Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 09-18-2012, 11:42 AM

Hi stephan huller,

This is interesting stuff about Hegiesipus and twins. Could Jacob and Esau be related to James and John Zebedee? Are the legends just being recyled? Twins with a mild and wild nature:

Gilgamesh and Enkidu
Jacob and Esau
James and John Zebedee
Jesus and John the Baptist

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

FWIW the cult of the family of Jesus has something to do with Hegesippus. He created the myth of a family of Jesus being the line of bishops at Jerusalem albeit written from Rome at the end of the second century. This isn't a historical notion and is somehow also connected with the Epistle to Judas (Jude). Judas is the twin of Jesus and Jacob is the twin of the semi-angelic Esau. I think the Latin Epistle of Titus references a 'Judas Jacobi' from memory. A lot of this stuff comes down to garbled legendary folktales.

In Jewish mysticism Jacob sits at the top of the heavenly ladder and = Metatron the second god.

stephan huller · 09-18-2012, 12:35 PM

There's a book called the Cult of the Heavenly Twins. It's worth reading. http://www26.us.archive.org/stream/c...0harr_djvu.txt

TedM · 09-18-2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

If the name had nothing to do with the concept of twins I might have to accept that it is historical. Anything to do with the cult of twin brothers in Christianity should raise red flags.

Twins - Judas Thoma, Jacob
Brothers - Peter-Andrew, Jacob-John, there is also a tradition Bartholomew-Philip
Paired Disciples - Peter-Paul, Peter-Mark

Why?(the part I bolded)

PhilosopherJay · 09-18-2012, 01:35 PM

Hi All,

I have been thinking about this a little bit more. I now think that the visits to Jerusalem material in Galatians was based on apostolic material This material was before the Jesus gospels and featured the apostles, not any Jesus character. Only the final change of "brother of the Lord" to replace "brother of John" was in reaction to the Jesus Gospels. I think I know who did it, too.

My original idea that started this thread is that there was only the name "James" in the text and (the brother of the Lord) was added later to distinguish him from the other five James mentioned in the gospels.

However, I then saw the mention of James, Peter (Cephas) and John in Galatians 2:

Quote:

9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.

It is quite obvious that James has to be James Zebedee. He is always associated with his brother John Zebedee and sometimes John Zebedee is associated with Peter, and sometimes both.

Besides the 16 examples from the synoptics I gave in a previous post on this thread, we can add these nine examples from Acts:

Quote:

1.13 And when they were come in, they went up into the upper chamber, where they were abiding; both Peter and John and James and Andrew...

3:1 Now Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer,

3.3 who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked to receive an alms.

3.4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, Look on us.

3.11 And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's

4.13 Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

4.19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye:

8:14 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

12.2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Notice the last one - James is identified explicitly as the brother of John.

Thus we have a total of 25 times that John Zebedee gets mentioned along with James or Peter or both.

The only times where John does not get mentioned along with one or both other names is once in Mark and Luke:

Quote:

9.38John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." 9.39But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 9.40For he that is not against us is for us.

Quote:

9.49 John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us." 9.50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

This free floating pericope was probably originally a question addressed to John the Baptist. The man casting out demons in your name would have been Jesus. Apparently somebody thought that Jesus should have the line and just assigned the question to John. This can be treated as an anomally to the important rule that John Zebedee is always linked with other apostles.

There can be little doubt that the original phrase was "James, brother of John" in Galatians and someone changed it to "James, the brother of Jesus."

One may ask why? Acts gives us another big clue. John Zebedee also seems to be erased in Acts. Without James having done a damn thing in Acts, the editor suddenly brings in Herod the Great to kill off James:

Quote:

12:1Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church. 12:2And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

A few lines later, James gets resurrected:

Quote:

12:16But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened, they saw him, and were amazed. 12:17But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison. And he said, Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren.

We have two funny things happening in the text. First Peter is associated with John, instead of with James as we would expect. Then Herod kills James, and arrests Peter. An angel frees Peter. Then

Quote:

12:12And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together and were praying.

Then comes Peter saying tell these things to James (who has already been killed).

