EarlDoherty

What we can't seem to get through your head is that "brother" meaning a member of the sect is, in Paul's world, as "literal" a meaning as any other. In fact, to judge by the weight of all the references to men who are Christian as "brothers" in the epistles, it is overwhelmingly more literal than sibling.

For those of us today who do not move in sectarian circles, the meaning of "brothers" as "brethren" is indeed little experienced, virtually never. So brother as sibling is the default "literal/plain" meaning--TODAY. In the context of the epistles, it was not.

Do you think that you could absorb at least that one argument?

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Galatians 1.19 has NO historical value if it was written in the 2nd century by a frausdster. We have NO credible corroborative source for the date of composition of Galatians and we have NO date of writings in the letters themselves.

We cannot be going over the same verse over and over when there is other evidence to look at.

1. Apologetic sources claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke. See "Church History" 3.4.8 and "Commentary on Matthew" 1

2. An Apologetic source claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER Revelation. See the Muratorian Canon"

3. A Pauline writer claimed that there were already Scriptures which stated Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day. See 1 Cor. 15.

4. Apologetic sources did NOT acknowledge Paul at all as an early Apostle nor do they acknowledge his letters and that he preached the Jesus story.

See "First Apology" and the "Apology"

5. The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge that Saul/Paul wrote letters to churches--Saul/Paul and his group acted as "Post-men" for the Jerusalem church in Acts. See Acts 15.

6. In "Against Heresies" 2.22 it is claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age so the Pauline writer could NOT have preached Christ Crucified during the time of King Aretas c 37-41 if Jesus was 30 years old at c 29-30 CE.

7. No Pauline letters have been dated to the 1 st century. See P 46.

8. Letters that place Paul before c 70 CE are forgeries. See the Seneca/Paul letters

9. It has been deduced that the Pauline letters have multiple authors. See "Forged" by Ehrman.

10. No author of the Gospels wrote about the Pauline revealed gospel--Salvation by the resurrection. See Romans and 1 Cor.15

Please, let us do history.

We cannot be going around in circles day after day.

The Pauline letters are the WORSE sources to be blindly accepted as authentic and historically accurate.

Even Apologetic sources have EXPOSED that the Pauline writings are NOT credible and were NOT written before the Fall of the Temple.

spin

Just wait till LegionOnomaMoi comes along and boggles you with his XYZ formula. It's so good, it convinces him that you(we)'re wrong!

Steven Carr

1 Thessalonians does NOT explicitly say that Jews were the ones 'responsible' for the death of Jesus.

It explicilty says that the Jews KILLED the Lord Jesus and the prophets.

Steven Carr

Paul 'blamed' the Jews for the crucifixion?

According to 1 Thessalonians, Paul clearly says the Jews killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets.

What part of 'the Jews killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets' assumes that it was the Romans who actually did it?

Steven Carr

Go on, I'm interested. This is a fascinating analogy that you are using.

Where are the sites which 'explicitly' to use Ehrman's phrase claim Israel invaded Iraq?



Talk about desperate attempts to avoid the text!

And Bart (we have Aramaic sources dated to within a year or two of the death of Jesus) Ehrman has the gall to claim that other people are guilty of interpretations of convenience.

Adam

I know you would agree that you have been hard on me, but until now I was willing to concede that you mostly read my stuff. My list of Aramaic eyewitness writers about Jesus included John Mark, Nicodemus, Matthew, and Simon of Cleopas. The other eyewitnesses wrote in Greek: Andrew, John, and Peter.

aa5874

Please, you have a list of FAKE authors DERIVED from sources of known fiction and implausibilities.

You might as well use comic books for history.

Huon

These eyewitnesses (according to you) witnessed miracles.
At Lourdes, Fatima, La Salette, Mejdugorje, and elsewhere, eyewitnesses saw the Holy Virgin dressed in blue.

And there are also eyewitnesses who are true liars. I would insert "Paul" in this category.

Toto

I gave up trying to read your stuff. Life is just too short.

You have hypothesized that John Mark, Nicodemus, Matthew, and Simon wrote in Aramaic about Jesus, but you don't have any actual documents, nor do you have any other documents that refer to documents written in Aramaic by any of these gentlemen. You have a hypothesis, not eyewitness testimony.