judge

The argument is quite convoluted.
1. Paul meant james the metaphorical brother of the lord (god).
2.Later christians misunderstood this as the literal brother and put this information into Gmark.

It's a weird argument. Paul doesn't understand how the construction will look, but later people do, and put the (mis)information into Gmark.

Especially weird from Spin who from his "Im not a mythicist" stance believes Paul had an human jesus in mind in his writings.

aa5874

It is your position that is illogical and convoluted.

1. The NT is NOT a credible historical source so you MUST first establish the veracity of the Pauline writer.

The Pauline writings are QUESTIONABLE.

2. Apologetic sources have claimed Paul was executed under NERO before c 68 CE and simultaneously stated that he was AWARE of gLuke deduced to have been written after c 70 CE.

The time period when PAUL LIVED is QUESTIONABLE.

3. Letters under the name of Paul have been deduced to HAVE MULTIPLE authors.

The authorship of the Pauline letters is QUESTIONABLE.

4. Apologetic sources that mentioned the relationship of the Apostle James and Jesus of the NT claimed James the Apostle did NOT have a brother called Jesus.

Galatians 1.19 is QUESTIONABLE.

5.The characters called Apostle Peter and Apostle James are WITHOUT any historical corroboration.

Apostles Peter and James are QUESTIONABLE.

NO presumptions OF veracity and historical accuracy can be granted to QUESTIONABLE SOURCES and characters in the NT.

It is time HJers understand that we will NO longer entertain their PRESUMPTIONS.

It is time HJERS face reality.

The NT is NOT a credible historical source. HJers MUST demonstrate that claims in Galatians 1.19 are historically accurate or stop wasting precious time with THEIR PRESUMPTIONS of veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline writer.

spin

With such a hair trigger it's no wonder LOM shoots himself in the foot. He just doesn't understand what is being said. It is not the fact that "brother" for non-biological significance is "personal idiom". It's the fact that Paul uses the non-biological significance of "brother" almost to the exclusion of the common understanding of the term.

This helps to underline why LOM has kept misunderstanding what he is supposed to be dealing with.

:hitsthefan:

One likes the hollow sound of one's own voice.

maryhelena

Relax aa - 'Paul' can give JC as many 'real' brothers as suits his argument - its all a story - and we don't have to take any of it literally. Call it what one wants, pseudo-history, salvation history, OT midrash, mythologized history - it's a story. An origin story of early christian origins. Easy on the ear, easy on the mind - that's the beauty of stories - they can cut out the hard edges of reality. Crucifixion of a man of flesh and blood is hell on earth - crucifixion of a literary, mythological, 'man' - and wonder upon wonders - now it's salvation for all. Heaven on earth. Well, something like that....

LegionOnomaMoi

Which is not, alas, a personal idiom.

Well let's see. I brought up the fallacy of seperating lexical usage from the constructions in which they occur, which is strongly supported even outside of construction grammar approaches to syntax, and you responded with a "transformational" argument that generative linguistics would laugh at. You could reference actual modern linguistic theory rather than resorting to rhetoric and dismissive comments while failing to address the point. But I don't think you have the background in linguistics to do so. Your references to Halliday and Dik (not to mention Chomsky and his "heirs") demonstrate this quite well.


The correct parallel use of "one" there (rather than "One likes the sound of their own voice") is a perfect example of a construction. There are many impersonal constructions, and American English speakers tend to use a generic "you" or the impersonal "there is/it is" compared to the German "man" or French "on" or even the British "one." But they are all nonetheless instances of impersonal constructions, and must therefore follow schemas (schemata) particular to the individual constructions.

aa5874

It is time to put a STOP to the absurd PRESUMPTIONS of HJers. They arbitrarily PRESUME their OWN history and the historical accuracy of Galatians 1.19 and have little or NO regards for evidence to support their PRESUMPTIONS.

HJers have UTTERLY failed to establish that any event did happen as described or any character in Galatians were figures of history BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

The Pauline writings are QUESTIONABLE.

The Pauline writer is QUESTIONABLE.

The characters in the Pauline letters are QUESTIONABLE.

There is NO corroboration in the NT Canon that Paul wrote letters.

The days of PRESUMPTIONS by HJERS for Paul and Jesus are OVER.

The TABLE has turned.

maryhelena

:thumbs:

judge

What has become increasingly obvious, is that your supposed expertise in linguistics is in fact "hollow". You have failed to address the details of LOM's arguments and are resorting to insult.

aa5874

I have ISOLATED the fallacious nature of the arguments of HJers. They have NOTHING but PRESUMPTIONS and Logical Fallacies parading as history.

HJers cannot establish the historical accuracy and veracity of Galatians 1.19 OR the NT, while they PROCLAIM that the NT is EMBELLISHED and Manipulated yet PRESUME it is a credible historical source for THEIR JESUS and PAUL.

Such absurdities cannot continue any longer.

judge

This is not really about whether Jesus existed. It doesn't matter whether he did or not.
Unless of course you believe in a christian or possibly ANE idea of sin. If that is the case then it may be vitally important to know that jesus existed and died for your sins.
If we are not worried about some disfunctional god punishing us, then it's really about being able to examine the evidence and come to rational conclusions as much as we can.
No one (K)nows whether jesus existed, and it doesn't matter, but what we can do is apply the best methiods we can to try to understand history and language.
Thats why this thread is maybe important. We can look at the best linguistic ideas of those who study linguistics and try to understsand them them and learn something.