ApostateAbe

OK, well, I take it to be a virtue to be resistant to weaker arguments in favor of stronger arguments. Nobody is debating the point that your interpretations are possible--any interpretation is possible--but you need to show that your interpretations are most probable. Not easy considering that you are going up against a theory that demands only interpretations that are directly on the face of the texts.

I will address your second criticism as an illustration. The first criticism requires a knowledge of Greek that I do not have, so you win on that one, and I'll add Galatians 4:4-5 to my list of passages that require interpolation according to you.

I said, "Paul believed that Jesus 'was descended from David according to the flesh' - Romans 1:3. "

You said, "The original Greek is not 'descended from' (a biased translation), but 'of the seed of David,' and Paul elsewhere can use the phrase 'of the seed of' to describe a mythical relationship and not a human-descent one. Not so clear and straightforward after all, is it?"

So, you propose the translation:

...the gospel concerning his Son, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh...

I agree with this translation (I take the two phrases to be synonymous) and you interpret this passage as an explicitly mythical relationship. Of course, you can interpret any passage any way you like, but you need to justify your interpretations by using well-accepted criteria and by comparing your interpretations to the mainstream academic interpretations and their reasons. If you don't, then you should no longer wonder why your claims are not taken seriously by the academic establishment. I think you would have special trouble in this case because "according to the flesh" seems to mean one thing and one thing only--non-mythical, non-spiritual, non-metaphorical, actual human substance.

aa5874

I really don't understand why you continue to make all sorts of absurd claims about the Pauline writer when the WRITER answered ALL the questions of the nature of his Jesus.

Do you NOT see Galatians 1.1?

Do you NOT see Galatians 1.11-12?

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a man.

If you are NOT willing to accept the WRITTEN EVIDENCE in the Pauline writings then why are you using them?

We can't go through this day after day, 24-7, for the rest of of lives.

Galatians 1:1 - Galatians 1.11-12 The Pauline CERTIFIED that his gospel was NOT from man and that he was NOT the apostle of a man.

The PAULINE writer has DESTROYED the Historical Jesus.

Let us NOT waste any more time.

ApostateAbe you are just spreading propaganda.

Once you introduce the Pauline writer as a WITNESS then that WITNESS will irreparably DESTROY your HJ.

Chili

But wait Abe, there is no such thing as human substance since our humanity has no substance and is merely a condition of being that was created by conjecture in Gen.3:7 (no real history in Genesis either), and so then the Jesus we know was not human and could do all the things he is said to have done, and as for Paul, he just duplicated the same events in real life and so knew firsthand that this Jesus stage was all about. Now of course if Jesus was human, as with even one pig left in his house, he still may have been crucified but would never ascent into heaven and that is the crucial point for the mythical hero to reach.

According to the flesh so means by way of incarnation and begotten as such to find connection with the true God of Israel for whom the New Jerusalem is home, except that here Jesus [literally] buggered off to Rome to built his new mansion there and took Peter with him to get it done right.

Chili

Yes but "born of woman" excludes physical birth since all females are both human and woman and Mary here was not human and sinless as such, and thus without the human or earthly condition wherein we are called human beings. Now of course from a human perspective this may sound absurd but you just cannot be a Perpetual Virgin and Immaculate Conception as human being, while yet the perfect image of woman is real in each one of us as she was never banned from Eden and still is with us by day and by night.

To be "born under the law" just means to be resident of Nazareth, which is that big little city of God in the mind of the believer who felt convicted as sinner and yielded his volition to 'the woman' presiding over the TOL now as the non-rational animal man, and the woman so dragged him (Joseph here) to Beth-le-hem and there gave birth to God's son. IOW Joseph was pregnant and the woman was the agent to get it done right . . . as Elizabeth knew how it was supposed to be done.

tanya

I submit Mark 1:1 as evidence of this theory, aka MJ.

I would welcome any explanation of why this passage should be viewed as "historical", rather than mythical.

ApostateAbe

Can you please rephrase your question and be specific? Thanks. Here is the passage:

The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

I take it as introduction of the Christian narrative of the life of Jesus for an evangelical purpose. How do you take it?

Kapyong

Gday,

Hmmm .. you complain about creative interpolations,
then you mis-represent the data yourself !

Paul does NOT say "Jesus had a brother named James".
And you know it.

Paul does NOT say "Jesus was descended from David according to the flesh"
And you know it.

Mis-reprentations like that seriously weaken your credibility.
Why can't you just stick to the facts without twisting it?
Especially when claiming others twist things.
Shame on you.


K.

Chili

Sure but make it known that he was from is mother's womb untimely ripped as per John 1:13 and born of carnal desire instead of God and back to Galilee he goes instead of heaven, and please accept that a divine comedy cannot be conceived to exists without such a tragedy (Senecan I call them), and that is what Mark is all about (and I wish even one Christian would see that difference here).

ApostateAbe

Excuse me. I think I am taking normal and probable interpretations, which is compatible with the condemnation of bizarre interpretations. You think the "brother" is metaphorical, and that's fine, OK--that matter of the meaning of "brother" is unresolved in my paraphrasing. One way or the other, Paul implied that Jesus had a brother named James. I don't know how you interpret Romans 1:3. Maybe you agree with Earl Doherty's interpretation, but I don't think his interpretation changes the apparent meaning, and either way I am not more dishonest than usual if I paraphrase according to normal and straightforward interpretations common among the critical scholarship.

Toto

In other words, you revise it to read

The Beginning of the good news of Jesus of Nazareth, a doomsday preacher who was crucified by Pilate, which has been embellished by stuff I don't take seriously

instead of

The beginning of the good news of the divine Jesus Christ, Son of God