spin

One suspect shows the tendency. And I've argued that they are all interpolations.

No. One has to explain where this non-titular κυριος for Jesus started and that is about the time of the editing of Luke, ie after Mark and Matthew. That's a rough date for the intrusion into the Pauline corpus

What you require is something you cannot deny. If you can have any excuse, you'll use it.

All I ask is any pundit trying to explain how they can tell when Paul uses the non-titular κυριος for god and for Jesus when there are no contextual clues. No-one can.

This is just you working in reverse.

Note, nowhere else. Just 1 Corinthians... and that's where there is a bona fide interpolation that one can't deny away.

Show me all those many non-titular uses of κυριος for Jesus. You'll find that you can count them on one had with a finger or two missing, so one certain interpolation and evidence for all the others being interpolations.


spin

judge

One suspect shows a tendency?



Again you admit, to your detriment that Paul does use kurios for Jesus.

This is nothing more than a bald assertion from you. You need to go through all the many times where Paul uses kurios for Jesus and explain them away. Good luck.

spin

When you have a linguistic anomaly, certainly. Get over it.

You are confusing the form of the text we have with the theoretical original. If the author used the non-titular κυριος for Jesus, then the theoretical is the same as the present form in this respect. The equivalence hasn't been established and there are problems assuming that Paul is responsible for the confusing terminology of non-titular κυριος for two distinct references without necessarily any contextual clues. An author attempts to communicate to their audience, not confuse them.

I have. You, like everyone else who doesn't like the information, haven't. If you don't look, you won't see. Now that's safe, isn't it?


spin

Solo

Really ? What about Rom 14:6 ? : He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God;

What about 2 Cr 8:5 ? ...and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God.

There is also a number of other passages outside of 1 Cor where the non-titular Lord is securely deployed as clear reference to JC (e.g. Paul's co-workers who are ἐν κυρίῳ in Rom 16, 1 Th 4:16-17) etc.

Jiri

bacht

This forum is better than a lot of others but it's a mix of amateurs and pros. We're not all working from the same knowledge base, and there are some with pet theories that get trotted out regularly.

Ideally arguments can be broken down to evidence and conclusions. In NT discussions the usual problem is reliance on evidence that won't bear the conclusions drawn from it. What it really comes down to is lack of solid evidence. Endless dissection of canonical texts can only yield meager results imo, unless fresh interpretations are allowed. But even so there's not a lot to work with.

There are multiple perspectives on Jesus for example, some extreme, some plausible, but none provable afaics. There are just too many gaps in our knowledge of early Christianity and its social context.

aa5874

Of what would you like to convince me?

You have already stated that your GUESSES about Jesus are based on EVIDENCE that is a PILE of dog crap.

But, all you do is try to DEMONIZE me with falsehood.

You KNOW all you have is A PILE of DOG Crap for your JESUS of "history" based on your IMAGINATION.

You have virtually NO sources of antiquity to support the CRAP that Jesus was just a man.

1. The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was the offspring of a GHOST of God. See Matt. 1.18

2. The author of gMark claimed Jesus walked on water, transfigured and was RAISED from the dead. See Mark 16.6, 9.2, 6-48.

3. The author of gLuke claimed Jesus was the product of a GHOST of GOD. See Luke 1.35

4. The author of gJohn claimed Jesus was God before anything was made and that Jesus was the CREATOR of heaven and earth. See John 1

5. The author of Acts claimed Jesus ascended through the clouds after the resurrection. See Acts 1.9

6. The authors of the Pauline writings claimed Jesus was raised from the dead. See Galatians 1.1.

7. An author of the Pauline writings claimed Jesus was in the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE GOD and the Creator of heaven and earth and existed before anything was made. See Colossians 1.12-17

8. An author of the Pauline writings claimed Jesus was in the form of God and equal to God. See Philippians 2.6

9. The author of Hebrews claimed Jesus was raised from the dead. See Hebrews 13.20.

10. The author of an Epistle called Peter claimed Jesus was resurrected. See 1 Peter 1.3.

11. The author of the Epistle called John claimed JESUS, GOD and the Holy Ghost are ONE. See 1 John 5.7

12. The author of Revelation claimed Jesus was the FIRSTBORN of the DEAD and that he would be coming BACK to EARTH in the CLOUDS. See Revelation 1.5-7.

My reasoning that JESUS was MYTH/FICTIONAL entity is SOLIDLY supported by SOURCES of antiquity.

Now let us examine where you got YOUR pile of DOG CRAP for your Jesus of "history".

Jesus was NOT a man in the NT or Church writings so where did you get the PILE of DOG CRAP from to support YOUR Jesus?

Of course the PILE of DOG CRAP came FROM you. I AM CONVINCED.