What has happened can be best explained if we see the author as substituting the name Peter for James. It was James who went around with John and spread the faith. It was Peter, not James killed by Herod.

Once we do this switch, we understand why the disciples are so astonished when Peter comes to him. He has not just escaped from jail, but he has been resurrected from the dead.

Quote:

2:13And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a maid came to answer, named Rhoda. 12:14And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for joy, but ran in, and told that Peter stood before the gate. 12:15And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she confidently affirmed that it was even so. And they said, It is his angel. 12:16But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened, they saw him, and were amazed. 12:17But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison. And he said, Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went to another place.

.

This scene of Peter being killed and coming back from the dead and seeing the apostles in Mary's house is going to be swiped and used in the Jesus gospels years later The writer of acts has to change the scene because it is obviously the source material for Jesus' resurrection. He changes the scene by having James die instead of Peter and Peter rescued in an angelic jail break. Enough of the scene remains intact to see that this was Peter's resurrection scene and it predated and formed the source material for Jesus' resurrection and visit to the apostles scene. This is an important piece of the apostolic literature that was used to create the Jesus gospels later.

Another important clue is the sudden appearance of John Mark. Obviously the author has simply decided to change John Zebedee to John Mark.

The reason for this is that John accompanies and chaperones Paul and Barnabas on their journeys. Look at all the passages with John Zebedee now renamed John Mark.

Quote:

12:12And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together and were praying.

12:25And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministration, taking with them John whose surname was Mark.

13:5And when they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John as their attendant.

13:13Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departed from them and returned to Jerusalem.

15:36And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare. 15:37And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. 15:38But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 15:39And there arose a sharp contention, so that they parted asunder one from the other, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus;

Notice the last part. Paul wants to go with Barnabas back to the cities they have visited. Barnabas wants to take John Mark. Paul doesn't want to take John Mark who withdrew from Pamphylia. They quarrel and part and Barnabas takes Mark to Cyprus. How could Barnabas take John Mark with him and sale to Cypress if John Mark has already returned to Jerusalem? Obviously John Mark is still there with them. Most likely it was another apostle, Silas, who had returned to Jerusalem and John was still there with him.

All of this points to the idea that James and John Zebedee were the apostles who were originally staring in Acts. For the first half of the tale, the editors substituted Peter for James and had Peter accompanying John. In the second half of the tale, Paul substitutes for James and in the second half Silas substitutes for John Zebedee who is also renamed John Mark.

The original Acts material was primarily about James and John Zebedee. In the first half James was renamed Peter and in the second half James was renamed Paul. In the second half, John was degraded to the unknown John Mark and then replaced by the equally little known Silas.

The last editor of Galatians made the change of "James, brother of John to James Brother of the Lord" deliberately. He wanted to cut down John Zebedee's role in the story. The editor took the source material of the Acts of James and John and downgraded them by replacing them with Peter and Paul for the most part. The same editor made the change to downgrade James Zebedee's role in the Paul story and substituted James, the brother of the Lord for James (brother of John).

This change was not accidental. The changes to Acts and Paul's Galatians were connected. In both cases, deliberate changes were made by the same editor to increase Peter and Paul's role in the mythology at the expense of James and John Zebedee.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi avi,

I think you're right that the whole trip to Jerusalem was edited in later then the rest of the epistle. The "Brother of the Lord" was another interpolation in that interpolation.

The fact is that in most of the epistles, we are not getting information found in the gospels. If they were all composed post gospel, we would expect to be getting constant information from and references to the gospels. This section in Galatians is one of the few times we are getting gospel reference material. When it does happen we have good reason to suspect it is post-gospel, just as we have good reason to suspect that in the vast majority of the epistles where it does not occur, they are most probably pre-gospel.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi avi,

I think you're right that the whole trip to Jerusalem was edited in later then the rest of the epistle. The "Brother of the Lord" was another interpolation in that interpolation.

The fact is that in most of the epistles, we are not getting information found in the gospels. If they were all composed post gospel, we would expect to be getting constant information from and references to the gospels. This section in Galatians is one of the few times we are getting gospel reference material. When it does happen we have good reason to suspect it is post-gospel, just as we have good reason to suspect that in the vast majority of the epistles where it does not occur, they are most probably pre-gospel.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thanks Jay, but, if we assume that the "brother..." was inserted later, why not also propose that Paul's trip to Jerusalem was inserted later?

