Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 05-04-2012, 08:26 PM

It is part and parcel of 'Paul's' tall-tale about things that never happened.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-04-2012, 09:09 PM

Do you think that he made up the Pillars? That there was no Jerusalem church?

TedM · 05-04-2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Paul doesn't really include it in a "tale," he talks about it in the context of seeing real people. He says that one of them (alone of all of them) was "the Lord's brother." A sibling relationship would be the normal plain reading of the Greek, and there is no compelling reason (that I can see) to doubt this reading.

Yes, Paul calls believers, collectively "bothers," and refers repeatedly to them with appellations such as "our brother," "a brother," "my brother," and "beloved brother," but he only calls one person ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου ("brother of the Lord", and that's James, and it's not in the congregational context of his uses of the word to address fellow believers. James is the only "brother" who Paul does not claim as "ours," or "my," but as "the Lord's brother. Not only that, but he does it in a context which implies that even Cephas and John are excluded from this distinction.

Paul's congregational uses of adelphos/adelphoi cannot be used to inform Gal. 1:19.

Its good to see I'm not the only one with this perspective. I went back and looked at the quote by Origen that spin posted a few days ago:

Quote:

Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. [Contra Celsum 1.47]

Of course this is an opinion by Origen, but it is an interpretation that can work, I think. James could be a 'brother' as in 'fellow believer', but also a special 'brother of the Lord' in the sense that he is highly virtuous, as is the Lord--almost like brothers.. This group heading dirties the whole sons of God concept (for Paul) if Lord means God (ie they were God's sons AND God's brothers?), and it dirties the idea that ALL sons of God are brothers of the Lord Jesus, if Lord means Jesus.

So, it still seems awkward to have everyone be a brother and then just some of them be a brother of the Lord. Thought of as meaning a 'special brother within the brotherhood' it is more palatable though. Still, it is hard to imagine the exclusion of apostles and Cephas and (implied John)--the two other pillars. Were they not special enough? Were they not willing to commit as much as the 'special' group? Seems quite unlikely.

Sheshbazzar · 05-04-2012, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Do you think that he made up the Pillars? That there was no Jerusalem church?

I believe 'Paul' his self was made up.

There was no Jeebus, no flames of fire on Apostles heads on Pentecost, and There was no Jerusalem Church.

The 'Paul' of the Epistles, and the 'Epistles' of 'Paul' are together products of 2nd century church theological writers.

They wrote these stories to present, and to give a patina of age and historicity, and authenticity to their religious claims.

There was never was any 'Paul' like the one that is described in Acts and in the Epistles.

'Paul' didn't make up the Pillars, 2nd century church writers invented these stories about 'Pillars' and 'Paul'.

ALL of the New Testament stories are simply fabricated religious propaganda tall-tales with no basis at all in fact.

James The Least · 05-04-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Do you think that he made up the Pillars? That there was no Jerusalem church?

I believe 'Paul' his self was made up.

There was no Jeebus, no flames of fire on Apostles heads on Pentecost, and There was no Jerusalem Church.

The 'Paul' of the Epistles, and the 'Epistles' of 'Paul' are together products of 2nd century church theological writers.

They wrote these stories to present, and to give a patina of age and historicity, and authenticity to their religious claims.

There was never was any 'Paul' like the one that is described in Acts and in the Epistles.

'Paul' didn't make up the Pillars, 2nd century church writers invented these stories about 'Pillars' and 'Paul'.

ALL of the New Testament stories are simply fabricated religious propaganda tall-tales with no basis at all in fact.

Uh-oh, sounds like you need to be fitted for a tinfoil hat. How dare you suggest that anonymous, forged, legendary, supernatural texts from an ancient religious cult are fabrications. Sure, Jesus may be a myth, but Paul must be real. The same church that invented Jesus wouldn't possibly also invent Paul.

/sarcasm

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-04-2012, 10:38 PM

Paul can be defined simply as the author of the Pauline texts even if every word he says is a lie.

James The Least · 05-04-2012, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Paul can be defined simply as the author of the Pauline texts even if every word he says is a lie.

So what do we call the author(s) who said they were Paul but weren't -- Pastorals, etc. ?

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-04-2012, 10:57 PM

Pseudo-Paul.

Or you could subdivide pseudo-Pauls into their respective forgeries ("Pastoral Paul," e.g.).

James The Least · 05-04-2012, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Pseudo-Paul.

Or you could subdivide pseudo-Pauls into their respective forgeries ("Pastoral Paul," e.g.).

Perhaps they're all Pseudo-Pauls? The stylometry of the 'authentic' epistles only proves that they were written by the same person, not that that person was 'the apostle Paul.'

aa5874 · 05-04-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Paul can be defined simply as the author of the Pauline texts even if every word he says is a lie.

One does NOT use "definitions" as evidence for existence.

Please, as I said before the Historical Jesus cannot be defended.

Look at your statement and you will see your own logical fallacy.

If every word in the so-called Pauline writings is a lie then Paul did NOT write the Epistles.

How can you not understand such basic logic???

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

05-04-2012, 08:26 PM	#131
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	It is part and parcel of 'Paul's' tall-tale about things that never happened.

05-04-2012, 09:09 PM	#132
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Do you think that he made up the Pillars? That there was no Jerusalem church?

05-04-2012, 10:38 PM	#136
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Paul can be defined simply as the author of the Pauline texts even if every word he says is a lie.

05-04-2012, 10:57 PM	#138
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Pseudo-Paul. Or you could subdivide pseudo-Pauls into their respective forgeries ("Pastoral Paul," e.g.).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.