It is simply NOT true that you cannot CONVINCE me of anything.

Now, once Jesus was DEPICTED and DESCRIBED as a MYTHICAL/FICTIONAL character by virtually ALL the authors of the NT Canon and by the very author of Galatians 1.19 then the very passage about "Lord's brother" is irrelevant.

Galatians 1.19 cannot alter Galatians 1.1,

Galatians 1.19 cannot alter

1. Romans 1:4, 4:24, 6:4, 6:9, 7:4, 8:11 and 10:7.

2. 1Cor 15:12, 15:13, 15:15, 15:16, and 15:20

Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant when Jesus was already described as a MYTH.

Doug Shaver

I was referring to Doherty's work.
I don't disagree with that. When I say a theory is well argued, I just mean that the argument suffices to make the theory credible, not that it rules out all the alternative theories. I think Doherty presents a cogent argument for the thesis, not that Jesus certainly never existed, but that he probably never existed.

The issue in this thread, it seems to me, is whether Paul's reference to James as "brother of the lord," all by itself, constitutes an effective counterargument to Doherty's case.

spin

What about them, when I've already said, "Paul has no problem using both θεος and the non-titular κυριος for god."? The religio-cultural milieu saw no problem in using the two together, as in Ex 3:4, 4:27, 8:19, Num 22:22, 23:8, Deut 9:10, "And the lord delivered to me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God", two separate entities?

There is a long heritage of using both terms to refer to the god of Israel and Paul would have been part of that milieu. We need to overcome the later christian encrustations when reading Paul in his context.

Is there a problem with 1 Cor 7:22 where someone is a servant in the lord, and likewise is servant of christ? Are they (the lord and christ) the same reference?

1 Th 4:16-17, "the dead in christ... will be with the lord" doesn't support the confusion.

Why do you think εν κυριω refers to Jesus? If in 1 Sam 2:1 a person's heart can rejoice in the lord (εν κυριω), does that imply Jesus? What about trusting in the lord, the god of Israel in 2 Kgs 18:5? or Jonathan strengthening his hand in the lord in 1 Sam 23:16? Then there are analogous phrases in the LXX: see Ps 56:4, εν τω θεω in god (I will praise...)--this form Paul uses in Rom 5:11--, 56:10 επι τω θεω... επι τω κυριω, In god (I will praise the saying), in the lord (I will praise the word), 62:7 in god (επι τω θεω) is my salvation. How should one deal with 2 Cor 10:17, "let him glory in the lord (εν κυριω)", when it's a quote from Jeremiah? Does Paul use the phrase εν κυριω indiscriminantly?

The influences on Paul come from before him, not after. Our approach to Paul's texts is heavily influenced by later thought, an approach which is bound to lead to mystification rather than understanding.


spin

ApostateAbe

Yes, and I think that summarizes the fundamental position of Toto and the Jesus-agnostics. There is so much that we just don't know, there are so many avenues of skepticism, that it is all but ridiculous to make historical conclusions behind the New Testament. That is a philosophical paradigm that is fundamentally different from the way that I think, and there is no way to argue anyone out of it. In my philosophical paradigm, the scarcity and uncertainty of the evidence does not negate the justification of judging some arguments as far better than other arguments, nor does it make all conclusions equal.

But, how can I hope to convince such a person that Galatians probably was referring to the literal brother of Jesus? Josephus and the gospels of Matthew and Mark say that he was the literal brother. But, those are Christian myths that were maybe based on the writings of Paul. But, wouldn't that mean that they are likely to have the same understanding of James as Paul did? But, maybe the religion changed enough so that they misinterpreted Paul. But, what is the evidence for that? What is the evidence for your theory? The Argument to the Best Explanation--my proposition has more explanatory scope, more explanatory power, more plausibility and fewer ad hoc suppositions than the other proposition. Each proposition is just as plausible and just as ad hoc, and that's all you can really say. No, no, no!

It seems like skepticism is really the end goal with a lot of people like us. It is not about probability. It is not about estimating relative likelihoods. It is about disbelief.

bacht

I think you're missing the point. Arguing about James the brother of the Lord when all we have to work with are heavily edited Christian texts is pretty much a dead end. Unless there are other materials to compare with, say a tomb of James, or an analysis of Christian beliefs written by a contemporary non-Christian (ie. a hostile witness), it's all just blowing smoke rings imo.

Skepticism is a tool, not a philosophy (yes there was a school of Hellenistic Skeptics but we're not talking about them). The point is to arrive at reliable facts, not to prove any particular theory. If the evidence supports an historical Jesus or James or Paul then so be it. We don't have that evidence yet, and may never.

We do know that ancient writers tended more to what we would call storytelling than history or journalism. That is a relevant fact in analyzing the NT and subsequent Christian literature.