EarlDoherty

And how did Ehrman convince you that "brother" of the Lord could not refer to a member of the sect, despite the fact that "brother" in the latter sense is used all over the place in reference to other apostles (as in 1 Cor. 1:1 or Col. 1:1)? How did he convince you that there is nothing contradictory about the fact that neither writer of the epistles of Jude and James identifies himself as the sibling of Jesus? How was he able to dismiss the phrase "adelphen gunaika" in 1 Cor. 9:5, in the same breath as "brothers of the Lord" by the way, as universally translated as "sister wife" or words signifying a female believer, whereas "adelphon tou kuriou" in Gal. 1:19 cannot possiby mean the male counterpart? How was he able to convince you that Phil. 1:14 (adelphon en kurio) which everyone translates as "brethren in the Lord" cannot in any way indicate the meaning of Gal. 1:19? Because of the vast difference in preposition?

And how did he convince you that the phrase could in no way have been a 2nd century interpolation by a scribe who wanted to differentiate between James, Jesus' sibling, and James the Gospel apostle? No MS evidence? Did he mention that the wording of the phrase could nicely fit a marginal gloss, or the fact that we have no MS at all of Gal. before some time into the 3rd century?

It seems you are easily convinced.

Earl Doherty

spin

So that we are on the same page, what are the references for the four "words of the lord"?

aa5874

Your statement is illogical when it was the Pauline who stated that:

1. He was NOT the apostle of human beings. Galatians 1

2. He did NOT get his gospel from human beings. Galatians 1.

3. Jesus Christ was God's Son. Galatians 4.

The Pauline writer is putting forward the notion that Jesus was UNBLEMISHED WITHOUT SIN.

If Jesus was human then he would not be and could NOT be UNBLEMISHED and without sin.

ONLY GOD IS WITHOUT SIN.

Diogenes the Cynic

How is it not? Paul is recognizing that the crucifixion is a problem both for Jews and Gentiles.

spin

But not for "we" christians.

EarlDoherty

It is far from clear that Paul is here speaking of a human Christ crucified. In fact, there is no reference to a human Christ in this entire passage, up to and including 2:8. Nor (and I deliberately made this clear, knowing that you, or someone else, would come back with this 1 Cor. passage) does Paul here even intimate that "Christ crucified" is set against expected messianic activities by a human Jesus on earth; the latter was the meaning I said I gave to the idea of "messianic interests." Paul nowhere makes the point that instead of Jesus fulfilling messianic expectations in regard to overthrowing the Romans, reversing fortunes, exercising judgment and setting up the kingdom of God, he got himself crucified. Paul is nowhere constrained to explain or justify this failure of traditional expectation fulfillment; it isn't on his radar. The issue in 1 Cor. 1 is simply the fact of Christ's crucifixion. The Jews regarded as "folly" such an idea that the Messiah, whatever his nature or venue, would have been crucified. Paul is arguing against those who would deny his preached *fact* that his Christ had been crucified (Paul's words, and solely his words). It is not about any theological interpretation of such a supposed historical event, not about any failure to fulfill the expected role of a human messiah. (I deal with this issue and this passage at length in my website Supplementary Article No. 1.)

So my statement still stands. 1 Cor. 1:23 does not fill the bill.

Earl Doherty

judge

The problem is that Earl doesn't say .."was there something jews found prolematic about it"?

but rather..."Does Paul or any other epistle writer style the crucifixion of their Christ Jesus as something that was “against messianic interests”?


How could Paul style the crucifixion as being against messainic interests? Unless he thinks Jesus is not the Messiah?

stephan huller

Jesus is the first of many brothers, the catechumen are being baptized into Christ as brothers. The manner in which people are baptized to this day in real churches - not the stupid American kind - involves 'sponsors.' The pairing goes back to adelphopoiesis which was particularly rampant in the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries (our information beyond that period is restricted by the lack of textual evidence). I do notice that the cult of the Saints Cyrus and John were apparently present in the martyrium of St Mark at the time of the death of Peter I (c. 311 CE) if you believe the evidence of the Acts of Peter. A professor who specializes in the work of Sophronius (the author of the encomium on Cyrus and John) acknowledges that adelphopoiesis is present in their description. Sophronius seems to have been 'paired' with another famous figure John Moschius who in turn together wrote the autobiography of John the Almsgiver who is universally acknowledged to have undergone the rituals of adelphopoesis.

I am corresponding with a C Rapp of the University of Vienna to get some scope on exactly how widespread the phenomenon was. But my reading indicate that it was extremely common.

EarlDoherty

The one in 1 Thess. 4, 1 Cor. 11:23-26, 1 Cor. 7:10 and 9:14. I think sometimes another one is suggested, but I can't offhand remember what it is.

"Words of the Lord" is a scholarly term. It is not that precise phrase which appears in every case. In all four cases, Paul unmistakeably says that he possesses/has received a directive or account from the Lord, and it would be a real stretch to interpret the latter as meaning God, if that is what you are saying.

Earl Doherty

Steven Carr

So Mark couldn't speak Aramaic? So couldn't be a an Aramaic source?

And not one person in the church could speak Aramaic by the time Mark wrote?

So how did Mark actually understand this Aramaic source?

The Hitler Diaries are in German. Clearly that fact alone dates them to about 1940.