Toto

It was directed at Steven Avery.

Aside from the fact that much of the commentary on the gospels is speculation, what about 1 Corinthians 9:5? Who are the "Lord's brothers" referred to there?

There is no evidence to connect the James mentioned in Paul to the James mentioned in Mark or Matt.

The mention of James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, is accepted by most scholars as not obviously forged. But I don't know that the question has been thoroughly hashed out.

If the group were an internal church group, Paul could refer to it causally, but Josephus might not know about it.

Very thin evidence for either one.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Toto. Learn some basic logic.

Somebody says there were no earlier indications of something, James as the brother of the Lord. You show them two direct references.

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son?
is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James,
and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,
the brother of James,
and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at him.

They don't respond. They don't even offer their particular explanation of convenience to cover their blatant logical error. (redaction, Matthew and Mark writing to match Paul, etc, the Gospels being written by Eusebius, whatever)

(Even leaving aside that they are assuming their own weird theories about the third reference.)

This is kindergarten level stuff. Then they need the moderator to try to protect their own illogic.

You can believe whatever you want, Toto, but you should respect simple logic, as a moderator.

==============================

Just to help you understand.

Your attempted cover story that the NT is not historicity to you is circular. Even spin was assuming a type of historical continuity and the sense of Paul's writings as historical in trying to give his weird explanation that Origen was the first one who saw James as the brother of Jesus. (That was why he tried to give Paul's writings a different spin, to refute the simple understanding of Paul.)

Why not simply say Paul is fiction if that is going to be your out, why go through all the hoops. Because then the particular game would be exposed. When spin has some absurd theory that nobody here is willing to call out, logic goes down the tubes. And when exposed, the mod tries to cover, since a snicker from spin does not wash.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Galatians 1:19 - James the Lord's brother.
Matthew 13:55 - and his brethren, James
Mark 6:3 - the brother of James

What would you consider more than no evidence ?

Shalom,
Steven

Toto

In what sense are these "earlier?" Do you seriously contend that they were they written earlier?

??

Kindergarten level errors that are so basic there is little reason to respond.


It's not a cover story. It is the conclusion of a number of scholars.

What does "a type of historical continuity" have to do with this?

Game? Exposed?

Can anyone translate this into English?

IamJoseph

Q: Does anyone have any historical proof outside of the Gospels Mark and Mathew were true historical figures? What would their true names have been, and what is the earliest direct evidence they existed at all?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Sure, that is clearly the internal indication of the NT, Paul referencing Luke as scripture, the gospel of Luke as 'my gospel', the NT before 70 AD, Paul especially learning from Luke.

Now, let us take your "out". If Matthew and Mark are later than Paul, (there are a dozen such theories here, you can take any one except mountainmans, since the rest all are pre-Origen) then all you are saying is that spin asked a deliberately deceptive question.

If Matthew and Mark indicated James as the brother of Paul five years later than Paul, then of course the Origen origin point of spin falls just as well. Unless he wants to make the dumb claim, as I mentioned in my post, that Matthew and Mark actually tailored their Gospels to match the Galatians reference.

You, Toto, can make that claim if you like, which is funny in a sense, since you also have to say that Matthew and Mark read the reference "wrong" from Paul, since it is also your claim that Paul wasn't really talking about a real brother. So you would be positing a tailoring of convenience of two Gospels (sans any evidence) combined with your error of convenience, that Matthew and Mark lacked your great insight into how to read Paul. White rabbit time.

So the bottom line is simple. Either spin was totally wrong, based on the sensible internal dating of the Gospels and letters, or he crafted a question of no meaning that was designed to obscure and even mask the real issue. A question only designed to confuse the issues. But hey .. this is spin writing, so each person can make their determination.

Toto, since you did not understand the rest of my post, I am sticking with the basics.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Stubbornness is in the eye of the beholder and to me you are farting about in an area you seem to know little about. I have shown you that your premises have no basis. The only attempt at grammar seem sot have been some half-cocked notion of something being an "object" which when asked you did not explain.

Sorry, I've shown you from examples based on Greek that your expectations of the language are not met in reality. Yet you persist in your folly. David is the servant of Saul, not a servant of Saul. Jeroboam is a servant of Solomon. We've seen a member of the guard simply being referred to as "the guard", then there was "the priest of Baal". Here's another: Martha is "the sister [h adelfh] of him that was dead" (Jn 11:39), despite the fact that Mary was also a sister.

You're still dealing in snake oil.


spin

spin

Traditions develop in time from earlier to later. Retrojecting Matthew and Mark onto Galatians means nothing because you cannot show that you are dealing with anything other than traditions.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Try to give an answer that remotely relates to the question.

Try to develop a sensible construct rather than engaging in Comparative Irrelevancies.

Apparently you have a new argument, yes they talked about Jesus and James being brothers, but only as a tradition, rather than as a ...something. Then the tradition became a .. something .. at the time of Origen. Amazing.

======================

Toto, the question remains for you, and if you want to try to unpack spin's comment into something relevant to the discussion, share away.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Since it is virtually impossible to figure out what the theory of Toto and Spin really is, let me ask Steve.

Is this really the theory ? You have done a good job on the post above, but the whole thing is silly.

Maybe you can explain what the point is in all this from spin. All of this is to prevent the simple equation kurios == Jesus and deny a high Christology in the 1st century ? Is that the point of the machinations and convolutions ?

Are the other verse examples similar dealt with in a convoluted fashion such as redaction, interpolation, reinterpretation. Or does it unravel tiresome thread by torn fabric.

My main question is, afayk, does anybody take any of this stuff seriously ? Is this a body of work (e.g Doherty, I remember Gibson was very much against high Christology, maybe Tabor and others) ? And does anybody other than spin take it to this level of dicing every verse through a spin-slicer ? Just trying to understand the background.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery