Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-25-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As I have pointed out numerous times, in Paul's theology, Jesus had to be human in order to be a suitable substitute sacrifice to bring salvation. If he weren't human, how could he be liable to the same temptations as humans? how could he take the sins of humanity upon himself? This means that he had to be born of a woman. That he was a sacrificial lamb is purely theological, underlying the task of substitute sacrifice. Dying for our sins was the theology. It is all a logical consequence of Paul's theology....

The Pauline Jesus was NOT human. The writings show that Jesus was God's OWN Son and GOD INCARNATE.

Ga 4:4 -

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...

Why can't you understand the MASSIVE difference? You cannot make use of HALF the verse.

The Pauline Jesus could have ONLY been BELIEVED to have existed and there is NOTHING in them that show Jesus had a human father

The Pauline Jesus could NOT be a MAN because the Pauline writer NEEDED a RESURRECTION to REMIT the Sins of Mankind.

It is STATED in the very Pauline writings that the Christian FAITH and REMISSION of SINS required the RESURRECTION.

1 Cor. 15

Quote:

...4 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain............ ye are yet in your sins.

Ro 10:9 -

Quote:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

In addition to making the Resurrection the foundation of the Christian Faith this also helps to show that the Pauline theology was developed AFTER gJohn.

In gJohn, it was the crucifixion and sacrifice that was the foundation of gJohn's theology.

Joh 3:16 -

Quote:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

We can clearly see that ALL the Gospels authors were NOT at all INFLUENCED by the Pauline writers theology about the Resurrection.

The Pauline writings are about GOD INCARNATE and were written AFTER the Canonical Gospels.

dog-on · 05-25-2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Ok Abe, now read it...

Let's do this step by step, as it appears that you prefer to rely on arguments from authority and not, seemingly, on the primary evidence.

What does tertullian say about the first trip to Jerusalem, especially considering that he is arguing against Marcion's rejection of Acts, as he detailed in Chapter one. Obviously, the reference to the first vist would be strong evidence tying The Acts story to the Galatians story. So read it carefully and tell me what you find.

You are right, dog-on, but there is a hitch. Tertullian evidently knew about the passage in 1 Galatians as he writes in The Prescription Against Heretics (XXIII.):

Quote:

[7] Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he "went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,"because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. [8] Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have "glorified the Lord," because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. [9] They accordingly even gave him "the right hand of fellowship," as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons,Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/...#P3438_1187610

There is a clear allusion to Gal 1:18 and 1:24 in the passage. This seems odd because according to biship Kaye's chronology of Tertullian's writing, The Prescription precedes Against Marcion, which is apparently one of the late works.

At any rate - before ApostateAbe get his hopes too high, there is quite an interesting issue around the number of visits to Jerusalem in Galatians. I find it mind-boggling that none of the scholars I have consulted noticed that Paul has no reference to the leaders when he goes to Jerusalem the second time (2:1). He goes by revelation, which is really odd in itself if he had done it before, but what is striking is that he had Peter's and James' acquiantance - i.e. knew with whom to do business in Zion and instead of going to them directly, goes to some unknown non-entities (hoi dokountes), from among whom James and Cephas finally emerge - but not before some characters who don't even look like they belong to the Jesus Christ department of the house (2:4) want to do mischief. But Cephas and James don't emerge with the titles of the first encounter: they are now "pillars" or "so they appear".. "but what they are doesn't really matter" : They are not saints, not apostles, not brother of the Lord.

Can you figure this out ? I can : there was no first visit. The interpolator evidently did not think it through.

Best,
Jiri

Thanks Jiri, I am aware of this stuff, but it was a bit beyond the scope of my purpose. Security of transmission, or lack thereof, should give anyone pause, I would think.

jgoodguy · 05-25-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Don't be silly. One can easily have ideological views while being an agnostic.

Please read exactly what I said. Had you done so, you would have understood that Paul uses "lord" as a titular with Jesus. This means, when you state the following, you don't understand the issue at hand.

