Littlejohn

"..thought Paul lived and wrote in the mid 1st century...."

If you read more carefully the "Muratorian Fragment", you'd realize by yourself that Paul, considered dead in the 60's by the forgers of the origins, CAN'T ABSOLUTLY to have written the letters that, still today, are attributed to him, and this although the TRUE Paul also wrote more letters than those that counterfeiter fathers, about 19 centuries ago, fraudulently have attributed to him!...(*)

_______________________________

(*) - Marcion, perhaps, had some of the original letters written really by Paul, but since they were totally incompatible (Jesus was a GNOSTIC and NOT a Catholic!) with the lies' cumulus 'built' by the counterfeiter fathers, latters claimed that Marcion had 'falsified' (sic!!) the letters written by Paul! .. (as we say: "The ox that said kettle black"!)

Littlejohn S

.

tanya

Resolving the answer to this question, whether "... brother of the lord", denotes biological kinship or fellow traveler, requires a source other than Paul: the gospel of Mark, which, I believe, Paul relied upon, in writing Galatians 1:19, if he wrote that verse at all.

Now, let us juxtapose two verses from Mark, which demonstrate that BOTH interpretations are reasonable. In other words, the gospels cannot serve as a reliable witness for either position. YES, James was the brother of the lord. NO, James was only a fellow traveler.

BOTH ideas are found in Mark: αδελφος meaning dna sharing kin, and
αδελφοϲ meaning fellow traveler, definitely not someone sharing DNA with Jesus of Nazareth:

Mark 6:3 (genuine family member)

Mark 3:35 (fellow traveler)

(nota bene, look at the spelling found here in Codex Sinaiticus, for "μήτηρ", and notice too, that "γαρ") is found in this Alexandrian type document, but not found in any other Alexandrine script, but is found in the Byzantine versions.

Then, how to address Ehrman's point? He seeks to confirm an historical Jesus, by citing Galatians 1:19, dismissing, apparently, the contrary interpretation of the same αδελφοϲ, as found in Mark 3:35, with its obviously non-biological connotation.

And, no, to refute "outhouse"'s argument, no, the spelling of αδελφοϲ in Koine Greek does not distinguish the two meanings.

To my way of looking at Ehrman's idea, as presented by Philosopher Jay, there is no doubt that Ehrman (in this instance, at least), errs: Galatians 1:19, if it serves any utility, suggests only that this epistle was derived from Mark's gospel.

Littlejohn

"..The ox that said kettle black.."

The above is the translation that It has returned to me the 'robot translator' of Google, about the Italian phrase ""Il bue che disse cornuto all'asino" Since, in rereading it, it seems to me somewhat 'strange', I thought also of propose a literal translation, along to the one 'idiomatic' which above.

"Il bue che disse cornuto all'asino" = "The ox that said horned to the donkey"


I apologize if all this does look a bit silly ...


Littlejohn S

.

aa5874

The claim by Ehrman that Galatians 1.19 refers to a human being called Jesus is Wholly flawed and has already been thoroughly Debunked.

1. In Galatians 1.1--the very Pauline writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being but of Jesus.

2. In Galatians 1.10-12, the very Pauline writer claimed he did NOT get his gospel from a human being but from the revelation of Jesus.

3. In Galatians the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was Raised from the dead.

4. In Galatians 4.4, the very Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Sent Son of God.

5. In Galatians 4.29, Jesus was born of the Spirit.

6. Apologetic sources that used Galatians claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a virgin.

7. Christians of the Jesus cult do NOT worship men as Gods--Not even the Emperor of Rome.

8. Ignatius mentioned Paul and claimed Jesus was GOD.

9. Irenaeus mentioned Galatians and claimed Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a virgin.

10. Tertullian mentioned Galatians and claimed Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a virgin.

11. Origen mentioned the Pauline writings and claimed Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a virgin.

12. Jerome mentioned Galatians 1.19 and claimed the Apostle James was NOT the human brother of Jesus.

13. The Church writers who wrote Against Heresies acknowledged that it was heretical to teach that Jesus was a human being and NOT God.

14. In the Canonised Gospels, Jesus was a Phantom in gMark, the Son of a Ghost and a virgin in gMatthew and gLuke and God the Creator in gJohn.

15. There are no actual witnesses of a human Jesus in any source of antiquity.

16. No author of the Canon claimed they personally SAW or interacted with a human Jesus.

17. The conversion of Saul/Paul in Acts did NOT require that Jesus actually existed.

18. In Galatians 1.16, when Paul was called to preach about Jesus, he did NOT confer with human beings.

19. In the Canon the Authorisation to preach the Gospel was given by a Non-historical--Non-human Jesus.

20. In all the Canon and Apologetic sources that used the NT-- Jesus Christ had NO human father.

Clivedurdle

Just thought I would check about brothers of gods!

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/fo...?topic=15470.0