teamonger

Well as I said before, "searching the scriptures" for allusions, in a text as large and obscure as the OT, can be made to align with most any set of history. Especially when no rules are followed, and "prophecy" can be made up out of passages not even intended as such. Matthew is the most notorious for this, with his ridiculous "fulfillments". Paul is guilty too, claiming Jesus was raised in three days "in accordance with the scriptures". What scriptures?? (This was one of Farrell Till's questions in a debate, as I recall).

These early believers were all clearly desperate to make such connections. That their OT connections were so poor argues that they were somewhat bound by some real history. A complete fabrication would've been a much better fit. (For example, a fabrication would've probably been Jesus of Bethlehem to begin with.)

t

spin

Christ, it was no insult. It was an evaluation of the lack of materials that you all, not you in particular, suffer from.

Perhaps, if you have a different view of good historical methodology, you might care to elucidate so one can understand why you don't seem to walk the talk.

As I keep pointing out and you keep avoiding, Paul didn't need any historical kernel -- so your claims of such a kernel don't seem tangible.

Think about it. I'm providing you with a parallel that shows that a Jesus from nothing is eminently possible. The difference is that there was a lot more interest in the Jesus tradition than there was in the Ebion tradition, so naturally the former seems more substantial. Ebion, for a non-existent tradition with little support still even ended up with a hometown. The process is that Paul supplies the seed of Jesus and his zealous religious descendants water the seed till a tree grows. From small seeds do oaks grow.


spin

aa5874

The claim that "Paul" was before the Jesus stories of the gospels is an unsupported claim, or just a plausible claim.

"Paul" claimed he was after Jesus had died and resurrected. He claimed there were apostles before him, including Peter. He claimed he persecuted those of the faith before he preached the very same faith. And the Church writers claimed "Paul" was aware of the gospel called Luke.

Now, if "Paul" was actually before the gospels or the Jesus stories, then "Paul" and the Church writers are not credible and deliberately gave erroneous information to mis-lead the readers.

spamandham

I imagine Paul would consider apostles brothers in faith as well, just as he considers all fellow Christians brothers in faith. But consider the following, is Titus the blood brother of Paul?

2 Cor 2:13
I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said good-by to them and went on to Macedonia.

Paul refers to no-one else as 'my brother'. Therefor, Titus is the blood brother of Paul, right? ...or is he?

2 Cor 8:23
As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you;

So Paul holds a special title for Titus, "my brother", because he is Paul's peer, not because he's Paul's blood relation.

Given that, why is it unreasonable to consider 'brother of the Lord' - in regard to the leader of Jerusalem church - the focal point of Christianity - at least as likely to be a title as a blood relationship?

I think it means that Jesus arrived right on schedule. But nothing in Paul indicates that schedule was recent.

Please expand on what you mean by 'end times' in relation to Paul, and demonstrate that Paul's beliefs fit your description. In addition, you will need to show why Paul's theology is dependent on a recent Jesus, rather than a Jesus of the indefinite or distant past.

I see nothing in Paul to indicate he thought something like the ridiculous modern end-times scenarios was eminent. Consider what Paul means by 'kingdom of god'.

Considering that Galatians is not a letter to the 'pillars', and considering Paul seems to have had no more than 2 encounters with them, why must he convince them of anything?

So of the following 2 choices, which seems more likely based on what you know about Paul?

1) Paul left himself vulnerable to an obvious lie in Galatians (even though his claimed revelation is otherwise consistent with what he claimed was revealed through scriptures in Romans 1)

2) 1 Cor 15:3-11 was added later, as several qualified scholars agree.

...you are welcome to affer a third choice if you consider both of these too complex

...I thought you just said he needed to win a debate with the pillars, and that's what it was all about.

No. I'm saying 'crucify' may have had a different meaning to Paul altogether, as evidenced by the fact that he uses it in several contexts in which it can not possibly mean a Roman crucifixion, and never once uses it in an context in which it unambiguously means Roman crucifixion.

Of the 9 usages of various tenses of 'crucify' within the genuine epistles, none unambiguously refer to Roman crucifixion. Of the 7 usages of 'cross' within the genuine epistles, only one unambiguously refers to Jesus death upon a cross (Phil.2:8), which is argued by at least one qualified scholar (David Seeley) to be a later interpolation (that much should be obvious anyway, since it's part of a creedal hymn).

Don't you find this at least a little odd?

If it's consistent with how Paul uses 'crucify' elsewhere, it means 'humiliated'/'humbled'.


I imagine that's because all you've been exposed to is the party line the church propagates.

It's far from certain that Paul thought the world was about to end.

What then, do you find objectionable in Talbert's analysis?

bacht

here's one:

There was a little city with few men in it; and a great king came against it and besieged it, building great siegeworks against it.
But there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that poor man.
But I say that wisdom is better than might, though the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heeded. Eccl 9


There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor.
The rich man had very many flocks and herds; but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him.
Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him. 2 Samuel 15


"A large number of parables are found in post-Biblical literature, in Talmud and Midrash. The Talmudic writers believed in the pedagogic importance of the parable, and regarded it as a valuable means of determining the true sense of the Law and of attaining a correct understanding thereof (Cant. R. i. 8). Johanan b. Zakkai is said to have studied parables and fables side by side with the Miḳra, Mishnah, Halakah, Haggadah, etc. (B. B. 134a; Suk. 28a), and R. Meïr used to divide his public discourses into halakah, haggadah, and parables (Sanh. 38b). In the Talmud and Midrash almost every religious idea, moral maxim, or ethical requirement is accompanied by a parable which illustrates it." [wiki "mashal"]


the kingdom:

Therefore David blessed the LORD in the presence of all the assembly; and David said: "Blessed art thou, O LORD, the God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.
Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.
Both riches and honor come from thee, and thou rulest over all. In thy hand are power and might; and in thy hand it is to make great and to give strength to all.
And now we thank thee, our God, and praise thy glorious name. 1 Chron 29

aa5874

You would notice that the passage does not say "James, my brother" or James, my brother in the Lord", it is refers directly to the Lord. James was the Lord's brother. See Galations 1.18.

That Jesus of the NT had a brother named James is also found in the questionable passage of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 and is claimed to be true by Eusebius.

But, if Jesus was just human, the entire Pauline Epistles collapses. Jesus revealed nothing to the author called Paul. Jesus was not raised from the dead. The claim Jesus went to heaven is bogus. The author called Paul got all his information from written text, from what he heard, or his imagination.

The letters of the writer called Paul are not credible. It is really not known what can be considered true in the letters.

spamandham

If we're trying to figure out what the writer meant by 'brother of the lord', the credibility of the writings is irrelevant toward that. Works of fiction, political tracts, and religious propaganda can still be analyzed.

aa5874

Your statement cannot be true.

If the story, as written in Galations 1.18, is fiction, then it is irrelevant what you think the author meant.

Ambiguous elements in fictitious events cannot be resolved or harmonised.

And there is only one single statement in the letters, Galations 1.18, that make the claim about the Lord's brother James.

Now, where did I ever claim that works of fiction, political tracts and religious propaganda connot be analyzed?

I am analyzing Galations 1.18.

aa5874

This statement cannot be true.

If Jesus did not actually exist, if Jesus existed and had no brother named James, if Jesus existed and had a brother named James, what did the author mean?

Credibilty MUST be relevant.


Now, where did I ever claim that works of fiction, political tracts, and religious propaganda cannot be analyzed?

I have analyzed the NT which is a work of fiction and religious propaganda.

spamandham

Works of fiction are analyzed regularly to determine the intents and meanings of the author. Your line of argument is absurd.