With logic like this I wonder what you'd do with "brother of the cross" or "sister of mercy". In fact, "children of god" must be difficult for you as well... children of the great pie in the sky? You need to zone out of your modern prejudices and try to understand the text for what it says.

Arguments regarding interpolation are based on evidence, evidence which has been discussed often enough here. Either you process the evidence or you ignore it.

When an opponent claims the ability to read my mind, it is time to go to bed.

I agree it's time for you to go to bed. I'm not an opponent and there is no mind reading going on to my understanding. There's just the betrayal of your prose, from which we can judge that you haven't done your job. If you think you've been misrepresented, make your case. Otherwise, catch the zees.

My case is simple we have the tangible evidence of a plain text of Galatians. There is an argument from silence that no HJ is present and when presented with text to the contrary from Galatians there are attempts to present a non mainstream meaning to the plain text and an argument from silence intended to suppress those texts. Those augments from silence have no tangible evidence to support them, only assertions.

If you had textual variations in MSS along the lines of where we see Cephas becoming Peter, then you have a case. However you don't have that.

If you got existing early MSS without 1:19 and later ones with 1:19 then you have a case. Otherwise it is pleasant informed speculation.

jgoodguy · 05-25-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Ok Abe, now read it...

Let's do this step by step, as it appears that you prefer to rely on arguments from authority and not, seemingly, on the primary evidence.

What does tertullian say about the first trip to Jerusalem, especially considering that he is arguing against Marcion's rejection of Acts, as he detailed in Chapter one. Obviously, the reference to the first vist would be strong evidence tying The Acts story to the Galatians story. So read it carefully and tell me what you find.

You are right, dog-on, but there is a hitch. Tertullian evidently knew about the passage in 1 Galatians as he writes in The Prescription Against Heretics (XXIII.):

Quote:

[7] Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he "went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,"because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. [8] Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have "glorified the Lord," because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. [9] They accordingly even gave him "the right hand of fellowship," as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons,Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/...#P3438_1187610

There is a clear allusion to Gal 1:18 and 1:24 in the passage. This seems odd because according to biship Kaye's chronology of Tertullian's writing, The Prescription precedes Against Marcion, which is apparently one of the late works.

At any rate - before ApostateAbe get his hopes too high, there is quite an interesting issue around the number of visits to Jerusalem in Galatians. I find it mind-boggling that none of the scholars I have consulted noticed that Paul has no reference to the leaders when he goes to Jerusalem the second time (2:1). He goes by revelation, which is really odd in itself if he had done it before, but what is striking is that he had Peter's and James' acquiantance - i.e. knew with whom to do business in Zion and instead of going to them directly, goes to some unknown non-entities (hoi dokountes), from among whom James and Cephas finally emerge - but not before some characters who don't even look like they belong to the Jesus Christ department of the house (2:4) want to do mischief. But Cephas and James don't emerge with the titles of the first encounter: they are now "pillars" or "so they appear".. "but what they are doesn't really matter" : They are not saints, not apostles, not brother of the Lord.

Can you figure this out ? I can : there was no first visit. The interpolator evidently did not think it through.

Best,
Jiri

Thanks Jiri, I am aware of this stuff, but it was a bit beyond the scope of my purpose. Security of transmission, or lack thereof, should give anyone pause, I would think.

There are days I think we are discussing the skeptical equivalent of the old medieval question of 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin'.

dog-on · 05-25-2011, 09:57 AM

With the actual evidence we have, you are correct, jgoodguy.

jgoodguy · 05-25-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

With the actual evidence we have, you are correct, jgoodguy.

FWIW here is a reference page that lists references to verses in Galatians by ancient christian writers.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...alatians1.html

and the main page

e-Catena: Compiled Allusions to the NT in the Ante-Nicene Fathers

I used to be a HJer. Last night I was packing up my many HJ books for a yard sale. I suppose there is irony there somewhere.

dog-on · 05-25-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

With the actual evidence we have, you are correct, jgoodguy.

