aa5874

But, I have made myself very clear. It is totally unacceptable to put the Pauline writings in a jar or in isolation when there is other available information within the very SAME CANON about a character called Saul/Paul who wrote ALL the Pauline Epistles.

You appear to have made your analysis of the Pauline writings in ISOLATION and have come to your conclusion without ever wanting to admit any other available information outside the Epistles.

Once a passage in the Pauline Epistles is ambiguous, then it is most reasonable to use other writings that are pertinent to the ambiguity to resolve the matter. The Isolation approach resolves nothing.


Once you analyze the Pauline Epistles in isolation your view may be totally erroneous.

My view of the Pauline Epistles was not accomplished by putting them in a JAR. I do not use what appears to be an ostrich approach.

gurugeorge

How do you know that they're not lying about him? You can't even be sure "he" existed. We know that religious people, or more generally people who believe fanatically in something, are apt to lie and manipulate and distort. Under such circumstances, you have to try all sorts of ways of conceptually isolating aspects of the writings under consideration, you have to look at the matter from as many angles as possible.

aa5874

This is an extremely weak response.

How do you know that the writers called Paul were not lying? You are not even sure these Pauline writers existed in the 1st century?

Even in ISOLATION, the writers called PAUL appear to be fanatical, apt to lie, manipulate and distort.

When taken in ISOALTION, a Pauline writer may appear truthful when it was claimed that he and over 500 people saw JESUS in a resurrected state but another writer, a supposed close companion of Paul, claimed PAUL was BLIND when he was introduced AUDIBLY to Jesus who was in heaven.

Both the Pauline writers and the author of Acts appear apt to lie, manipulate and distort.

And, in ISOLATION, you only look at one angle. Please look at the other angles before you conclude that the ISOLATION angle is the best.

gurugeorge

I never said "the best". The thought experiment of conceptually isolating the writings, or some philologically purified core, from what came after them is, as I said, one tool among many - but a necessary tool (for the sake of having as comprehensive a picture as possible).

aa5874

How can you put the Pauline writings in a JAR and just claim they are some "philologically purified core" and that writings "came after them"?

In such a case you never did put the writings in a JAR, you have only pre-determined the results you want.

gurugeorge

As I explained above - conceptual isolation via thought experiment is only one method among many, a tool in the toolbox, but necessary in the context of contentious teachings, etc. (To isolate the writings from what came after them.)

i.e. it's not as if that's the sole method I use, and I've never said it was.

aa5874

Where did I ever claim that it was the sole method you use?

But, you were the one who claimed that the Pauline Epistles should be placed in a Jar.


You will examine Paul in a vacuum and then claim your view is overwhelmingly supported.

Why did you look at Paul in a vacuum, why did you bracket the Synoptics? Why not look at Church History and De Viris Illustribus?

Because, these writings that you want to ignore obviously and overwhelmingly do not support your view that James the Lord's brother was a term of affiliation or art.

The Church did propagate that James was a sibling or family relative of Jesus.

See Church History 2.1.2-4
The ISOLATION method or examining Paul in a vacuum may overwhelmingly produce false results.

The Church did propagate that James was a sibling of Jesus and used Galatians 1.19 as EVIDENCE.

gurugeorge

Because they come later, and they might be lying, or misinformed, or otherwise in error, about their own history.

aa5874

Are you aware that you are making an assessment of the Pauline writings in a JAR about 1600 years after Jerome and Eusebius?

Why do you think that your assessment in a VACUUM, 1600 years removed from the Church writers, is not based on documents that have been manipulated, corrupted and full of lies?

You appear to want me to accept that whatever you believe about Paul is true because you honestly think so, or that the veracity of a writing is directly dependent upon examining it in a VACUUM.

The veracity of a document may be readily known or assumed when it is compared with other pertinent documents.

Now, even if you think the Church writers lied, they did propagate the lie that James was a sibling or relative of Jesus and used Galatians 1.19 while doing so.

gurugeorge

*sigh* This is getting tiresome. No I'm not making such an assessment. It's got nothing to do with a "vacuum", as I've said several times, it's about conceptually isolating the doctrine and "terms of art" in the "Paul" writings from what came later. Does that phrase even make sense to you? If not, why not?

Of course, but it is possible they were mistaken. It's especially possible if it doesn't look like the term is used for sibling IN "PAUL".