Freethought & Rationalism Archive

AtheistGamer · 05-30-2010, 05:05 PM

Well I didn't come here to argue mythicism. But since the original question seems to be answered why not?

@aa5874

How does "I got my gospel from no man" translate into "Jesus was a myth"?

All I said was "*AS FAR AS I CAN TELL* Gal 1:19 is a massive roadblock to mythicism". I tried to come here as neutral as I could.

One of the cheif claims of mythicism is that Paul (or the pauline writer) never said Jesus was a real life person. If Gal 1:19 says brother of the lord then that claim is proven to be outright wrong.

@Toto

What do you mean there's no way to tell what it means grammatically? GFA said the greek word used for "the" is possesive. Possesive is not the same as descriptive, which is what the word would be if it mean brother of the lord in the same sense that some people mean man of god.

Toto · 05-30-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

...

All I said was "*AS FAR AS I CAN TELL* Gal 1:19 is a massive roadblock to mythicism". I tried to come here as neutral as I could.

"Massive roadblock" is not a neutral description of this thin piece of evidence.

Quote:

One of the chief claims of mythicism is that Paul (or the pauline writer) never said Jesus was a real life person. If Gal 1:19 says brother of the lord then that claim is proven to be outright wrong.

It is only wrong IF you assume several things - that "the Lord" means Jesus, and that a spiritual being cannot have a human "brother." And, of course, if you assume that Paul wrote that particular section.

Quote:

@Toto

What do you mean there's no way to tell what it means grammatically? GFA said the greek word used for "the" is possesive. Possesive is not the same as descriptive, which is what the word would be if it mean brother of the lord in the same sense that some people mean man of god.

The literal translation is "the Lord's brother." Paul uses the Greek word Kyrios (κυρίου in the Greek genetive case) - but he uses Kyrios to refer to both God and Jesus. There is a Hebrew name Ahijah that translates to "Brother of YHWH" so the idea of "brother of god" is not unknown in the culture.

aa5874 · 05-30-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

Well I didn't come here to argue mythicism. But since the original question seems to be answered why not?

@aa5874

How does "I got my gospel from no man" translate into "Jesus was a myth"?

All I said was "*AS FAR AS I CAN TELL* Gal 1:19 is a massive roadblock to mythicism". I tried to come here as neutral as I could.

So how does Galatians 1.19 become a massive roadblock?

How does "James the Lord's brother" translate into a "massive roadblock for mythicism"?

The Church writers claimed James wrote an Epistle and James did NOT even claim he was the LORD'S brother.

In the Epistle attributed to James, the author claimed he was a SERVANT of Jesus.

James 1:1 -

Quote:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Papais a supposed early writer, an apologetic source claimed James the apostle was NOT the son of Mary mother of Jesus. See the fragments of Papias.

Jerome an apologetic source claimed James was not the son of Mary mother of Jesus.

Paul in Galatians 1.1 claimed his gospel was not from man but from one who was raised from the dead.

How does Galatians 1.19 become a massive roadblock for mythicism when Jesus was described in the very Pauline writings as the Creator of everything in heaven and earth who was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.

The FLOOD GATES have been opened for MYTHICISM by the Pauline writers.

Now, please tell me when was Galatians 1.19 written?

If it was written after the middle of the 2nd century it cannot be a roadblock to mythicism.

God Fearing Atheist · 05-30-2010, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

GFA said the greek word used for "the" is possesive. Possesive is not the same as descriptive, which is what the word would be if it mean brother of the lord in the same sense that some people mean man of god.

Though I agree that Paul means that James is the actual, physical brother of Jesus, his use of αδελφος + the genitive need not imply biological kinship, as in those many cases where he refers to Christians as each other's brothers (e.g. Romans 14.10; "τον αδελφον σου," σου being the genitive of συ, the second person singular pronoun) or direct sibling kinship, as in Romans 9.3, "των αδελφων μου," the brothers of me (i.e. other Jews, who are biological kin on at least some distant level).

