Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 09-04-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

. If you want to say that Gal 1:19 is saying that James appeared to be christs brother, then go ahead. it is wrong but not the current conversation.

That is just silly. The LORD is an alleged supernatural being, whether it be Yahweh or the resurrected and glorified Christ. Brother of the Lord is a religous affiliation.

sschlichter · 09-04-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

the subject in rom 3:25 is 'him, at his death'. the context of what is being set forth is this event. this is confirmed in the next sentence where he points out the reason was to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time.

yes, eph 1:9 is saying the same thing. the context is something being revealed to 'us'. How public it is in this case depends on what he means by us and here, he is referring to those by 'predestined to adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure of his will - ' (Eph 1:5)

In public preaching.

he uses the word preaching when referring to preaching. you are projecting.

jakejonesiv · 09-04-2009, 10:49 AM

For readers who are interested in comparing the Greek texts of the Marcionite and the Catholic recensions of the epistle to the Romans, here is a link to Hermann Detering's Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt. http://www.radikalkritik.de/Roemerbrief_4.pdf

jakejonesiv · 09-04-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

he uses the word preaching when referring to preaching. you are projecting.

You are projecting the gospel context into the Pauline epistles again. προέθετο (proeyeto) in Romans 3:25 means no more than "set forth," "put forward," or "made known." The RSV, NIV, ISV, GWT, AKJ, ASV, BBE, DRB, ERV, WBS, WEY, WEB, and YLT are all against you on this. So far, you have only offered the NAS--and you misunderstand what that translation means.

IBelieveInHymn · 09-04-2009, 11:21 AM

I have evidence of 'Christ Worship' that predates the New Testament by 25-30 years. The first Gospel was written around 55-60ad. I have proof Jesus Christ was worshipped in the year 33ad. Long before the N.T was written.

Enjoy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ive-found.html

Toto · 09-04-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

I have evidence of 'Christ Worship' that predates the New Testament by 25-30 years. The first Gospel was written around 55-60ad. I have proof Jesus Christ was worshipped in the year 33ad. Long before the N.T was written.

Enjoy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ive-found.html

This is the very best of archeoporn, already debunked.

Earliest Christian Church

I think you will find that the motive here was clearly Christian tourist dollars, and even the original supporters have backed off.

Deus Ex · 09-04-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

I have evidence of 'Christ Worship' that predates the New Testament by 25-30 years. The first Gospel was written around 55-60ad. I have proof Jesus Christ was worshipped in the year 33ad. Long before the N.T was written.

Enjoy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ive-found.html

From the linked site:

Quote:

But Thomas Parker, a historian at the University of North Carolina-Raleigh, who led the discovery of the church in Aqaba, said that while he hadn't seen the Rihab site, any such claim should be taken with a degree of caution.'An extraordinary claim like this requires extraordinary evidence,' he said.
'We need to see the artifacts and dating evidence to suggest such an occupation in the 1st century A.D.'
Mr Parker asked how archaeologists could be certain whether the 'cave was actually a center of Christian worship.'

The archaeologist also said mosaics are difficult to date unless there is a precise date in the text of the inscriptions themselves.
He added typical mosaic inscriptions with Christian themes are usually from the 5th to 6th century.
'It's quite possible that there was a cave with earlier occupation which was later converted to Christian use,' he said.

'But to make the jump that this was actually used by Christians fleeing Jerusalem in the 1st century A.D. seems like a stretch to me.'

andrewcriddle · 09-04-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Certainly, Paul wanted to assert the primacy of his own mystical revelation over the fleshly connection that the family and disciples had with Christ.

And that is why it is odd that he would choose to describe James in such a fashion.

His readers wouldn't have known who Paul was talking about if he referred to him as the James who was a "pillar" in Jerusalem?

As a choice by Paul, it is bizarre.

Paul's use of "brother of the Lord" as a identifier for James seems most plausible if it was a widely known title for James. (Otherwise it would be confusing rather than helpful to his readers.) IE the choice is a result of other peoples' preferences. Paul's might have been different.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 09-04-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Do you understand now?

yes, very explicit, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Then the answer is "No", you do not understand. Please reread our exchanges. You have become quite lost.

Amaleq13 · 09-04-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Paul's use of "brother of the Lord" as a identifier for James seems most plausible if it was a widely known title for James. (Otherwise it would be confusing rather than helpful to his readers.) IE the choice is a result of other peoples' preferences. Paul's might have been different.

Andrew Criddle

I agree that this would at least somewhat reduce the oddity but we certainly don't have the evidence to suggest that this was how James was best or even primarily known. We have several alternates from early Christian writers (eg "the Just") so I think, even if we assume it was something others called him, we're still left wondering why Paul would choose this particular descriptive phrase if he had others available that were less inherently problematic for him.

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

09-04-2009, 10:49 AM	#473
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	For readers who are interested in comparing the Greek texts of the Marcionite and the Catholic recensions of the epistle to the Romans, here is a link to Hermann Detering's Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt. http://www.radikalkritik.de/Roemerbrief_4.pdf

09-04-2009, 11:21 AM	#475
IBelieveInHymn Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 814	I have evidence of 'Christ Worship' that predates the New Testament by 25-30 years. The first Gospel was written around 55-60ad. I have proof Jesus Christ was worshipped in the year 33ad. Long before the N.T was written. Enjoy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ive-found.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.