FWIW here is a reference page that lists references to verses in Galatians by ancient christian writers.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...alatians1.html

and the main page

e-Catena: Compiled Allusions to the NT in the Ante-Nicene Fathers

I used to be a HJer. Last night I was packing up my many HJ books for a yard sale. I suppose there is irony there somewhere.

I can relate. I was an HJer than an MJer, now I just would like to see some real evidence.

spin · 05-25-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I agree it's time for you to go to bed. I'm not an opponent and there is no mind reading going on to my understanding. There's just the betrayal of your prose, from which we can judge that you haven't done your job. If you think you've been misrepresented, make your case. Otherwise, catch the zees.

My case is simple we have the tangible evidence of a plain text of Galatians. There is an argument from silence that no HJ is present and when presented with text to the contrary from Galatians there are attempts to present a non mainstream meaning to the plain text and an argument from silence intended to suppress those texts. Those augments from silence have no tangible evidence to support them, only assertions.

If you had textual variations in MSS along the lines of where we see Cephas becoming Peter, then you have a case. However you don't have that.

If you got existing early MSS without 1:19 and later ones with 1:19 then you have a case. Otherwise it is pleasant informed speculation.

You've got this totally ass-up. The text is quite clear. It doesn't talk about Jesus whatsoever. The language excludes Jesus from Gal 1:19. He is not the non-titular lord Paul talks of when he cites LXX: that's god. Jesus becoming referred to with the non-titular lord is a later development, as can be seen not in Mark but in Luke, ie plainly later tradition. We don't have recognition of this James being brother of Jesus for more than a century. Not even the catholic Acts shows any such knowledge, yet supposedly deals with this James.

There is no philological case for this James being the brother of Jesus at all. There's just post hoc tradition and when does that first manifest itself? Wasn't it Origen? How did he know? Wasn't that just change in language usage when the non-titular "lord" began to be used for Jesus? Apocryphal ideas are no basis to argue the case. You, like everyone else down this dead end road, are going nowhere. I really don't see why you need to be sucked into later christian tradition development as the way it was, which is what this unanalytical acceptance of the brother of the lord being the physical brother of Jesus is.

hjalti · 05-25-2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

You've got this totally ass-up. The text is quite clear. It doesn't talk about Jesus whatsoever. The language excludes Jesus from Gal 1:19. He is not the non-titular lord Paul talks of when he cites LXX: that's god. Jesus becoming referred to with the non-titular lord is a later development, as can be seen not in Mark but in Luke, ie plainly later tradition. We don't have recognition of this James being brother of Jesus for more than a century. Not even the catholic Acts shows any such knowledge, yet supposedly deals with this James.

spin, so if the "lord" in question did actually refer to Jesus, then would it not be evidence of a non-pauline, later usage of the term?

spin · 05-25-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

You've got this totally ass-up. The text is quite clear. It doesn't talk about Jesus whatsoever. The language excludes Jesus from Gal 1:19. He is not the non-titular lord Paul talks of when he cites LXX: that's god. Jesus becoming referred to with the non-titular lord is a later development, as can be seen not in Mark but in Luke, ie plainly later tradition. We don't have recognition of this James being brother of Jesus for more than a century. Not even the catholic Acts shows any such knowledge, yet supposedly deals with this James.

spin, so if the "lord" in question did actually refer to Jesus, then would it not be evidence of a non-pauline, later usage of the term?

Yes, it would. But then, where would the bigwig James the brother of Jesus tradition have come from? There's no indication of it in Acts, so it had to originate somewhere else central enough for the meme to survive, but it isn't particularly in the trajectory of orthodixizing catholic christianity. We can see that it could be misconstrued from Gal 1:19 by the shift in significance of "lord", but if that's not how it happened given that it's an interpolation, then how could it have happened?

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

05-25-2011, 09:57 AM	#105
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	With the actual evidence we have, you are correct, jgoodguy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.