there was some a special group of believers that had a title "brothers of the Lord" that had nothing to do with blood kinship with Jesus.

spin · 12-26-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Later tradition is little help for understanding earlier tradition.

As a blanket statement, it is misleading.

We get past your basic bad will...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Obviously, there is a risk of anachronism, but the level of risk depends on the question at hand.

Not just anachronism but tainting a text before understanding what it says in itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If we have references to "brother of the lord" and the "brethren of the lord" then obviously it is false to say they left no trace.

Oh, please. It's pretty obvious that I meant that there is no trace to indicate that there was some a special group of believers that had a title "brothers of the Lord" that had nothing to do with blood kinship with Jesus.

What you meant and what the original writer meant are not necessarily the same thing. You can't assume what you need to show.

spin

Steven Carr · 12-27-2008, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

[*]as I said before, lack of evidence that it was a title,[*]plenty of evidence of Paul referring to Jesus as "Lord," and[*]later explicit references to James as Jesus' brother by blood.

Where does Luke/Acts ever claim any relationship at all of this James to Jesus?

It was supposed to be a theologically-correct, orderly account, yet this supposed blood relationship is not there.

Clearly something is being hidden from us.

By the way, the Maitreya has met many people

http://www.share-international.org/m...itreya_faq.htm

Q.In 1990 Maitreya held a conference in London and invited politicians, members of royalty, journalists, diplomats, etc. Have there been any similar events since that occasion?

A. No, but Maitreya has continued to make individual contact with many leaders in every branch of human activity.

You can see historicists salivating at this proof that Maitreya exists.

Christians would kill for such contemporary evidence of Jesus meeting Herod.

And yet the Maitreya does not exist, even though we have pictures of him, teachings by him, and reports of conferences he held.

jjramsey · 12-27-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Where does Luke/Acts ever claim any relationship at all of this James to Jesus?

Don't know about Luke/Acts, but Mark 6:3 clearly indicates James was Jesus' brother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

By the way, the Maitreya has met many people

http://www.share-international.org/m...itreya_faq.htm

And from this FAQ:

Quote:

Q. Will Maitreya look physically like Himself – that is, as He really is – when His first interview takes place, or will He be in a different ‘guise’ – as He usually is when He appears to people?
A. When He appears to people He is usually using a ‘familiar’, a created person through which some part of His consciousness manifests. But when He appears openly to the world, although not using the name Maitreya, He will appear as in fact He is, in the self-created body in which He manifests now in the world

Paul does not mention James manifesting himself in such an out of the ordinary fashion.

Steven Carr · 12-27-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Where does Luke/Acts ever claim any relationship at all of this James to Jesus?

Don't know about Luke/Acts, but Mark 6:3 clearly indicates James was Jesus' brother.

So what is the historicist answer to Luke/Acts never giving any hint that this James had ever seen Jesus?

There isn't one. Historicists haven't done the work.

aa5874 · 12-27-2008, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Where does Luke/Acts ever claim any relationship at all of this James to Jesus?

Don't know about Luke/Acts, but Mark 6:3 clearly indicates James was Jesus' brother.

Mark 6.3 is NOT a clear indication at all. Mark 6.3 is a series of questions that were NEVER answered by the author.

Mark 6.3

Quote:

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

And to further highlight the ambiguity or confusion, gMatthew ask questions about some James being the brother of the carpenter's son.

Matthew 13.55

Quote:

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? and His brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

It is as clear as mud that the carpenter or the carpenter's son had a brother called James.

J-D · 12-27-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

[*]as I said before, lack of evidence that it was a title,[*]plenty of evidence of Paul referring to Jesus as "Lord," and[*]later explicit references to James as Jesus' brother by blood.

Where does Luke/Acts ever claim any relationship at all of this James to Jesus?

It was supposed to be a theologically-correct, orderly account, yet this supposed blood relationship is not there.

Clearly something is being hidden from us.

By the way, the Maitreya has met many people

http://www.share-international.org/m...itreya_faq.htm

Q.In 1990 Maitreya held a conference in London and invited politicians, members of royalty, journalists, diplomats, etc. Have there been any similar events since that occasion?

A. No, but Maitreya has continued to make individual contact with many leaders in every branch of human activity.

You can see historicists salivating at this proof that Maitreya exists.

Christians would kill for such contemporary evidence of Jesus meeting Herod.

And yet the Maitreya does not exist, even though we have pictures of him, teachings by him, and reports of conferences he held.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. If you do not dispute that there are pictures of Maitreya and that many people have met him, on what basis do you deny that he exists?

spamandham · 12-27-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother

Galatians 1

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Paul would have made a stronger case for his revelation without the business about James, and the James portion seems like a clunky afterthought. IMHO, it's reasonable to suspect interpolation, and that's enough to discount the entire argument.

Steven Carr · 12-28-2008, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm sorry, I'm confused. If you do not dispute that there are pictures of Maitreya and that many people have met him, on what basis do you deny that he exists?

I've seen Benjamin Creme interviewed on TV and from his evasive answers it is pretty obvious that there is no Maitreya living as an obscure Muslim in London who is just about to appear on our TV screens.

For the past 30 years, the Maitreya has been just about to appear...

J-D · 12-28-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm sorry, I'm confused. If you do not dispute that there are pictures of Maitreya and that many people have met him, on what basis do you deny that he exists?

I've seen Benjamin Creme interviewed on TV and from his evasive answers it is pretty obvious that there is no Maitreya living as an obscure Muslim in London who is just about to appear on our TV screens.

For the past 30 years, the Maitreya has been just about to appear...

If that is so, then why do you say that there are photos of him and that many people have met him?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.