aa5874

So, you now have to LOOK for ADDITIONAL DETAILS to CLARIFY the matter.

If you think the word "MAN" can ONLY refer to the MALE HUMAN in the Pauline writings then you are HORRIBLY mistaken.

1Co 8:3 - You MUST understand the CONTEXT.

Now, examine the Pauline writings.

1 Cor. 151Co 15:47 - [Ga 4:4 - You cannot do HISTORY in a VACUUM. You cannot IGNORE ADDITIONAL details of the Pauline Jesus.

We have DATA about the Pauline Jesus and the "MAN" was the LORD from heaven, the SENT Son of God.

But, there is more. "Paul" admonishes his audience to GLORY in Christ and NOT to glory in Men.

1 Cor 3.21-232Th 2:14 - It is absolutely CLEAR that the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man but GOD INCARNATE, the LORD from heaven.

judge

No content here, only an assumption that i dont know the meanings of the word in question or an assumption I havent read a text.



Its not necessary to provide an alternate analysis. You analysis may have merits, and Ive always indicated you theory is possibly right.
What im saying is that when all the evidence is taken into account your theory is weak.

You are welcome to think it is a fantastic theory if you wish though. That is your right, I guess.

Von Bek

Surely you know the basics of Christology? The Catholic church teaches, and Protestants agree, that Jesus has two natures, human and divine. Jesus is seen as fully human AND fully god. Whether you believe it or not is not the point. Your whole argument seems to be based upon if someone proclaims Jesus as a god they are implicitly denying his humanity; given the history of Christian theology, it may be a mistake to assume that.

aa5874

Based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity I do NOT believe or do not hold that there was a character that was fully man and fully god.

But, having stated my position, the abundance of evidence from antiquity clearly shows that it was BELIEVED or held that there was a character who was fully man and fully god.

A character which is believed to have existed as fully man and fully God is a MYTH character.

All I need to support my position is evidence from antiquity and there are LOTS of data, apologetic and non-apologetic, that show or tend to show that the fully man and fully God character was a MYTH and had no actual history.

It is a MISTAKE to assume Jesus of the NT was just a man or a figure of history WITHOUT any supporting evidence.

I avoid those mistakes.

Every position I hold about Jesus of the NT MUST be supported by evidence from antiquity.

I assume NOTHING in the NT is history WITHOUT evidence.

Please state the evidence from antiquity that Jesus was just a man with a human father.

spin

Last time you said this stuff, it went like this:

I didn't get any response to these questions. Nothing. You gave no idea of what "my theory" is nor what other "evidence" needs consideration. Nothing. Now here you are again saying the same hollow words: "when all the evidence is taken into account your theory is weak." Nothing.

Please, judge, speak up and explain yourself. Give some sense to what you write. What evidence do you mean? As is, you can't be heard through your hat.

judge

Throwing a tantrum wont get you far with me. When you pay me the same courtesy Ill consider it.
If, however, anyone else is interested apart from your self Im more likely to respond to questions. But if it's only for you Ill decline repeating myself for the moment.
I suggest you read what i have already written and provide some answers yourself where you neglected to do so.

spin

"tantrum", judge? I mean, really? This has as much content to it as much of what you've said in this thread. I asked for you to say something tangible and your response has been subterfuge, just like this hollow cry of "tantrum".

It would be good if you'd consider something, anything.

You can only say nothing in so many ways.

I have read what you've said in this thread and responded to all attempts at substance and at subterfuge.

You came into this thread displaying a bad attitude, accusing me of "missing the obvious", of wanting "to be able to shift the goalposts when it suits you", of using "circular reasoning", accusing me of "trotting out" my "pet theory", claiming to be pointing out the "holes in my theory". This is all before we really started this discussion.

When I tried to pin you down for some substance behind this bad attitude, you then started ducking and weaving. You started unaccountably accusing me of "ignoring the immediate context", unaccountable because there seems to be no substance to the accusation. Then you started talking about considering all the evidence, claiming "When we look at all the evidence, rather than just some of it, your theory looks weak." Challenged on what evidence you would bring to the discussion, you response was silence.

Finally, we get to this your last display of bad attitude, "Throwing a tantrum wont get you far with me." How did you get to "tantrum"? Apparently because of the rhetoric I used to point out the fact that you were totally unforthcoming in this discussion.

Why don't you support your statements? You've been evading explanation of what you yourself have said and pretending to be on your high horse while doing so.

:hobbyhorse:

spin

This thread started with an analysis of the reconciliation between "Mary, the mother of James and Joses" found in Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1 and Mary, the mother of Jesus, who was also mother of James and Joses (and others) in Mk 6:3.

I've indicated that, if she were thought to have been mother of Jesus, it is so strange to call her "Mary, the mother of James and Joses". It is at the same level as talking of "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" or "Ida Eisenhower, mother of Milton and Edgar". The phrase starting "mother of" in each instance is supposed to help clarify who the person is. One would expect known sons. But that's not what we get, suggesting that the woman was not the mother of the famous son.

The two of the Matthean three parallels to "Mary, the mother of James and Joses" found in Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1 are reduced to "the other Mary", showing no recognition by the Matthean writer of any importance to this figure.

The existence of this "Mary, the mother of James and Joses" in Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1, calls into question the value of Mk 6:3, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Were there really two Marys, both mothers of Jameses and Joseses? If not would a writer have omitted the famous son defining who the mother was?

It's very hard to consider Mk 6:3 as part of the earliest christian tradition. As this is the case its literary value is zero in contributing to an understanding of Gal 1:19. Of course there is no reason to related Gal 1:19 to Mark 6:3 other than for the fact that they both mention a person by the relatively common name "James" and that one can confuse the titular and non-titular uses of κυριος to insist that Gal 1:19 refers to Jesus. Of course the later text, Mk 6:3, does relate a James to Jesus!

judge

Ok so its difficult for you, but you have your doubts?


Ok..now you have decided it is later..?

Which is it. You seem to have one leg either side of the fence.

You seem to be using sleight of hand. You start by saying maybe mark 6:3 might possibly be later then suddenly "hey presto" you insist is .
But how did you conclude you were right?

judge

Isn't is curious you again forgot to mention.....

Matthew 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

.....best not mention it I guess.:devil1: