aa5874

Your arguments are a waste of time.

The Pauline Jesus was a GOD/MAN-- A mythological entity.

The Canon is about a GOD/MAN who was born of a WOMAN and the HOLY GHOST of God--A mythological entity.

Before you can read Galatians 1.19 you must first read Galatians 1.1, Galatians 1.10-12 and Galatians 1.15-16

The 1st chapter of Galatians is about the GOD/MAN.

Excerpts from Galatians 1


The abundance of evidence in Galatians 1 alone clearly shows and establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Pauline writer was making reference to a supernatural or Divine Jesus Christ.

The Pauline writer did not confer with flesh and blood.

The Pauline writer has destroyed your argument. The Pauline writer did not CONFER with HUMANS to learn about Jesus.

The historicity of Jesus Christ, the human Jesus is irrelevant to the Galatians writer, the heavenly post-ascension Jesus told him everything. The Galatians writer don't want to hear from any humans about Jesus.

He wants to CONFER with heavenly bodies without FLESH and Blood.

And now look, he did not even go to visit the very apostles of Jesus immediately after he was supposedly converted. The Pauline writer do not want to know anything about Jesus Christ on earth. The human Jesus means absolutely nothing to Paul.

Galatians 1.16-17 If you are human, the Galatians writer don't want to talk to you about Jesus. HE wants to talk directly to the heavenly Jesus. And Jesus from heaven did talk to the Galatians writer after he was blinded by a bright light.

Please do not ignore the abundance of evidence in Galatians 1 that clearly shows that Jesus was NOT FLESH and BLOOD.

The Galatians Jesus was a MYTH. Just read Galatians 1 from the beginning to end.

Doug Shaver

When a Christian apologist attributes a belief to a non-Christian that the non-Christian does not actually hold, but that belief happens to make Christianity look good, then I am not at all surprised.

One can never be entirely certain, but there are likelier hypotheses. A study of creationist apologetics can shed light on what Christians are capable of doing by way of misrepresenting the opinions of their opponents, either deliberately or through sheer intellectual perversity.

Then too, Origen just might have had a copy of Josephus that contained the statement he reported. The oldest extant copy we have of Josephus is from the Middle Ages. Who knows what Christian scribes were doing to his work in the third century?

judge

So to answer the question I asked, what are you saying is the alternate reading?
Let's see how your alternative looks. It is one thing to say I dont think it might mean such and such but that is pretty weak on its own unless you have an alternative you like. What do I care what catholics might or might not say or other religious nuts? (and yes I did ask the question but only on route to what i think is the real issue)
Spin wont say. Spin has no reading he is prepared to put in its place (for what I think are obvious reasons)
What are you saying is the alternative?


Without an alternative explanation we dont really get very far, and this is the real weakness with the whole post.

dog-on

Abe, let's look at this again. Here is the Origen quote:

Now, is there a direct quote from Josephus in this reference?

Let's have a look:

I don't see where Origen has directly quoted from Josephus, in the Josephus passage itself. I do see that Origen specifically says that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, but again, where does Josephus actually say that?

So where does the phrase Jesus, who was called Christ, actually come from and would it have been something familiar to Origen, though likely unfamiliar to Josephus?


My point is simply that a later scribe mistook Origen's phrase as having actually appeared in Josephus, at some point, and subsequently added the phrase to his version of Josephus. A gloss, let's say.

No nefarious scheme, a simple misunderstanding.

andrewcriddle

Part of the reason for an early date of the Protevangelion of James is that Clement of Alexandria probably knew this work. stromateis book7 Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hegesippus (according to Eusebius) c 175 CE seems to use James the Lord's brother to mean James the brother of Jesus . (from the days of the Lord must mean from the time of Jesus.) We have other pasages from Hegesippus eg Where Jude/Judas is described as brother of the Lord clearly meaning relative of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

dog-on

Why "called his brother" and not "was his brother"?

Why so cryptic?

Could he mean to say that when Judas was alive, he was called the Lord's brother?

andrewcriddle

The Greek is I think the issue is about reverence towards Jesus rather than about being cryptic.

In any case Hegesippus is clearly speaking here about family relationships. The point of the passage is that descendants of 'brothers of the Lord' have ( like Jesus) a claim to be descended from David. It is this claim to be of royal blood that seems primarily to have concerned the Roman establishment.

Andrew Criddle

dog-on

Are you sure that "descended from David" does not simply mean Jews?

avi

There were many Judas', including one, claimed to be another brother of Jesus, not just a member ("brother") of the congregation.

In my opinion, the evidence from the synoptic gospels is very clear, that David, in the flesh, was the biological parent of Jesus. Myths take many turns, along the way....

avi