Where do we draw the line? Why not simply introduce the notion that the entire group of epistles was created later, as aa5874 has suggested, not in the first century, as maintained by Christians?

Duvduv · 09-18-2012, 06:07 PM

If one is not so wedded to the idea that the epistles are uniform texts written as we have them, then even the term "brother of the Lord" could simply be one of many additions into texts that were actually COMPOSITES of generic monotheistic sermons, tracts or letters and HJ-oriented additions in the later period of the 4th century or thereafter.
The idea of interpolation is a problem for the epistles as complete letters because one always has to ask "why this interpolation and not another?" However, if they are simply composites, then the redactors added references to Christ wherever it would fit, i.e. a prepositional phrases.

aa5874 · 09-18-2012, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I have been thinking about this a little bit more. I now think that the visits to Jerusalem material in Galatians was based on apostolic material This material was before the Jesus gospels and featured the apostles, not any Jesus character. Only the final change of "brother of the Lord" to replace "brother of John" was in reaction to the Jesus Gospels. I think I know who did it, too...

This is precisely what is wrong with your argument--You PRESUME your Own evidence.

Where is your "Pre-Jesus story" Apostolic material??? Name your Source??

You just imagine your evidence into existence---It is like going to a trial with NO witnesses.

Please, Presumptions are Worthless. Deal with the facts. Do not get sucked into Ehrman's NO Source--NO Evidence Presumptions.

Please, You must deal with the facts if you want to Expose Ehrman's Errors.

1. This is a fundamental fact.

The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge any Pauline letters.

2. This is a fundamental fact.

The author of the Muratorian Canon claimed that Paul wrote his Epistles AFTER Revelation. See the Muratorian Canon.

3. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic source, "First Apology" attributed to Justin did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline letters but was aware of a Jesus story and Revelation.

4. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic source "Commentary on Matthew" attributed to Origen claimed Paul commended gLuke, in effect, it is implied Paul was ALIVE After gLuke was written. See "Commentary on Matthew.

5. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic source "Church History" attributed to Eusebius claimed Paul commended gLuke. Again, it is implied Paul was alive AFTER gLuke was written.

6. This a fundamental fact.

The earliest Pauline writings [ Papyri 46] have been dated to the mid 2nd century or later.

7. This is a fundamental fact.

Apologetic Sources, the Epistles attributed to Ignatius who mentioned Paul wrote Epistles yet Still claimed Jesus was God.

8. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic source "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus used Galatians and mentioned Paul yet still claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of a Virgin and a Ghost.

9. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic Source "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian who used Galatians and mentioned Paul yet STILL claimed God was the Father of Jesus and born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

10. This a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic Source "De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome who mentioned Paul and Galatians 1.19 ALSO claimed the Apostle James was NOT the human brother of Jesus called Christ.

Please, Ehrman's Presumptions that the Pauline writings were composed Before c 68 CE are Worthless.

Ehrman has a NO Source--No Evidence argument.

Please, do NOT make the same ERRORS like Ehrman.

Do NOT Presume your own history.

You MUST use ONLY the facts.

The facts support the argument that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN in the 1st century and that Apologetic sources that used Galatians considered that the Jesus character had NO human father and was the Son of a God through a Holy Ghost.

PhilosopherJay · 09-19-2012, 06:53 AM

Hi aa5874,

My argument is specifically aimed at data that Ehrman calls one of the two best pieces of evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus.

My argument grants Ehrman what he contends is proved, that "brother" in the phrase "Brother of the Lord" refers to a flesh and blood relationship.

My argument agrees with Ehrman about the orthodox corruption of early Christian Text. This is something he has eloquently argued in the past.

My argument is based on solid literary evidence. There are a least a dozen cases where James is identified as the brother of John in the synoptic gospels and in Acts, he is specifically referred with the phrase James, the brother of John.

