Freethought & Rationalism Archive

angelo · 08-31-2009, 03:08 AM

Well, I hold to the theory that there was no such person as a historical Jesus, therefore there were no brothers or sisters as well. But hey! that's just me.

spin · 08-31-2009, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Traditions develop in time from earlier to later. Retrojecting Matthew and Mark onto Galatians means nothing because you cannot show that you are dealing with anything other than traditions.

Try to give an answer that remotely relates to the question.

Try to develop a sensible construct rather than engaging in Comparative Irrelevancies.

Apparently you have a new argument, yes they talked about Jesus and James being brothers, but only as a tradition, rather than as a ...something. Then the tradition became a .. something .. at the time of Origen.

Amazing.

======================

Toto, the question remains for you, and if you want to try to unpack spin's comment into something relevant to the discussion, share away.

You've rested your case Steven Avery on your own incomprehension.

spin

Steven Avery · 08-31-2009, 04:41 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks, Try to give an answer that remotely relates to the question. Try to develop a sensible construct rather than engaging in Comparative Irrelevancies. Apparently you have a new argument, yes they talked about Jesus and James being brothers, but only as a tradition, rather than as a ...something. Then the tradition became a .. something .. at the time of Origen.

Amazing ======================
Toto, the question remains for you, and if you want to try to unpack spin's comment into something relevant to the discussion, share away.

You've rested your case Steven Avery on your own incomprehension.

Thanks spin for the cogent response to your loose ends and the methodology explanation for the readers.

Now Toto is very welcome to answer his questions, especially including the question given in response to his "no evidence" assertion.

Toto .. do you take the view that even the internal agreements of the NT are not "evidence" when looking to attack or isolate another verse within the NT ? That there is only "evidence" if there is outside agreement like Josephus. What would you consider more than "no evidence" in the question above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

dog-on · 08-31-2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Toto .. do you take the view that even the internal agreements of the NT are not "evidence" when looking to attack or isolate another verse within the NT ? That there is only "evidence" if there is outside agreement like Josephus. What would you consider more than "no evidence" in the question above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

The only thing these "agreements" are evidence for is that the writer and/or editor was paying attention.

What do you think that they are "evidence" for?

spin · 08-31-2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Thanks spin for the cogent response to your loose ends and the methodology explanation for the readers.

I'm pretty sure that the readers in general have some ideas about my methodological considerations. It's just apparent from your presentation that you don't engage with them. Sources need to be dated before their relation can be understood. One cannot simply assume one's conclusions as you have done.

spin

Steven Avery · 08-31-2009, 05:52 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Thanks spin for the cogent response to your loose ends and the methodology explanation for the readers.

I'm pretty sure that the readers in general have some ideas about my methodological considerations. It's just apparent from your presentation that you don't engage with them. Sources need to be dated before their relation can be understood. One cannot simply assume one's conclusions as you have done.

If your theories of Origen origin (for James as the Lord's brother) somehow relate to a dating that you are presuming yet not stating, why not state the dates ?

You are the one making the theory, I showed how the theory fails whether Mark or Matthew predate or postdate Paul. However you are welcome to give your theoretical dates and try to make your theory coherent. After giving the dates, you can express what you view as the relationship between the Galatians text and the Matthew and Mark Gospel texts. Is one designed to follow the other ? Or were they written independently ? (Whether the primary sources were the same is not particularly relevant in this context, although you can present us with your theory on that as well.)

Surprise us, spin. Tell us what the dates are in your Origen-origin theory. Then we can look to see what are your previously unstated presumptions and also look to see if your analysis is logical and consistent. spin .. if you won't even give the dates you propose for your own unusual theory, clearly the system of analysis you are trying to use is irrelevant and can be considered a failure.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto · 08-31-2009, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In what sense are these "earlier?" Do you seriously contend that they were they written earlier?

Sure, that is clearly the internal indication of the NT, Paul referencing Luke as scripture, the gospel of Luke as 'my gospel', the NT before 70 AD, Paul especially learning from Luke.

The internal evidence in the NT is that the letter "referencing" Luke as scripture was not written by Paul, that the NT was not written before 70 AD or CE.

Quote:

Now, let us take your "out". If Matthew and Mark are later than Paul, ... then all you are saying is that spin asked a deliberately deceptive question.

If Matthew and Mark indicated James as the brother of Paul five years later than Paul, then of course the Origen origin point of spin falls just as well. Unless he wants to make the dumb claim, as I mentioned in my post, that Matthew and Mark actually tailored their Gospels to match the Galatians reference.

I don't know spin's theory, but there are respectable theories that hold that Mark derived the details of his gospel story from Paul. I'm not sure what gives you the right to call this "dimb."

Quote:

You, Toto, can make that claim if you like, which is funny in a sense, since you also have to say that Matthew and Mark read the reference "wrong" from Paul, since it is also your claim that Paul wasn't really talking about a real brother. So you would be positing a tailoring of convenience of two Gospels (sans any evidence) combined with your error of convenience, that Matthew and Mark lacked your great insight into how to read Paul. White rabbit time.

The argument is not that Mark read Paul "wrong" but that he deliberately wrote an allegorical work.

Is "white rabbit" intended as an insult? Charles Dodgson, of course, wrote an allegorical tale in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland which is a literary classic. It is about as realistic as the gospels.

