aa5874

Corrections in spelling has ZERO to do with an historical Jesus. There are perhaps hundreds of differences in all the Extant Codices.

lmbarre

The correction of spelling demonstrates a form of embarassment remedied.

lmbarre

Why is it more credible that gMark drew from a written rather than oral tradition?
In my essay, I argue that the form 'eloi is a conflation of 'eli and 'elohi a mistake that is much more likely to have been made orally rather than a written mistake. Note that the remainder of the quote is in Aramaic. Why? My explanation for this is that Jesus knew he mispoke the Hebrew and so reverted to his venacular Aramaic to complete the quote.

(I do not blindly assume that Jesus existed. I think this on other grounds, such as the (literal) meaning of adelphos in Gal 1:19 where James is called "the brother of the Lord." I would be interested to know how a metaphorical understanding of "brother" makes any sense. This inability to produce a convincing figurative meaning is exposed when one tries to paraphrase this part of the verse. Any takers? How do mythicists translate the phrase?)

launion

i was going to say "NOTHING " but some one beat me to it

aa5874

It is useless trying to claim that Galatians 1.19 referes to a human Jesus when the the very FIRST verse of Galatians DESTROY any such claim.



1.The Pauline Jesus was NOT HUMAN. See Galatians 1.1

2. The Pauline writer did NOT get his gospel from a Human being. See Galatians 1.10-12

3. The Pauline Jesus was RAised from the dead. See Galatians 1.1

4. The Pauline Jesus was God INCARNATE. See Galatians 4.4

5. Galatians is part of the Canon and does NOT contain the Heresy that Jesus was a Human being with a human Father.

6. Apologetic sources have ALREADY denied that Jesus Christ of the NT had a human brother called James.

7. The father of James according to apologetic sources was Alphaeus and his mother was a sister of Mary.

8. Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost in the NT.

lmbarre

Let's start with this:

How are you understanding the meaning of adelphos in Gal:19? Can you offer a paraphrase of the verse that would communicate how you are interpreting the meaning of the word in this context?

". . .James, the ? of the Lord."

Toto

Adelphos means brother. But Paul uses this word almost exclusively in the sense of brother believer, not biological brother.

If someone these days addresses another man as "bro" your first assumption would not be that they had the same mother and/or father.

There are some lengthy threads on this issue, if you search for adelphos in this forum.

aa5874

Let us start at Galatians 1.1, the very first verse.

Galatians 1:1 - The Galatians Jesus was Non-human and Performed Non-human Acts.

Galatians Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

lmbarre

You are evading the question.

How would you translate adelphos in Gal 1:19? Paul is not calling James his adelphos--Paul is speaking about a certain relationship that James and the Lord had.

aa5874

You are evading the evidence that Galatians Jesus was NOT a man.

The Galatians Jesus was INTRODUCED in the very first verse of Galatians as Non-human and Resurrected but you have completely ignored it.

And before you reached the 19th verse, you should have seen the Galatians 1.11-12.

Galatians 1.11-12 You also should have realized that Galatians is Canonized and does NOT support the Heresy that Jesus was a man.

You should have known that apologetic sources of antiquity have clearly stated that Jesus had NO human brother called James the Apostle. See "De Viris Illustribus" and the "Fragments of Papias".

You should likewise know that your ASSUMPTIONS about the Pauline writings are USELESS when arguing against people here who do NOT assume the Pauline writings are credible.

And, finally, it can be shown that the Pauline writer was a FALSE Witness. See 1 Cor.15.

I do NOT trust the Pauline writings because they CONTAIN LIES.

A Pauline writer claimed he WITNESSED a Non-historical event.

A Pauline writer claimed he witnessed the Resurrected Jesus.