There is also the obvious verses where it is clear that James and John, the Zebedee Brothers are being groomed for the leadership role in the community. For example:

Quote:

Matthew: 20.20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something

20.21 And he said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.

John, in companionship with his brother James or with Peter or both is named over 25 times in the synoptic gospels and Acts.

On the other hand, there are only two reference in the New Testament to Jesus having a brother named James in a single story that does not even involve him:

Quote:

Matthew13.55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Quote:

Mark 6.2 And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! 6.3Is 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?"

In other words, there is no indication at all in the New Testament, except for this one passage in Paul that Jesus' brother was a leader of the movement or even was involved in the movement. Besides, this one statement, he is only briefly referenced in one story along with three other brothers of Jesus. Compare this to James Zebedee and his brother John who are identified more than 20 times as being strongly involved with Jesus and his movement in a leadership capacity. Galatians identifies John Zebedee as being one of the three pillars. Acts grants that James Zebedee is so important that he is the first Apostle that Herod slays, "12.2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword."

In the New Testament, outside of this one sentence, there is no evidence of Jesus' brother being involved with the movement and overwhelming evidence of James and John Zebedee being involved at a leadership level with the Jesus movement. That is strong evidence for an interpolation.

In a text, if I have twenty references in a book saying that Barack Obama was running for president and only one reference saying that Osama Bin Laden won the election for president, it is not hard to figure out that an error has been made and Barack Obama won the election.

Finally, while I agree with some of your arguments, Ehrman has not addressed them or acknowledged the significance of them, as far as I know. I prefer to criticize Ehrman for arguments he has made rather than for ones he hasn't.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

My hypothesis of the transformation of the brother of the lord into

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I have been thinking about this a little bit more. I now think that the visits to Jerusalem material in Galatians was based on apostolic material This material was before the Jesus gospels and featured the apostles, not any Jesus character. Only the final change of "brother of the Lord" to replace "brother of John" was in reaction to the Jesus Gospels. I think I know who did it, too...

This is precisely what is wrong with your argument--You PRESUME your Own evidence.

Where is your "Pre-Jesus story" Apostolic material??? Name your Source??

You just imagine your evidence into existence---It is like going to a trial with NO witnesses.

Please, Presumptions are Worthless. Deal with the facts. Do not get sucked into Ehrman's NO Source--NO Evidence Presumptions.

Please, You must deal with the facts if you want to Expose Ehrman's Errors.

1. This is a fundamental fact.

The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge any Pauline letters.

2. This is a fundamental fact.

The author of the Muratorian Canon claimed that Paul wrote his Epistles AFTER Revelation. See the Muratorian Canon.

3. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic source, "First Apology" attributed to Justin did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline letters but was aware of a Jesus story and Revelation.

4. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic source "Commentary on Matthew" attributed to Origen claimed Paul commended gLuke, in effect, it is implied Paul was ALIVE After gLuke was written. See "Commentary on Matthew.

5. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic source "Church History" attributed to Eusebius claimed Paul commended gLuke. Again, it is implied Paul was alive AFTER gLuke was written.

6. This a fundamental fact.

The earliest Pauline writings [ Papyri 46] have been dated to the mid 2nd century or later.

7. This is a fundamental fact.

Apologetic Sources, the Epistles attributed to Ignatius who mentioned Paul wrote Epistles yet Still claimed Jesus was God.

8. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic source "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus used Galatians and mentioned Paul yet still claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of a Virgin and a Ghost.

9. This is a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic Source "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian who used Galatians and mentioned Paul yet STILL claimed God was the Father of Jesus and born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

10. This a fundamental fact.

An Apologetic Source "De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome who mentioned Paul and Galatians 1.19 ALSO claimed the Apostle James was NOT the human brother of Jesus called Christ.

Please, Ehrman's Presumptions that the Pauline writings were composed Before c 68 CE are Worthless.

Ehrman has a NO Source--No Evidence argument.

Please, do NOT make the same ERRORS like Ehrman.

Do NOT Presume your own history.

You MUST use ONLY the facts.

The facts support the argument that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN in the 1st century and that Apologetic sources that used Galatians considered that the Jesus character had NO human father and was the Son of a God through a Holy Ghost.

