Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-05-2012, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Words have meanings and we should respect that. These are not "works" of Paul's but letters.

Don't be silly.

There is nothing silly about it. If we were looking at Paul's "works" as a dcitionary would define it, you might have point

Quote:

a. An artistic creation, such as a painting, sculpture, or literary or musical composition; a work of art.
b. works The output of a writer, artist, or musician considered or collected as a whole: the works of Shakespeare

But we aren't looking at the "works" of Paul. We are looking at a handful of surviving letters written to "brothers" and "sisters".
Do you really, believe you have established Paul's usage or just that you can make an argument that might persuade the weak minded?

The linguistics of the situation is straightforward, ie we work from the evidence we have and that is an extremely high hit rate for 'brother" being used as a member of a religious community. You offer no meaningful response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

And somehow freethought and rationalism is advanced when they do?

I think you need to be treated as you treat other people who don't hold your views.

aa5874 · 05-05-2012, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

None of this has any relevance to Galatians or Paul, but I'll point out that it still says Jesus has biological brothers.

Please, again once you are using Galatians as evidence for an historical Jesus then you MUST, MUST examine the letter for MORE details about Jesus. Galatians 1.19 is NOT the only verse in the letter.

In Galatians, Jesus was NON-HISTORICAL--the Son of God.

You are wasting time. Read the WHOLE letter.

Galatians 1:1&11 KJV

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Quote:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...

You put forward the absurd notion that Jesus of the Pauline letters can be simultaneously historical and non-historical at the same time.

Please read the ENTIRE Galatians because you obviousy do not understand that the Galatians Jesus in God in the Flesh--a Myth character.

The Galatians Jesus--the Pauline Jesus-- had NO known human father--NONE which is compaptible with the teachings of the Church and the books of the Canon.

Only Jesus was sent from God and made of a woman--Only Jesus was GOD in the Flesh--Jesus was Non-historical. Jesus was ONLY BELIEVED to have existed like Satan or the Angel Gabriel.

By the way, up to now you have NOT established at all that the Apostle James did exist.

I will NO longer accept Presumptions about James the Apostle. There is NO evidence that James the Apostle was a real person.

thief of fire · 05-05-2012, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

There is nothing silly about it. If we were looking at Paul's "works" as a dcitionary would define it, you might have point

But we aren't looking at the "works" of Paul. We are looking at a handful of surviving letters written to "brothers" and "sisters".
Do you really, believe you have established Paul's usage or just that you can make an argument that might persuade the weak minded?

The linguistics of the situation is straightforward, ie we work from the evidence we have and that is an extremely high hit rate for 'brother" being used as a member of a religious community.

So we have an extremely high hit rate for Paul calling fellow believers "brothers". Wonderful.

An extremely high hit rate is when paul is addressing fellow believers doesn't give you licence to make the assumptions you do.

spin · 05-05-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

There is nothing silly about it. If we were looking at Paul's "works" as a dcitionary would define it, you might have point

But we aren't looking at the "works" of Paul. We are looking at a handful of surviving letters written to "brothers" and "sisters".
Do you really, believe you have established Paul's usage or just that you can make an argument that might persuade the weak minded?

The linguistics of the situation is straightforward, ie we work from the evidence we have and that is an extremely high hit rate for 'brother" being used as a member of a religious community.

So we have an extremely high hit rate for Paul calling fellow believers "brothers". Wonderful.

An extremely high hit rate is when paul is addressing fellow believers doesn't give you licence to make the assumptions you do.

It stops you from making the assumption you do.

Grog · 05-06-2012, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

No, Paul is only saying Jesus had a brother. That is literally what he says in that verse, and there is no convincing reason to take it as anything but what the plain Greek says.

And yet, in other passages of Paul, I will bet you will abandon this methodology when the evidence doesn't fit your presuppositions.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-06-2012, 08:47 AM

I don't have any presuppositions, I'm just reading it plainly. I have no dog in this fight and no desire for either side to be right.

aa5874 · 05-06-2012, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't have any presuppositions, I'm just reading it plainly. I have no dog in this fight and no desire for either side to be right.

Your claim is not valid.

1. You have NOT accepted the Plain reading of Son of God in Galatians 4.4.

2. You have NOT accepted the Plain reading of Galatians 1.1 where the Pauline writer stated that he was NOT the Apostle of a human being.

But, you have been BASKING in your presuppositions for far too long. Your presupposition Plug has been SEVERED and BEYOND repair.

Please establish that James the Apostle was a figure of history. No more PRESUMPTIONS about James the Apostle will be allowed.

ALL the DATED Jesus stories and Pauline letters are NO earlier than the mid 2nd century.

Grog · 05-06-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't have any presuppositions, I'm just reading it plainly. I have no dog in this fight and no desire for either side to be right.

To add, I don't think you accept the plain reading of Rom 13:1-7 and 1 Cor 2:8. Of even the whole of 1 Cor 2.

jdboy · 05-06-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't have any presuppositions, I'm just reading it plainly. I have no dog in this fight and no desire for either side to be right.

Should the writer have qualified his "the brother of the lord" with the word for materially?
Look at the apocalypse of James;It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear."

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-06-2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't have any presuppositions, I'm just reading it plainly. I have no dog in this fight and no desire for either side to be right.

To add, I don't think you accept the plain reading of Rom 13:1-7 and 1 Cor 2:8. Of even the whole of 1 Cor 2.

Sure I do. Why wouldn't I?

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

05-06-2012, 08:47 AM	#196
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I don't have any presuppositions, I'm just reading it plainly. I have no dog in this fight and no desire for either side to be right.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.