It is interesting to note, however, that in the other instance Paul talks about brotherhood and the lord, Phil 1.14, he uses the dative: των αδελφων εν κυριω, the brothers in the lord. This dative construction clearly implies that here the brotherhood is metaphorical.

DCHindley · 05-30-2010, 07:28 PM

What if it is taken as a dative of means: "brothers by means of the lord."

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Fearing Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

GFA said the greek word used for "the" is possesive. Possesive is not the same as descriptive, which is what the word would be if it mean brother of the lord in the same sense that some people mean man of god.

Though I agree that Paul means that James is the actual, physical brother of Jesus, his use of αδελφος + the genitive need not imply biological kinship, as in those many cases where he refers to Christians as each other's brothers (e.g. Romans 14.10; "τον αδελφον σου," σου being the genitive of συ, the second person singular pronoun) or direct sibling kinship, as in Romans 9.3, "των αδελφων μου," the brothers of me (i.e. other Jews, who are biological kin on at least some distant level).

It is interesting to note, however, that in the other instance Paul talks about brotherhood and the lord, Phil 1.14, he uses the dative: των αδελφων εν κυριω, the brothers in the lord. This dative construction clearly implies that here the brotherhood is metaphorical.

God Fearing Atheist · 05-30-2010, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

What if it is taken as a dative of means: "brothers by means of the lord."

I didn't intend my use of "in" to presuppose any particular nuance. It was merely to say that εν κυριω modifies 'brothers' (and not πεποιθοτας), and that the implied relationship is metaphorical in some sense or another.

aa5874 · 05-30-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

If we had Galatians 1:19 and nothing else in Christian history, then the dismissals and the alternative explanations may be acceptable, and maybe mythicism could still be left on the table as a possible model. But, that short phrase in Galatians 1:19 is actually just a key component of a network of evidence about James that extends into the synoptic gospels and Josephus.

Galatians 1.19 is not any key component about James.

There were MORE than one apostle called James in the Synoptics and there was NO apostle in the Synoptics that was the brother of the Lord.

Who was the apostle James in the Pauline writings?

In Galatians 2.9 the name James appeared with Cephas and John but the James normally associated with Cephas and John in the Synoptics was not called a brother of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Josephus, in 90 CE, also has a little blurb about him: "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..." Some have thought that this could be an interpolation, perhaps by the same scribes who interpolated the Testimonium Flavianum. Possible, but Origen makes mention of Josephus' testimony to James being the brother of Jesus, which means that it would still be a reflection of Christian belief between the second and third century.

The Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was not the Christ. Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was a forgery.

Josephus FOUGHT HIMSELF with the Jews with expectation that there was a Jewish Messiah at around 70 CE as found in "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4.

[b] How ridiculous it would have been for Josephus to have claim that Vespasian was indeed the Messianic ruler when it was KNOWN that the Jesus MESSIAH had already come since the time of Tiberius.

Vespasian might have Josephus executed immediately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The evidence taken together seems to indicate very strongly that the Christians of the time believed that Jesus had a brother named James, and Paul met him. If there was a group of high-status Christians called the "brothers of the Lord" who were not the literal brothers of Jesus, then there was somehow a misunderstanding in the myths of the early church that transformed those men into the literal brothers of Jesus.

The evidence taken together shows that Jesus of the NT did NOT have any brother called James.

1.The Church writers claimed James the apostle wrote an Epistle yet this James claimed he was a SERVANT of Jesus.

2.Papias, an apologetic source, claimed James the apostle was NOT the son of Mary the mother of Jesus.

3.Jerome, an apologetic source, claimed James the apostle was NOT the son of Mary the mother of Jesus.

4.In the Synoptics there are two apostles called James and NONE is called the brother of the Lord.

