aa5874

The Pauline Jesus could NOT be human when the same writer is the ONLY one in the Canon to state DIRECTLY that his Jesus was NOT human and that he did NOT get his Gospel from a human being.

Galatians 1

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE that the Canon of the Church would contain the HERESY that Jesus was human with a human father which the very Church and its writers Identified and Condemned.

The Pauline writer CERTIFIED the Jesus of FAITH---the Non-historical Jesus--Myth Jesus.

Doug Shaver

And you don't think the cogency of those arguments depends in any way on any historicist presuppositions?

Duvduv

Barre, in the Clementine Homilies there is a reference to "James who is called Brother of the Lord,"
Also note 1Corinthians 9 and 15 for the use of the term "brethren"
And as far as the pillars are concerned, if they had seen a historical Jesus then why does the epistle writer not offer the slightest hint of reverence or awe for those who had known the physical Jesus? And why does he never mention a single aphorism in the name of the historical Jesus?
When he visits Judea he shows not the slightest interest in even visiting a single place where the historical Jesus visited!
And unlike the gospel Jesus whose role is to the people of Israel only, the epistles Jesus provides salvation for all mankind.

lmbarre

Please clarify what you mean by "historicist presuppositions."

Doug Shaver

I mean any assumption that Christianity must have, in some way, originated among the disciples of an itinerant Jewish preacher named Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Duvduv

Barre, I look forward to your reply on this.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, that certainly is a common assumption. One that is based only upon the evidence that -latter Christians- believed these Gospels to be fundamentally historical records.
But there is no evidence of with whom the Gospel stories actually originated, or what their compositors original intents may have actually been. There are far too many obvious errors and holes in the texts for them to ever stand up as being actual and true historical accounts.

My concern is not with that murderous religious insanity that prevailed from the 4th century onwards, but rather what motivated the genesis of these texts.
Most presume and assume (without any evidence at all) that these Gospels developed out of an oral tradition built upon an actual historical figure or figures.
I do not.

My view is that the Gospel stories are the result of a branch of Jewish OT textual midrashim that got out of hand, and was therefore early on abandoned, marginalized, and scorned by prevailing rabbinical Judaism.
The original compositors would have been well aware that what they were putting together were their combined midrashic speculations on the nature of the Messiah, All based entirely upon midrashim of the Scriptural texts, and 'sayings of old', and not in a recognition of any actual personage having ever lived, or having ever yet been their Messiah.

Nascent 'Christianity' then arose among the Hellenists who following The destruction on of The Temple, took over and 'cooked' these early Jewish midrashic books with major additions and syncretized interpolations to create the so-called Gospels, so easing their integration with much publicly popular philosophy and mythical motifs.
Over time the original leaders died off and their ideas were submerged, as new generations of 'Christians' began to believe these tales as being the literal history of their sect, while 'editing in' more and more of their 'doctrine' supporting interpolations as time went on.
The ideals and the goals of the original compositors became sidelined, forgotten, and displaced by the evolving ridiculous claims of the 'Christian' form of religion.

Sheshbazzar the Hebrew.



(This, being pertinent to this assumption, was adapted from the thread "They Stole Him while We Slept ")


.

lmbarre

I do not think that I am presupposing the ideas that you suggest. I see them as arguments and conclusions based upon some things in written Galations.

aa5874

You MUST be pre-supposing because in Galatians it is Specifically stated that the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man and that the Pauline writer did NOT get his gospel from a human being.

See Galatians 1.

And further, in the same letter, Paul wrote NOT one thing about a single miracle of Jesus or even regretted that he Never saw Jesus but was DELIGHTED and Extremely happy to say that Jesus was raised from the dead.

You chose the very letter that expose your ideas as presuppositions.

In Galatians 1, the Pauline Jesus was NOT regarded as Flesh and Blood.

The Galatians writer did NOT need any human being to tell him about Jesus.

lmbarre

Your comments are meaty and relevant. Allow me to break the discussion down into smaller pieces. My first comment is:

I don't grasp the import of what you are maintaining with your mention of the phrase in question occuring in the Clementine Homilies and in Corinthians. Are you addressing the question as to how the phrase could be understood figuratively?

I like to issue a challenge to produce a translation of the phrase in a way that best captures its nuance. "James, the ? of the Lord." Even it is possbile to explain the text, one would still have to show why this interpretation is superior to the much simpler and non-problematic thesis that the term was used literarlly (as it has always been widely taken to mean.)

So I think it is more than highly likely that the literal interpretation of adolphos is Paul's intended meaning.

That being so, it appears that a historical James had indeed a historical brother Jesus who was also called "the Lord." Gal 1:19 strongly supports the proposal that Paul knew Jesus to be a literal brother of James, thereby offering solid support of the existence of a historical Jesus.