Ben C Smith

Sure we do. It is just not evidence that you accept. We have the prima facie meaning of such a phrase (brother(s) with the genitive), and we also have the fact that every single later author who picked up on the phrase at all thought it meant a literal brother: Mark, Matthew, Luke, Hegesippus, Origen, Eusebius. And we have corroborating evidence from Josephus that someone named James had a brother named Jesus, who was known as the Christ (if you thought that somebody somewhere had proven that passage a forgery, you were mistaken).

Nobody is crazy for looking at that evidence and concluding that Jesus had brothers, one of whom was named James, even if you happen to disagree.

Ben.

TedM

I think he meant "no evidence from Paul"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They can. But it seems too complicated a set of requirements to result in such a name. I can buy "Jewish Christians who continue to righteously adhere to the Law" but find it unlikely that there was a further requirement that they NOT require that the Gentiles adhere to the Law. It seems counter-intuitive.





Interesting, as "false brother" seems to be the opposite of "brother of God"...but as I say above, I doubt that the "false brethren" would NOT be "brothers of the Lord" given their EXTRA zeal for the Jewish Law, unless "brother of the Lord" were a title made up by Paul alone for those that supported his views regarding the Gentiles. Just seems unlikely, as then I'd have an even higher expectation for Paul to explain the term.



Even assuming the "certain" is the same in Acts 15 and Galations 2, I dont' see any clear evidence of an attempt to "compel adherence" in either case. Acts seems to result in MORE restrictions than Galations, since the letter from James while making clear that circumcision wasn't required it adds in restrictions (no pollution of idos, unchastity, and no food? strangled with blood) Paul doesn't mention.. Sitting together during meals may simply have been one of those things that no one had thought much about. How strict a Jewish law issue was the sitting during meals? Could this have been more of a "click" issue than a Jewish law issue?

Would Paul have been a "Brother of the Lord"? See my prior post questioning whether he personally upheld the Jewish law..

ted

Ben C Smith

He may have. Even if he meant it in that more restricted sense the prima facie reading of those verses indubitably favors literal brothers. The burden of proof rests squarely on the one who would claim that the phrase was metaphorical, referring to a group of some kind. I once actively sought evidence for that very thing, some residue in the tradition that there was once a Christian group known by such a title (whether seriously or sarcastically), but in vain. And I have seen none offered since.

Ben.

TedM

Earlier in this thread I mentioned that as one of the reasons I favor a literal interpretation. It seems hard to believe that a profound would be universally replaced fairly early (even within 10-15 years in the case of GMark) with references to a literal brothers and not a trace of the true meaning.

ted

NOGO

I do not agree to neither of these points.
Only the faithful believe that the Last Supper scene is history.

What is happening here is that you refuse to address my central point.
I Paul does not attribute teachings to Jesus of Nazareth it's because of one of two possibilities:
1) Paul attributes them to the risen Jesus ie throught inspirational routes OR
2) They were not Jesus of Nazareth's teachings.

Three times Paul says "Love each other" and does not attribute it to Jesus.
Paul got this from scriptures, Galatians 5:14

The bit about marriage is from the risen Christ.
Again Paul does not attribute it to Jesus of Nazareth.

I believe that you have already seen this material from me but maybe forgot.

1 Corinthians 7:10
But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
1 Corinthians 7:25
Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.

As you can see Paul has “commandments” from the Lord. But is this Jesus of Nazareth? Very unlikely! If there was any kind of text or stories of the historical Jesus going around which had Jesus commanding “Let not the wife depart from her husband” it would be very presumptuous of Paul to state “I command” or “I give instructions”. Surely Paul is talking about inspired messages from the Spirit of God, which dwells in him. In the context of other statements Paul makes one can only retain the “inspired” commandments and not some quote from Jesus of Nazareth. The verse below leaves no doubt as to what Paul means.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.

There is no sense here of historical corroboration. If Paul were quoting the HJ he would not rely on prophets to corroborate what Jesus said he would have to go to the source, that is, the people who had known the HJ. Paul assumes that other apostles get the same messages from the risen Jesus as he does and through the same spiritual means. Paul, therefore, does not distinguish between apostles who get information through the Spirit and apostles who get information directly from the man Jesus.

2 Corinthians 13:3
since you are seeking for proof of the Christ who speaks in me, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you.

Paul defends himself against people who doubt that Jesus speaks in him, Once again Paul is not claiming to pass on a message, which was delivered to humans 30 to 40 years ago by Jesus of Nazareth. Paul claims Jesus speaks through him in the present.

The above is representative of the way Paul writes. Bottom line there is no HJ is his thinking from which he can quote.


Romans 15:3
For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO REPROACHED YOU FELL ON ME."

Paul makes a claim of something Jesus did but … his reference is scriptures (Ps69:9). Instead of telling us about the historical situation where Jesus “pleased not himself” and thus do what preachers do all the time, Paul quotes from scriptures. In other words Paul knows from scriptures and through inspiration that Jesus pleased not himself.