It is CLEAR that the evidence when put together does NOT show that James the apostle was the Lord's brother

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Evidence? We don't know what the early christians believed - its all interpretation. 'Paul' says there were others before him. Taking him on his word - we are dealing with two strands of early christian history - or more correctly, pre-cristian history. Paul says he got his insights from no man - Paul has his own take on things. What the other take on things was, the take of those who came before him, he does not seem to want to be too much bothered with. Paul's insights are spiritual - his vision on the Damascus road. Paul has a new intellectual take on things. So, perhaps the best that can be said is that, because christianity got up and running with Paul, that somehow some meeting ground was found, some accommodation was made with those who came before him - or perhaps at least some of them - as he mentions James, the Lord's brother, and those who were thought to be pillars.

It is not logical to claim Paul got Christianity up and running when you have ADMITTED that there were others BEFORE him.

This is SO BASIC.

Plus, the Church writers and the author of Acts have a story about Paul.

The Pauline CONVERSION story BEGAN after JESUS ascended through the CLOUDS and AFTER he persecuted Jesus believers. It was Peter and the other 11 apostles that were BEFORE Paul.

This so basic.

The Pauline writers ADMITTED that they did not get Christianity up and running.

It is the REVERSE.

The Pauline writers CLAIMED they ATTEMPTED TO STOP Christianity from running and created HAVOC.

Galatians 1:13 -

Quote:

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measurep I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

To imagine that we are talking re different spiritual interpretations is illogical - why should one person's vision, speculation, be worth more than the next persons? Speculation needs to be grounded - and that requires a historical, a physical component. Paul has not met the Lord to which the pillars and James are linked. He is dead. If this Lord was human, a historical man, then chances are he had brothers, that he had siblings. That's pretty much the general take on things. Paul cannot change what came before him - cannot change the pre-christian history. What he can do is attempt to move the focus away from the physical, from the human man, and concentrate on his very own spiritual take on things, his very own spiritual construct of a spiritual as opposed to a physical salvation figure.

But, the apostles BEFORE Paul were Baptised and EMPOWERED by the Holy Ghost sent by JESUS from heaven.

The apostles BEFORE Paul had ALREADY moved away from the physical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Paul shows no interest in the early life of a historical man. To endeavor to equate Paul's spiritual construct, his salvation figure, with a historical man, to make an exact equation, is, in actuality, to attempt to undo the very work that Paul has done. Paul cannot deny the pre-christian history - but he can change its course towards the spiritual construct he is developing.

The Pauline story began after the ascension of Jesus. Paul is claiming to have heard from the ascended Jesus and that Jesus gave him a gospel to the uncircumcision.

It must be noted AMUSINGLY that it was the Apostles before Paul who were in contact with the HOLY SPIRIT while Paul claimed to be in contact with the resurrected DEAD.

AtheistGamer · 05-30-2010, 08:20 PM

@Toto

I wasn't trying to be judgemental I was just describing how the evidence looked to me. I wasn't saying that the evidence *was* damning. I was saying that the evidence *looked damning to me*. Big difference.

Galations 1:3 has Paul calling Jesus "Lord" so I don't think that one assumption is unfounded. You tried to use the word Ahijah in order to claim that the concept of YHWH having a human brother is not alien. However the name "Ahijah does not mean literal brother. It means friend/brother/companion. But yeah I guess I would have to assume that a spiritual being cannot possibly have a human brother. And Heracles would seem to throw that assumption out the window.

@aa5874

I doubt the epistle of James was written by James.

Do you have links to those apologists who claim that James wasn't Jesus brother? That would be very interesting.

Are you saying Gal 1:19 wasn't written until 100 years after most scholars think it was written?

@ GFA

Thanks for clearing that up.

aa5874 · 05-30-2010, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

...I doubt the epistle of James was written by James.

I doubt that the Pauline writings were before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c70 CE

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

Do you have links to those apologists who claim that James wasn't Jesus brother? That would be very interesting.

See the fragments of Papias at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

The Fragments of Papias X.

Quote:

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord;

(2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph;

(3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James;

(4) Mary Magdalene.

These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's.

James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's.

Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason..

