aa5874

It is NOT logical to assume that the Canonised Pauline writings are Heretical.

This is so basic.

It is you have the enormous burden to show that the Pauline writings were known to be Heretical and was Canonised with the very same Heresy the Church condemned and also Identified the Heretics.

It is quite absurd and completely contradictory to argue that the Pauline Jesus was KNOWN to be human with a human father while at the same time arguing that the Pauline writings were Interpolated and manipulated to be in conformity with the teachings of the Church.

You very well know that NOT even the authors of the Jesus story and Acts, if it is even assumed they all wrote After Galatians, ever stated that Jesus had a brother called James the Apostle.

Even Church writers state that Jesus Christ had NO human brother called James the Apostle and also did claim that Galatians 1.19 is about James the Son of Alphaeus. See "De Viris Illustribus and the fragments of Papias.

You have exposed that the Galatians 1.19 is NOT credible. Apologetic sources Contradict your claim that NT Jesus had a human brother.

Now, why do you assume that statements in the Pauline writings are credible?

When did Paul write Galatians?

Duvduv

Barre, doesn't context mean at least as much as the assumption about a simple meaning of the word brother? That was my point.

Doug Shaver

Then let's see the arguments. In detail. Show us how, from some statement or statements in Galatians, you infer Jesus of Nazareth's existence without using any premises that presuppose a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

aa5874

The argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth based on Galatians is just as horribly weak as the argument that the Pauline letter to the Galatians was written before the Fall of the Temple and is authentic---all are based on Presuppositions with ZERO non-apologetic corroboration from antiquity.

Just like No Canonised source corroborates Galatians 1.19 likewise NO Canonised source corroborates that Paul wrote letters to any Church or to the Galatians--Not even Acts of the Apostles.

lmbarre

I see the plot of gMark to end in this way. Jesus first doubted his god when he quoted the prayer of Psalm 22:1: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The alleged answer that he thought he received was something like:

"I have forsaken you because you are not the Messiah." Hence, his cry of agony as Jesus' last action just prior to dying.

Note that I am not here arguing that this plot development is historical, only that it was the view that gMark presented.

sotto voce

Or, "If I don't forsake you (me), you (I) won't be the Messiah."

lmbarre

Agreed. Paul zealously insisted that his gospel was the result of a private, direct revelation. Still, he wrote that Jesus was "born of a woman" and was according to the flesh, "a descendant of Daivd."

Duvduv

Well, duh....isn't every human born of a woman! What's novel about that if it refers to a historical Jesus! And why say woman instead of....Mary?
And even if Jesus we're considered a spiritual being if he was some kind of messianic being he'd still be a metaphysical descendant of David.
But you know what? Woman could also refer to a celestial woman concept since the Greek word does not refer to birth per se. Earl Doherty discusses this.
Plus it is also logical that seed of David was a marginal gloss that was included by some scribe. Who knows how many times the letters were handled?
And Paul was only zealous about his revelation in Galatians and not in the other epistles.

sotto voce

Humans, yes, deities, no.

But only the Galatians were foolish, accepting circumcision and observing religious occasions.

Doug Shaver

So, Paul was trying to prove that Jesus was no deity?