Quote:

So the bottom line is simple. Either spin was totally wrong, based on the sensible internal dating of the Gospels and letters, or he crafted a question of no meaning that was designed to obscure and even mask the real issue. A question only designed to confuse the issues. But hey .. this is spin writing, so each person can make their determination.

Your idea of "sensible" seems to be whatever agrees with your theology. It appears that the rest of the world is not sensible, so spin is in good company.

Steven Avery · 08-31-2009, 06:08 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The internal evidence in the NT is that the letter "referencing" Luke as scripture was not written by Paul, that the NT was not written before 70 AD or CE.

Toto...look up "internal evidence". You are confusing that with source criticism. This is a a rather fundamental confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't know spin's theory, but there are respectable theories that hold that Mark derived the details of his gospel story from Paul. I'm not sure what gives you the right to call this "dimb."

Look, if spin wants to say :

Mark read Paul's letter .. he read Galatians where Paul does not really talk about James as the Lord's brother .. based on this misreading of Paul (who was actually talking about the group the brothers of the Lord) Mark wrote a passage that placed James as the Lord's brother.

He is welcome to do so. And I will call such a theory dumb (or if you prefer a self-tailored nonsense of convenience with no sensible vector or support).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The argument is not that Mark read Paul "wrong" but that he deliberately wrote an allegorical work.

You are jumping all over the map, Toto. Try to stick with:

Mark 6:3 - the brother of James

If spin wants to claim that was an allegorical brother only in Mark, and was read that way by the Christian community until Origen, he can do so. What I wrote about theory #1 applies to this theory #2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is "white rabbit" intended as an insult?

If you consider calling arguments like #1 and #2 above a fantasy in a kinder and more creative way an "insult" -- sure. However it is only an "insult" to the strength (or lack thereof) of the argument, not to those who move around with these vacillating and shifting attempts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Charles Dodgson, of course, wrote an allegorical tale in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland which is a literary classic. It is about as realistic as the gospels.

Is that intended as an "insult" ?

Quote:

Your idea of "sensible" seems to be whatever agrees with your theology. It appears that the rest of the world is not sensible, so spin is in good company.

Show me the people in the rest of the world who have proposed, or accepted, that Origin was the one who really initiated the idea of James as the Lord's brother in the Christian community. Not Matthew, Mark or Paul, not Josephus, but Origen.

==================================================

Why not answer the "no evidence" question directly. Do you need it repeated ?

Or, if you like, you could simply retract the comment.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin · 08-31-2009, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm pretty sure that the readers in general have some ideas about my methodological considerations. It's just apparent from your presentation that you don't engage with them. Sources need to be dated before their relation can be understood. One cannot simply assume one's conclusions as you have done.

If your theories of Origen origin (for James as the Lord's brother) somehow relate to a dating that you are presuming yet not stating, why not state the dates ?

You are the one making the theory, I showed how the theory fails whether Mark or Matthew predate or postdate Paul. However you are welcome to give your theoretical dates and try to make your theory coherent. After giving the dates, you can express what you view as the relationship between the Galatians text and the Matthew and Mark Gospel texts. Is one designed to follow the other ? Or were they written independently ? (Whether the primary sources were the same is not particularly relevant in this context, although you can present us with your theory on that as well.)

Surprise us, spin. Tell us what the dates are in your Origen-origin theory. Then we can look to see what are your previously unstated presumptions and also look to see if your analysis is logical and consistent. spin .. if you won't even give the dates you propose for your own unusual theory, clearly the system of analysis you are trying to use is irrelevant and can be considered a failure.

Here is my initial comment:

So church fathers starting with Origen conjecture that the brother of the lord is really the brother of Jesus and that the brothers of the lord are also brothers of Jesus.

Can you tell me of any church father before Origen who explicitly connects Paul's reference "James the brother of the lord" to Jesus? That's simple. If not you are making assumptions based on anachronistic ideas.

spin

Steven Avery · 08-31-2009, 06:20 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So church fathers starting with Origen conjecture that the brother of the lord is really the brother of Jesus and that the brothers of the lord are also brothers of Jesus ... Can you tell me of any church father before Origen who explicitly connects Paul's reference "James the brother of the lord" to Jesus?

Are you now saying that this idea of James as the Lord's brothers IS in Matthew and Mark !

Yet your only point was to be that Origen was the only writer AFTER Matthew Mark, Paul and Josephus to make this point ? That it was not made by Justin Martyr or Clement of Rome and a few others. That Origen was simply giving a sensible exposition of the Gospels.

That is fine (and may be true) yet of course then it is irrelevant to your original attempt (which I understand as trying to have kurios not == Jesus in the NT by not having the Paul verse really referring to James as the Lord's brother).

Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

... we have a James in Jesus's family, but where's the connection with the James of Paul, who Paul calls "brother of the lord" (remembering that Paul calls all believers "brothers" and refers to a number of believers as "brothers of the lord")? It certainly appears in Origen. Where's your evidence for any earlier? Cutting through your assertions, I don't see any.

Are you now agreeing that there is strong evidence. This was the critical quote at issue, not the one you pasted in.

If we agree on Mark and Matthew, and your question here had no substance, then what is the significance of Origen once we have Matthew, Mark and Josephus (your dismissals notwithstanding) agreeing with Paul ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-31-2009, 03:08 AM	#351
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Well, I hold to the theory that there was no such person as a historical Jesus, therefore there were no brothers or sisters as well. But hey! that's just me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.