James the apostle was not the son of Mary the mother of Jesus according to Papias.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

Are you saying Gal 1:19 wasn't written until 100 years after most scholars think it was written?

I thought you would supply the evidence from scholars that any Pauline letter was written before the Fall of the Temple c70 CE.

Now, that you have told me about the thoughts of scholars show me the EVIDENCE that the Pauline writings did exist BEFORE the writings of Justin Martyr or before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Some scholars say Paul started Christianity even though a Pauline writer claimed, MULTIPLE-TIMES he persecuted JESUS believers BEFORE he became a believer.

An apologetic source the author of Acts claimed Paul was after Jesus ascended through the clouds.

An apologetic source claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

A Pauline writer also claimed he met apostles of Jesus including one called Peter or Cephas in Jerusalem.

Now, Peter was a fictious character in the Fiction Jesus story. THE PAULINE writer in Galatians 1.18-19 who met Peter in Jerusalem was AWARE of the JESUS story.

Galatians 1.18-19 is FICTION based on the ABUNDANCE of EVIDENCE.

AtheistGamer · 05-30-2010, 09:36 PM

@aa5874

I don't see what some scholars thinking paul came up with christianity has to do with dating his writings.

Well of course paul was after Jesus acended through the clouds. What does that have to do with dating?

What apologetic source claimed paul knew of Gluke? Is this apologetic source an untrustworthy D-bag? If so why believe anything he says?

If Jesus was a real life person then there could have been a real life Peter who was later fictionalized. Read Burton Mack's "Who wrote the Gospels" to see what I mean.

I'll be back with why Paul is supposidly pre-gospels.

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

05-30-2010, 05:05 PM	#11
AtheistGamer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Central Iowa Posts: 128	Well I didn't come here to argue mythicism. But since the original question seems to be answered why not? @aa5874 How does "I got my gospel from no man" translate into "Jesus was a myth"? All I said was "AS FAR AS I CAN TELL Gal 1:19 is a massive roadblock to mythicism". I tried to come here as neutral as I could. One of the cheif claims of mythicism is that Paul (or the pauline writer) never said Jesus was a real life person. If Gal 1:19 says brother of the lord then that claim is proven to be outright wrong. @Toto What do you mean there's no way to tell what it means grammatically? GFA said the greek word used for "the" is possesive. Possesive is not the same as descriptive, which is what the word would be if it mean brother of the lord in the same sense that some people mean man of god.

05-30-2010, 08:20 PM	#18
AtheistGamer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Central Iowa Posts: 128	@Toto I wasn't trying to be judgemental I was just describing how the evidence looked to me. I wasn't saying that the evidence was damning. I was saying that the evidence looked damning to me. Big difference. Galations 1:3 has Paul calling Jesus "Lord" so I don't think that one assumption is unfounded. You tried to use the word Ahijah in order to claim that the concept of YHWH having a human brother is not alien. However the name "Ahijah does not mean literal brother. It means friend/brother/companion. But yeah I guess I would have to assume that a spiritual being cannot possibly have a human brother. And Heracles would seem to throw that assumption out the window. @aa5874 I doubt the epistle of James was written by James. Do you have links to those apologists who claim that James wasn't Jesus brother? That would be very interesting. Are you saying Gal 1:19 wasn't written until 100 years after most scholars think it was written? @ GFA Thanks for clearing that up.

05-30-2010, 09:36 PM	#20
AtheistGamer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Central Iowa Posts: 128	@aa5874 I don't see what some scholars thinking paul came up with christianity has to do with dating his writings. Well of course paul was after Jesus acended through the clouds. What does that have to do with dating? What apologetic source claimed paul knew of Gluke? Is this apologetic source an untrustworthy D-bag? If so why believe anything he says? If Jesus was a real life person then there could have been a real life Peter who was later fictionalized. Read Burton Mack's "Who wrote the Gospels" to see what I mean. I'll be back with why Paul is supposidly pre-gospels.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.