Originally Posted by spin

Oh, yes, you are. You assume you know what "lord" in Gal 1:19 refers to.


It only takes one "perhaps" to put you in bullshit.


When was John written? Your answer: "I don't know." You don't know where and how John fits into the developing christian tradition. You don't know how it relates to the synoptics. In fact, you don't know what sort of composition it is. You could be doing the equivalent of citing Exodus as a meaningful picture of Egypt in the mid 2nd millennium BCE.

You need some controls to help you have meaningful data. Otherwise you could end up citing "Prince of Egypt".

It should be simple enough to understand that we can develop some kind of relative chronology which starts with Paul (eg Galatians) moves on to Mark and onto Matthew and Luke. It is complicated by later scribal intervention, but at least we have a start. We know Matt and Luke came after Mark for obvious reasons. John cannot be placed into this relative chronology. The information you cite from it cannot be related. Is it independent? Is it derivative? Is it derivative of the same traditions?

Given that, how do you relate the apparently apologetic work in John to the issue at hand?....


We haven't dealt with the Marcan evidence. You cannot gaily abandon it and try to meaningfully go on to talk about something else, something whose value cannot be assessed.


Try to keep up.


We are trying to do philological research, not build a web of supposition. I have been asking for people to look at the evidence within Mark, that there was a Mary, "mother of James and Joses", of whom one cannot eke out relationship with Jesus (unless one assumes inerrancy), then this combination of "James and Joses" appears again with a Mary, but this time with Jesus. Had the first Mary been the mother of Jesus, it would have been perfectly simple to indicate which Mary we were dealing with by calling her "Mary, mother of Jesus", but the writer indicated differently. She wasn't the mother of Jesus, but of "James and Joses". And Matthew, using Mark, relegates her to "the other Mary" (27:61, 28:1), apparently also not realizing she was actually the mother of Jesus -- if your view were sustainable.


I think all you need to do here is apologize. You may not understand what's going on, but that doesn't give you the grounds to impute dishonesty.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think you are aware that I am referring to intellectual honesty and not a personal statement. People are usually unaware of their presuppostional baggage and I have found you to be no exception but as long as you pretend to have your feelings hurt, I will apologize.

There are 4 references in Mark to Mary.

1) Mary whose son is the carpenter
2) Mary the mother of James and Joseph
3) Mary Magdalene

the relationship between Jesus and James (adelphos) is direct and has no dependancies.

there is no justification for all your speculation. there is never a confusion or inconsistency as to how each Mary is referred to. The scope of adelphos is cleared up instantly by the author who refuses to allow any sensible person to see the mother of James and Joses as the mother of Jesus.

~Steve

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post is just a waste of time. Trying to show that MYTH Jesus had a brother proves ABSOLUTELY nothing. You cannot even prove that James was NOT a MYTH.

Do you NOT even understand that MYTHS were BELIEVED to human brothers in Antiquity.

Myth Jesus could have had a MILLION human brothers and a human mother since he was ALREADY called God's Son and the Lord from heaven who was NOT a man. See Galatians.

The Pauline writings are NOT heretical. You won't find a human Jesus in the NT.

Originally Posted by spin

Although I have failed to find an instance of you actively arguing for a reading of Jesus as the resolution to "lord" in Gal 1:19,

Originally Posted by sschlichter

of course, but that is certainly not the case.