Duvduv · 09-19-2012, 07:30 AM

Jay, and then if the epistles are merely composites (not unlike the Quran), then what?!

aa5874 · 09-19-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

My argument is specifically aimed at data that Ehrman calls one of the two best pieces of evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus....

Please, I have Actually read "Did Jesus Exist?" and Ehrman presented NO Data other than the same New Testament that he ADMITS is filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

In fact, Ehrman presented the "Mythicist Views of James" [page 149-156] WITHOUT ever presenting any independent source that show The Pauline writings are Credible and were authentic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

...My argument grants Ehrman what he contends is proved, that "brother" in the phrase "Brother of the Lord" refers to a flesh and blood relationship...

You have utterly failed to do such a thing. You have NOT even shown with supporting evidence from antiquity that Galatians 1 is a Credible source, that it is authentic, that there was an actual human Apostle called James, that the Pauline writer was actually in Jerusalem and met such a person.

Please, you must know that Gaius the Emperor of Rome c 37-41 CE claimed he was the BROTHER of a Fictitious character called JUPITER.

Antiquities of the Jews

Quote:

..... He also frequented that temple of Jupiter which they style the Capitol, which is with them the most holy of all their temples, and had boldness enough to call himself the brother of Jupiter.

Please, Jesus was NOT a human being from the very start of Galatians.

No Apologetic writer that used the Pauline writings claimed Jesus was a human being. They claimed Jesus had NO human father and was born of a Ghost and a woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...My argument agrees with Ehrman about the orthodox corruption of early Christian Text. This is something he has eloquently argued in the past.

No, No, No!!! I won't allow to get away such worthless rhetoric. NO one has produced any EVIDENCE from antiquity whatsoever to show that any Pauline letter was composed before c 68 CE.

You and Ehrman PRESUME early Pauline writings without a shred of evidence from antiquity.

Please, Eloquence without Evidence does NOT make much sense.

I am TIRED of these blatant diversions. "Eloquence" is now "Evidence"???

I have REPEATEDLY shown that the Pauline writings are completely uncorroborated as 1st century Sources BEFORE c 68 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

..My argument is based on solid literary evidence. There are a least a dozen cases where James is identified as the brother of John in the synoptic gospels and in Acts, he is specifically referred with the phrase James, the brother of John...

Your argument DEPENDS on the PRESUMPTION that the Pauline writings are early, Credible and historically accurate.

Please, it is ADMITTED that the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are NOT Credible so you must provide Credible Data for your argument.

All recovered DATED Texts do NOT corroborate your argument of early Pauline Texts or that the Gospels are Acts historically accurate.

Hypothetical ideas and Presumptions may help Eloquence but have NO real value as Evidence.

It is a FACT that the Galatians writer claimed his Jesus was NOT a human being.

It is a FACT that the Galatians writer claim his Jesus Gospel was NOT from a human being.

What does it matter if the Galatians writer claimed he met an Apostle who was called the brother of a Non-human character??

What does it matter if Paul Met the Emperor Gaius who was called the BROTHER of Jupiter --a Non-human Myth c 37-41 CE??

PhilosopherJay · 09-19-2012, 12:37 PM

Hi Duvduv,

I think many scholars have supposed that most of them are composites for quite a while.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Jay, and then if the epistles are merely composites (not unlike the Quran), then what?!

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

09-18-2012, 12:35 PM	#22
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There's a book called the Cult of the Heavenly Twins. It's worth reading. http://www26.us.archive.org/stream/c...0harr_djvu.txt

09-18-2012, 06:07 PM	#25
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	If one is not so wedded to the idea that the epistles are uniform texts written as we have them, then even the term "brother of the Lord" could simply be one of many additions into texts that were actually COMPOSITES of generic monotheistic sermons, tracts or letters and HJ-oriented additions in the later period of the 4th century or thereafter. The idea of interpolation is a problem for the epistles as complete letters because one always has to ask "why this interpolation and not another?" However, if they are simply composites, then the redactors added references to Christ wherever it would fit, i.e. a prepositional phrases.

09-19-2012, 07:30 AM	#28
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Jay, and then if the epistles are merely composites (not unlike the Quran), then what?!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.