Julian

Obviously, you know no Greek. Yet you show no hesitation in editing a Greek text. You roll your eyes at my post, yet you clearly have no idea what your error was. Your post is embarrassing you. For example, the problem in sentence one for you is here: μετὰ Βαρναβᾶ συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον
Notice that this is sentence one in Greek. In your snippet that would be the deleted end of sentence one and all of sentence two. You slice the first part leaving an unexplained coordinating conjunction hanging uncoordinated. You can roll your eyes at me all you want, makes no difference to me, but you might want to try to learn rather than employ your unwarranted dismissal leaving you looking foolish.

Julian

dog-on

Julian, please produce the original manuscript from the hand of the apostle so we can be absolutely sure what was written, or :wave:

Of course, I am aware that my quick cut-up is just that, a quick cut-up... If you are really interested in looking at an in-depth analysis of Galatians, check out the Dr. Deterring's website, it's chock-full of Pauline goodness.

So, once again I must ...

Julian

I am familiar with Detering's work. He is a competent scholar and, although I don't generally agree with him, I do respect his knowledge and ability.

That, of course, is unrelated to your post. You come here and post unsubstantiated rubbish and you're going to get called on it. If you cannot mount an adequate defense, and obviously you can't, you shouldn't expect anything other scorn for your posts. Roll your eyes, continue your ignorant posts, good luck to you. Meanwhile, I will spend my efforts on people willing to learn, grow, and contribute.

Julian

Amaleq13

The passage you quote does not support that conclusion. The fact that Paul identifies a gospel directly opposing his own as false neither requires nor suggests that he only accepted the existence of a single legitimate gospel. He simply and reasonable condemns any gospel that contradicts his own as false.

Amaleq13

They wisely won't join you in reading just that passage in order to understand what is said in that passage.

Only if you mistakenly assume, contrary to what else Paul says, that "it" must refer to everything Paul believed about Christ. There is simply no legitimate basis for that assumption and it is the foundation of your position.

gurugeorge

Sorry spin we're talking at cross-purposes, the subject of this thread (as far as I'm concerned, and I started it ) is the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, that's what I'm talking about in the post you're responding to. I'm interested in it because it seems to be a plain exposition of the early Christian belief in a nutshell, and it connects Paul (as last in a lineage) to Cephas, etc.

It may be rotten with interpolation, but what I'm saying is that, as it stands, it seems to be actually quite a strong support for the MJ idea, because without some kind of link between Cephas, etc., and a person they knew as the Messiah, the passage looks like a straightforward assertion of a new kind of Messiah concept, rather than the identification of some person recently known to anybody mentioned as the Messiah.

Furthermore, the fact that such a connection (between a man known as the Messiah and the Jerusalem people) could have been made more explicit by interpolators had they wished, suggests to me that the passage was so well known that they couldn't tamper with it.

spin

Your responses seem to assume it is Pauline and you use it to contradict Paul in Galatians and in so doing to undermine the veracity of the passage further.

Rotten with interpolation? Hmm, I seem to remember something about the flyspeck theory in such regards, ie when something is obviously tainted, how do you know what isn't tainted?

That something contains problematical material does negate the possibility that it is an interpolation...
You're assuming too much about our would-be interpolators.


spin

dog-on

Julian, in my view this visit is Paul's ONLY visit to Jerusalem in this epistle.

The interpolation in the first sentence of chapter 2 is there to make the Jerusalem visit Paul's second visit to Jerusalem and is required to make the interpolation in Chapter 1 his first trip. Here is the interpolation in chapter one:

17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24And they praised God because of me. 1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem

Barnabas (who of course gets his peepee snipped) is placed here to hold Paul's little hand, his orthodox guide, to prop up the Acts story and to help to subjugate Paul's own authority to that of the "Jerusalem Apostles", we can't have the "Apostle to the Heretics" run around, unattended as it were.

Ask yourself this, why would Paul go ask some guys in Jerusalem if he had been "running in vain" regarding the gospel he supposedly got from Christ himself?

If you disagree with the idea that Galatians has been altered;

Please provide me with a reference to the "TEXT" of the Epistle to the Galatians that would actually pre-date Marcion's TEXT.

I have yet to see one.

Thanks.

Ben C Smith

Here is my version of this interpolation:

Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus; then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles — only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie. Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. And they praised God because of me. Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem.

Here we have Paul shunning the Arabian apostles, though Cephas of course did not, and made the trip anyway. And Paul saw only God himself, who personally wrote a letter to the churches of Judea.

Kind of puts a new spin on Christian origins, huh? Maybe Christianity really started in Arabia; all those references to Judea as starting point are just interpolations.

Ben.

dog-on

Now you're getting it Ben!

and God used JesEx to deliver his letter, to Paul, overnight, guaranteed.