I know ... you are going to say Paul's audience knew already so there was no need to specify.
How convenient. Every time Paul could give us a hint that he got something from the HJ it just does not happen. Compared that to the many times where Paul clearly states that he gets commandments from the risen Jesus. How odd.


Sorry Ted, I was being facetious.

I do not believe any of these were taught be Jesus of Nazareth.
I would hold this opinion even if we start with the premise that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed.

GDon's argument is essentially that other people who have read the Gospels also write like Paul.
This is a weak argument because we do not know how seriously these people took the Gospels. If you believe that Jesus is a heavenly entity you do not change your mind instantly just because you have read some story about a man. Jesus' nature was still in discussion into the fourth century.


Once again my position is the following...
If Paul's God walked the earth, taught and made miracles HIS story would be at center of Paul's preaching. There is no escaping this.

In only 70 pages a handful is more than enough.
He also does not give a single clear case of a quote from Jesus of Nazareth nor a single clear description of something he did. Together this makes it a strong case.

I will say it again...
If Paul's God walked the earth, taught and made miracles HIS story would be at center of Paul's preaching. There is no escaping this. THEREFORE he would call it a source of revelation.


You mean people invent stories and change them on the go.
But what gave them permission to do so.
All you have to do is read Paul and you will understand why people do this.
Paul was educated. He could read and write.
Paul's additions to the Jesus myth was not from ORAL traditions.

Remember he is addressing Gentiles.
It is amazing how you can make so much of the fact that Paul does not specifically state that the Lord's Supper is a carbon copy of the passover meal. BUT the gospels call it just that.
Jesus and the disciples got together on Thursday evening to celebrate passover.

Paul borrows from scriptures but not always states it as such. For example ...
Phillipians 2:9:11
God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name,
that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth -- and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Paul took that from
Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Isaiah 45:23 is about Yahweh. Paul substitutes Jesus but does not explain.
Paul does not say "I got this from Isaiah 45:23"

So!
Is this a definitive pronouncement.

Ben C Smith

I agree. Such a scenario, while of course possible, hardly seems likely.

Ben.

Amaleq13

It is evidence that has not been established as historically reliable nor capable of identifying what Paul meant.

That is simply not true, Ben, because meaning of "Lord" is not clear.

Not at all. I agree with Carlson that the short reference depends upon some form of the TF being genuine but if you thought that has been established, you are mistaken.

I don't think it is crazy nor have I suggested such a thing. I thought you were above creating straw men like that, Ben. I've simply pointed out problems that appear to result from that conclusion.

Amaleq13

Look at you! Understanding me better than Ben! You are being assimilated, Ted. Resistance is futile.

What you are willing to "buy" would have been the only requirement. The rest is how they are differentiated from "false brethren".

I assume that they were part of the "brotherhood". They were just more militant than the other "brothers".

No, it would be Jewish in origin I would think. They were "brothers of the Lord" before they believed in the risen Christ.

The whole point of Paul's letter to the Galatians is to complain that they were being mislead into thinking they had to follow the Law. What else can you call telling someone they can't be saved unless they are circumcized?

No, it is my understanding what is being described is strict adherence to the Purity Codes.

I don't think so. He seems to me to consider himself to be freed of that burden through his faith in the risen Christ.

GakuseiDon

It's not so much an argument than a point that Jesus Mythers never address. There are other writers who write in the same 'style' as Paul, e.g. 1 Clement, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Commodianus.

I'm not saying that this explains the problems in Paul, merely that Paul should be examined in the context of the literature of the day. One example is Paul's lack of historical markers in his writings. He appears to place Jesus in a 'timeless past'. However, pagan writers in that time appear to have written in the same style. From my review of "The God Who Wasn't There":

... we can find the same pattern in pagan literature from that period as well. Plutarch for example wrote about 80 CE, not long after Paul. In a recent review of Plutarch's literature, the reviewer noted (my emphasis):

"But again we return to the problem that Plutarch rarely adverts directly to the contemporary world (the allusion to Domitian at Publicola 15, discussed by Stadter, is a rare and striking exception). For two contributors to this volume, his writings are notable not for their engagement with issues of contemporary currency but for their avoidance of them... Schmidt's conclusion is that Plutarch's approach is entirely traditional and reflects nothing of the contemporary world: he is wholly insulated by literary confabulation from contemporary politics. Chris Pelling, meanwhile, argues that the Caesar is carefully written to avoid the many resonances it might have had, so that the text might have a timeless rather than a contemporary feel; overall, he suggests, the Lives strategically aim for an immemorial rather than a time-specific feel."

I'd like to stress that we've barely scratched the surface here. This is really only the start of an investigation, and I offer no definitive answers. But any theory to explain the lack of historical details regarding Jesus in early literature needs to take into account that this in itself was not an unusual occurrence. The writings must be evaluated using the context of the literature of the day. This is a problem that few Jesus Mythers seem to be even aware of, much less addressed.

jjramsey

Wait a minute. First, you write,

Then you write,

Did it occur to you that if Paul uses Scripture without always attributing it, then he might do the same with Jesus' own teachings?