Blui

You can then of course, demonstrate how the story of Jesus could not have possibly circulated amongst those whom you consider constitute as 'early evidence'.

Please show me.

angelo

There is also sufficient evidence that the whole story is '' pinched ''from the myth of the powerful Egyptian goddess Isis and her child Horus.

There exists a statue of Isis holding in her arms the baby Horus. Just as the statues of Mary holding the baby Jesus in catholic churches. Only hundreds of years earlier.

Rick Sumner

His context, at least in Galatians, is "Messianism" only if you're painting with broad strokes. The actual context is the question of admission. How one "gets in" to use Sanders' term.

I am mystified by how you see that I'm doing anything of the sort. On the contrary, I'm--quite explicitly--rejecting the later significance of the term "gospel."

There is no indication in Galatians that it includes a "revelation of Jesus Christ" in the sense you're using the term. And you're simply parroting what I've said back to me and pretending I said otherwise regarding Barnabas. I don't think I could have been much clearer in my agreement with you regarding what you state Barnabas' problem is.

Which is where you start running into problems with your reading. Barnabas' problem and the "different gospel" of Galatians 1 are dealing with one and the same issue. Paul (and previously Barnabas) preached a gospel without circumcision and including table fellowship. The "super apostles" (and Barnabas now) are preaching a gospel with circumcision and, consequently, without table fellowship. Any reading of what is "revealed" to Paul other than that in Galatians 1.11 is ignoring that context in favour of a more anachronistic use of "gospel." The "good news" at issue in Galatians is the question of how one needs to behave to be included in the Christian community and reap the subsequent rewards.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Exactly.

spin

If you must retroject full-formed christianity into Paul then you paint in less broad strokes, but at the same time you haven't got a clue what you're painting.

As I understand it you want to make Paul say more than there is in the text.

Paul is explicit in 1:12. What do you have against what he says?

It's hard for me to know what you are talking about from your reaction. But you continue...

OK.

Still OK, if you mean by "super apostles" the pillars.

Paul's good news is his whole package which includes the exemption from Judaic practices which accompanies his revealed Jesus and the rest of his message. Reject the exemption and you come under the law. You "cut yourselves off from Jesus", 5:4, ie those under the law are without Jesus.

Paul's gospel with both exemption and Jesus is a different set of messianic beliefs from that of the pillars.


spin

spin

The question is evidence of what? You have no way of answering the question. Data without context cannot be evidence. The nutter may for example be seeking help the only way possible, or looking for recognition of his/her existence, or suffering from delusions, or a multitude of things. You aren't a clairvoyant. You need to turn the data into evidence. It cannot be presumed to be evidence for what you want. That's just assuming your conclusions.


spin

Flaming Moe

Well, firstly you're deliberately choosing to ignore some responses in the thread even tough they are unbiased and contradict your view so maybe thats why you're missing out.

Secondly,I'd say the methodology depends on whether or not their agenda becomes blind to ignoring the laws of physics and common sense in order to continue to try and legitimize supernatural and biased as well as uncorroberated lore.

I believe that people can call upon various means to get them through; But,no, I wouldn't believe that someone actually recieved help from God even if they believed it themselves. I don't believe in such biased intervention I'm afraid.

Sorry for your hostility to a legitimate question.

Rick Sumner

Then it is fortunate indeed that that's not what I'm doing. "Full-formed Christianity" never had to face the disputes I'm discussing.

On the contrary, I want Paul to say exactly what he *is* saying.

Apologies, ironically enough in my haste to clarify a distinction you're failing to make, my wordage was guilty of the same fault.

Paul's "gospel" here in Galatians is a revelation "from" Jesus, not a revelation about Jesus. Your original post, which addressed the question of "evidence for an historical Jesus" implies the latter. Your wording here (which I echoed) is the former. The former is correct. The latter isn't.

"Super apostles" is Paul's phrase (2Cor 12:11), not mine. But we'd probably be safe to assume that he means either the "pillars" or "Judaizers" sent from the pillars, which is how I'm using it here. Given that Paul is writing to Galatia, and we have no reason to believe that any of the "pillars" had been there, the latter seems most likely. Given that Barnabas is conspicuously absent in most of the epistle in the light of his apparent importance to the community, I'd go so far as to say that Paul's opponent is quite possibly Barnabas himself.

Here you're switching it again. His gospel here is revealed "of Jesus" or "from Jesus," not about Jesus, it's about getting in to the group. You're moving from "revealed of Jesus" to "revealed Jesus" pretty fluidly, despite the fact that they are very different terms. This isn't what Paul says.

I'm not sure that Paul sees it as a complete exemption from Jewish practices, just an exemption from specific practices, but that's neither here nor there, for the moment. What's at issue is whether or not "exemption" exists. You're tossing "and Jesus" in there despite the fact that it has nothing to do with what's at stake. The "different gospel" is one that contradicts "exemption." He's not saying anything at all about information about Jesus--it's irrelevant to his current point. The "and Jesus" is a perfect example of what you're trying to condemn--reading extra meaning into the text. It's not what he's discussing, it's not what's at issue, it has nothing to do with what is "revealed of Jesus" regarding his gospel and that of others.

Paul is here addressing the contrast between the "gospel" of him and his opponents, and what is "revealed" to Paul is his stance on that conflict. His position, not his Messiah, has been revealed to him.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aa5874

Solitary Man, your statement is completely flawed.

The "nutters" who wrote the NT do not appear to have done so independently. Just from reading the Gospels, it can be deduced rather easily that these "nutters" plagiarised one another.

And further, all the "nutters" who wrote about Jesus of Nazareth, in the NT, appear to have used a common source, the OT, to fabricate parts of their stories about him.

But, the stories of this Jesus from these "nutters" can be further discredited since although their stories are fundamentally the same, in some instances, their chronology is way off.

The "nutters" who wrote the NT appear to have abused their readers with fiction instead of evidence.

Ben C Smith

Is not the Greek text, on its own, ambiguous in this regard? It reads:

...αλλα δι αποκαλυψεως Ιησου Χριστου.

The genitive here may be either objective or subjective. If objective, then it is a revelation about Jesus Christ; if objective, then it is a revelation from Jesus Christ. Right?

Ben.