Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 02-18-2011, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am eating at a restaurant but I would argue that Mark and Luke represent manipulations of the original Marcionite gospel (which does not have Nazareth, hometown, people knowing Jesus oe Jesus having a mother or family)

These ideas were all layered over an original docetic narrative found in its purest form in Marcionite NT

That is just the problem in Mark and in Matthew as well. Nazareth is not a physical city but the metaphysical city of God as Jew . . . so it can be said that he was born of God as in John 1:13 it must. In Matthew he goes there a bit so it can be said that he came from Nazareth to say that he really was not from Nazareth.

sschlichter · 02-19-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saramago

Galatians 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

But ain't that a fucking hoot! People use Mk 6:3 to try to shoehorn this "James, the brother of the lord" as the brother of Jesus. Now we get the completion of the circularity.

:hysterical:

We cannot be sure what Paul meant by "the brother of the lord", though nothing about it points to any biological brotherness, given that Paul so consistently uses brother with a religio-communal association.

perhaps your circle is actually two lines originating at a point where a man named Jesus had a brother named James.

sschlichter · 02-19-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am eating at a restaurant but I would argue that Mark and Luke represent manipulations of the original Marcionite gospel (which does not have Nazareth, hometown, people knowing Jesus oe Jesus having a mother or family)

These ideas were all layered over an original docetic narrative found in its purest form in Marcionite NT

That is just the problem in Mark and in Matthew as well. Nazareth is not a physical city but the metaphysical city of God as Jew . . . so it can be said that he was born of God as in John 1:13 it must. In Matthew he goes there a bit so it can be said that he came from Nazareth to say that he really was not from Nazareth.

I think it is more accurate to say that Nazareth is not ONLY a physical city

Doug Shaver · 02-19-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

perhaps your circle is actually two lines originating at a point where a man named Jesus had a brother named James.

Only if we assume that (a) the sources are independent and (b) the gospels were intended as works of nonfiction.

spin · 02-19-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But ain't that a fucking hoot! People use Mk 6:3 to try to shoehorn this "James, the brother of the lord" as the brother of Jesus. Now we get the completion of the circularity.

:hysterical:

We cannot be sure what Paul meant by "the brother of the lord", though nothing about it points to any biological brotherness, given that Paul so consistently uses brother with a religio-communal association.

perhaps your circle is actually two lines originating at a point where a man named Jesus had a brother named James.

You can contemplate anything if you really desire to, but the issue here is a logic problem:

1. Gal 1:19 "James, the brother of the lord" is the brother of Jesus because I believe this non-titular use of "lord" refers to Jesus and Jesus in Mk 6:3 has a brother called James.

2. The development from Mk 15:40, 47, 16:1, "Mary, the mother of James and Joses", to Mk 6:3 makes sense because of Gal 1:19, James was "the brother of the lord".

Is the problem clear to you?

Chili · 02-19-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am eating at a restaurant but I would argue that Mark and Luke represent manipulations of the original Marcionite gospel (which does not have Nazareth, hometown, people knowing Jesus oe Jesus having a mother or family)

These ideas were all layered over an original docetic narrative found in its purest form in Marcionite NT

That is just the problem in Mark and in Matthew as well. Nazareth is not a physical city but the metaphysical city of God as Jew . . . so it can be said that he was born of God as in John 1:13 it must. In Matthew he goes there a bit so it can be said that he came from Nazareth to say that he really was not from Nazareth.

I think it is more accurate to say that Nazareth is not ONLY a physical city

Fair enough, but was it not a small village even? while yet a big little city in significance?

Doug Shaver · 02-20-2011, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

1. Gal 1:19 "James, the brother of the lord" is the brother of Jesus because I believe this non-titular use of "lord" refers to Jesus and Jesus in Mk 6:3 has a brother called James.

Seems to me that the tendency of historicists to treat Gal. 1:19 as if it were a killer argument says something about how good their overall case is.

sschlichter · 02-20-2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

perhaps your circle is actually two lines originating at a point where a man named Jesus had a brother named James.

You can contemplate anything if you really desire to, but the issue here is a logic problem:

1. Gal 1:19 "James, the brother of the lord" is the brother of Jesus because I believe this non-titular use of "lord" refers to Jesus and Jesus in Mk 6:3 has a brother called James.

2. The development from Mk 15:40, 47, 16:1, "Mary, the mother of James and Joses", to Mk 6:3 makes sense because of Gal 1:19, James was "the brother of the lord".

Is the problem clear to you?

logic issues only exist because you have assumed a 'development' and circular reference between these two passages. There is no reason that Mark cannot make sense with or without Gal 1:19.

If development was occurring naturally, I would expect both of these passages not to exist as they fly in the face of the tradition that has developed.

~Steve

sschlichter · 02-20-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

perhaps your circle is actually two lines originating at a point where a man named Jesus had a brother named James.

Only if we assume that (a) the sources are independent and (b) the gospels were intended as works of nonfiction.

I would not advocate assuming, but I would also not assume that James was a member of the Jerusalem club known as brothers of the Lord and that he was referred in this way with a definite article, instead of as one of the brothers of the Lord.

The Lord is used 3 times in Galatians, twice referencing Jesus Christ and once referring to a James, the brother of the Lord in distinction to the other disciples (whom certainly could be called brothers of the Lord if he was referencing a spiritual sense of fellowship). Why the distinction among all the brothers? Why not a distinction that is actualy a distinction like James the Just or James with the bad knees?

This is a step beyond an assumption, it is called a stretch.

Regardless of whether anything I beleive about jesus is true, it is non-sensical to read this and not find the simplest solution to be that he had a brother named James.

~Steve

sschlichter · 02-20-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think it is more accurate to say that Nazareth is not ONLY a physical city

Fair enough, but was it not a small village even? while yet a big little city in significance?

Sure, but whatever deeper allegory you find does not change the geography of the matter. I agree that it's insignificance is significant.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.