Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop using the term Jesus birther, since you have made it clear that you are using it to insult people.

Very well, I will be censoring myself, though I am afraid it will be a little more unclear what I am talking about when I speak of <censored>.

jgoodguy · 05-21-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop using the term Jesus birther, since you have made it clear that you are using it to insult people.

I agree!

jgoodguy · 05-21-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop using the term Jesus birther, since you have made it clear that you are using it to insult people.

Very well, I will be censoring myself, though I am afraid it will be a little more unclear what I am talking about when I speak of <censored>.

I have found in a debate, that it is best to let my opponent make a fool of himself by insults. I could find myself agreeing with my metaphorical brothers on the metaphorical meaning of brother.

spin · 05-21-2011, 08:18 AM

Can we get back to some semblance of content?

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Very well, I will be censoring myself, though I am afraid it will be a little more unclear what I am talking about when I speak of <censored>.

I have found in a debate, that it is best to let my opponent make a fool of himself by insults. I could find myself agreeing with my metaphorical brothers on the metaphorical meaning of brother.

I have often been one to accept and encourage that method of debate. There has been a persisting problem in the debates in this forum. Jesus-mythicism is not even the majority position, at least not explicitly, but mythicism is the position that is almost always argued, and it is because the members take the position of uncertainty as reasonable, but of course they still have a strong anti-Christianity bent that leads them to persistently argue in defense of the mythicist positions and against the historical-Jesus positions, almost never the reverse. They implicitly know that mythicism is difficult to accept as a probable historical conclusion, but their prejudices lead them in the opposite directions. That is why I used the term, "<censored>." Since many of them are intimately familiar with the evidence, their uncertainty is no more reasonable than uncertainty about any other improbable fringe position, but obviously that is not what they think.

Encouragingly, there are a few open-minded Jesus-agnostics, who are willing to argue in favor of one side or the other, and the term "<censored>" truly would be inappropriate for them.

jgoodguy · 05-21-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Then what were you referring to? Give the author, book, chapter and verse, please.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcion Book 4, if I recall.

Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place.

So, like I said, using the evidence, like you claim that you do, show that Paul did, in fact write Gal. 1:19

The complete text of Adversus Marcion, Book IV, is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...0book4_eng.htm

There is one mention of James and two mentions of Galatians. In each of those three cases, it is assumed by the author that Paul wrote Galatians.

I already gave the reasons why it is highly probable that Paul wrote both Galatians and Galatians 1:19 in the OP.

"Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place."

Evidence?

Marcion had his copy of Galatians. "
But Marcion removed whatever he judged were interpolations - that is, anything that did not agree with his understanding of what Paul should have written. For example, Galatians 3:16-4:6 was deleted because of its reference to Abraham and its descendants. More examples may be found in [Evans] (pp. 643-6). "

Marcion's gospel has the brother of the lord in it.

Bottom line: it appears there was two copies of Galatians, each with the brother of the lord in it.

dog-on · 05-21-2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Tertullian, Adversus Marcion Book 4, if I recall.

Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place.

So, like I said, using the evidence, like you claim that you do, show that Paul did, in fact write Gal. 1:19

The complete text of Adversus Marcion, Book IV, is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...0book4_eng.htm

There is one mention of James and two mentions of Galatians. In each of those three cases, it is assumed by the author that Paul wrote Galatians.

I already gave the reasons why it is highly probable that Paul wrote both Galatians and Galatians 1:19 in the OP.

"Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place."

Evidence?

Perhaps book v, been a while. There are at least 2 chapters just on Galatians...

And I am not claiming that Paul did not write Galatians, as I do not have evidence to support this, I am claiming that there were copies of this epistle, from the second century, that do not contain the reference you are referring to in the OP and that these copies are older then our oldest manuscript evidence of the epistle.

dog-on · 05-21-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The complete text of Adversus Marcion, Book IV, is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...0book4_eng.htm

There is one mention of James and two mentions of Galatians. In each of those three cases, it is assumed by the author that Paul wrote Galatians.

I already gave the reasons why it is highly probable that Paul wrote both Galatians and Galatians 1:19 in the OP.

"Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place."

Evidence?

Marcion had his copy of Galatians. "
But Marcion removed whatever he judged were interpolations - that is, anything that did not agree with his understanding of what Paul should have written. For example, Galatians 3:16-4:6 was deleted because of its reference to Abraham and its descendants. More examples may be found in [Evans] (pp. 643-6). "

Marcion's gospel has the brother of the lord in it.

Bottom line: it appears there was two copies of Galatians, each with the brother of the lord in it.

It appears that you should actually read the cited evidence, as your conclusion, above, is demonstrably incorrect.

JoeWallack · 05-21-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There has been a persisting problem in the debates in this forum. Jesus-mythicism is not even the majority position, at least not explicitly, but mythicism is the position that is almost always argued, and it is because the members take the position of uncertainty as reasonable, but of course they still have a strong anti-Christianity bent that leads them to persistently argue in defense of the mythicist positions and against the historical-Jesus positions, almost never the reverse. They implicitly know that mythicism is difficult to accept as a probable historical conclusion, but their prejudices lead them in the opposite directions. That is why I used the term, "<censored>." Since many of them are intimately familiar with the evidence, their uncertainty is no more reasonable than uncertainty about any other improbable fringe position, but obviously that is not what they think.

JW:
Ouch!

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 05-21-2011, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There has been a persisting problem in the debates in this forum. Jesus-mythicism is not even the majority position, at least not explicitly, but mythicism is the position that is almost always argued, and it is because the members take the position of uncertainty as reasonable, but of course they still have a strong anti-Christianity bent that leads them to persistently argue in defense of the mythicist positions and against the historical-Jesus positions, almost never the reverse. They implicitly know that mythicism is difficult to accept as a probable historical conclusion, but their prejudices lead them in the opposite directions. That is why I used the term, "<censored>." Since many of them are intimately familiar with the evidence, their uncertainty is no more reasonable than uncertainty about any other improbable fringe position, but obviously that is not what they think.

ApostateAbe, what you claim has been ALREADY DEBUNKED.

It is HJers who have DISCREDITED the authors of the Jesus stories as EMBELLISHERS, LIARS and FICTION writers.

HJers BELIEVE :

1. It is a LIE or FALSE that Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost of God.

2.It is a LIE or FALSE that Jesus had NO human father

3.It is a LIE or FALSE that the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like a dove.

4.It is a LIE or FALSE that a cloud talked to Jesus

5.It is a LIE or FALSE that Jesus was tempted by the DEVIL on the Pinnacle of the Temple

6.It is a LIE or FALSE that Jesus INSTANTLY healed the blind, deaf and dumb with the "spit and touch" technique.

7.It is a LIE or FALSE that Jesus walked on the sea.

8.It is a LIE or FALSE that Jesus was transfigured.

9.It is a LIE or FALSE that Jesus was RAISED from the dead

10.It is a LIE or FALSE that Jesus was ASCENDED through the clouds.

It is CLEAR that the BELIEFS of HJers make Christianity appear to be a PACK of LIES or EMBELLISHMENTS.

HJers have REJECTED the Christian doctrine about Jesus and show that they do indeed have an anti-Christian bias.

The TEACHINGS of the CHURCH, that Jesus had no human father and was the Child of a Ghost of God, MUST be FALSE if HJ is TRUE.

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

05-21-2011, 08:18 AM	#34
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Can we get back to some semblance of content?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.