spamandham

Even if Jesus existed, this would only be the best interpretation, if we knew a priori that James was the blood brother of Jesus.

GakuseiDon

It usually starts with the claim: "Paul doesn't know anything about a historical Jesus":

M: Paul doesn't know anything about a historical Jesus.
H: But Paul meet James, brother of Jesus.
M: How do you know that Jesus existed?
H: Because of reasons A, B and C

If reasons A, B and C pan out, then one reasonable inference is that James was Jesus' brother. This can be important if arguing against (say) GA Wells, who argues that Paul thought that Jesus was real but existed a century or two before himself; or others who regard the Gospels as fiction.

I agree, it is begging the question. But which historicists have been habitually doing that? And given that no one disputes (2), who is using (3) by itself to show (1)?

aa5874

The starter of the thread suggested that Galatians 1.19 was a massive roadblock to mythicism but it has ALREADY been known that apologetics sources have INSTEAD placed roadblocks to the veracity of the very passage.

1. The author of the Gospels only mentioned two apostles called James, none were the brother of Jesus.

2. The author of Acts mentioned two apostles called James, none were the brother of Jesus.

3. In the fragments of Papias, no apostle called James was the brother of Jesus

4. In the writings of Origen, it is implied that Jesus was the ONLY son of Mary.

5. Eusebius in Church History claimed there were two apostles called James none was the brother of Jesus.

6. Jerome in "De Viris Illustribus" claimed that James the apostle was the son of a sister of Mary.

7. The LORD Jesus in the Pauline writings, the NT and Church writings was the Creator of everything in heaven and earth who was raised from the dead.

The abundance of EVIDENCE from apologetic sources clearly contradict Galatians 1.19.

The Pauline writer may have been mistaken, hallucinating, or lying.

Galatians 1.19 is a roadblock to the veracity of the Pauline writings.

What else did the Pauline writers get wrong or simply lied about?

judge

Ok I think this needs to be questioned.
Paul uses theos to refer to god. In fact in the surrounding verses of Galatians chapter 1 he uses theos to refer to god no less than 8 times!

Many many times Paul uses lord to refer to Jesus (he even does it in the very same chapter, Galatians 1). In fact wthout looking I'm willing to bet (one cyber beer) that paul uses lord much more to refer to jesus than he does to god.
As has been mentioned in this thread the uses of "lord" to refer to god are usually confined to quotes from the jewish bible.
So that leaves us with your other claim.

This is true, but his writings, unlike the gospels, say, are letters written to communities of "brothers", so this is not unexpected.

maryhelena

And those communities of spiritual brothers - could very well have had a number of blood brothers - and sisters - within them. Thus, whichever way one works around Gal.1:19, one cannot rule out an interpretation that 'brother' can reference a blood brother. Paul speaks of apostles - already leaders within these pre-Paul groups. Leaders without an organizational figurehead? If James was such a figurehead would not that just be a natural development? ie organizations, groups, movements, don't usually get very far when run by committees. That old saying - the buck stops here - indicates that someone has to take the responsibility. And if this is so in Paul's early days - then prior to Paul and his meeting with James - another figurehead, a foundational or inspirational figurehead - the lord who was the brother of James - cannot be ruled out. (given for the sake of argument that 'James', as well as 'Paul', are actual names of historical people.)

Paul singles out a particular 'brother of the lord'. If this was just another spiritual brother why the need to differentiate such a one from the apostles - are not they also spiritual brothers? If a differentiation was required - simply state that James is not one of the apostles - saying James is a 'brother of the lord' (as in spiritual brother] does not in any meaningful sense differentiate him from the apostles.
James is being differentiated from the apostles on the grounds that he is something that they are not - not that the apostles are something that James is not. The only substantial differentiation, the only differentiation with any sense at all, is that James is a blood brother of the lord. The real issue is not over blood verse spiritual brother - the context, James being differentiated from the apostles in some meaningful sense can answer that - the real issue is over the identity of the lord that Paul is referencing.

I'll admit to finding much amazement with some mythicists who find no problem in accepting Paul as a foundational figure re christian history - and yet balk at the very idea that prior to Paul an earlier inspirational figure was the motivation behind the pre-Paul, or pre-christian, early history of christianity. Ruling out Jesus as not being historical, as being a mythological construct, a figurative figure, does not imply that no historical figure was important to the pre-Paul communities. Mythicists are being very shortsighted here - almost as though years of no historical Jesus views have inhibited them from considering the obvious. No historical Jesus does not mean no historical figure relevant to the pre-Paul communities. That equation is nonsense.

aa5874

What nonsense!

The very same nonsensical equation can be used against "historicist".

It must be obvious to you that the belief that Jesus existed does not mean Jesus was NOT mythical.

Do the MATH.

maryhelena

aa5874
You really don't try and read what I write!

Let me make myself clear for one more time: I don't believe Jesus existed as a historical figure. The assumption that he did exist as a historical figure or the assumption that Jesus existed in the minds of some people - has no meaning for me. No meaning whatsoever. Consequently, your above statement re Jesus has no connection either to anything I have ever written or believe.
:huh:

Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified carpenter, did not exist as a historical figure (to my thinking) - and if that is also what Paul believed - then his referencing people who were prior to himself - would, likewise, be people who did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. Whoever those prior people were, and what they believed, cannot be equated with the gospel storyline re Jesus of Nazareth.

The NT storyline is a pseudo-history, an origin story, an interpretation of history. The real history of christian origins lies outside of the NT storyline re Jesus of Nazareth. Salvation theology, which is what the NT storyline is about, is not history. It is only a spiritual, an interpretative perspective, on historical events. As is the OT a prophetic perspective on historical events.

show_no_mercy

This is all fine and dandy, but this in my view makes Paul completely at odds with the supposed Jewish context that he came from. Also, Paul doesn't use a non-titular "lord" in Galatians except for Gal 1:19 and 5:10.

aa5874

But what you wrote is recorded. Did you not write that "mythicist are being very shortsighted....?

Are you then claiming that you are being VERY SHORTSIGHTED?

You MUST understand that when a person is found guilty of a crime that his innocence was SIMULTANEOUSLY taken into consideration.

It must have been the EVIDENCE supplied by the sources of antiquity that have made people PREFER the mythicist position over the historical figure.

What EVIDENCE of antiquity are you supplying for all your IF THIS and IF that?

What IF the Pauline writers did believe Jesus did exist as a God/man?

What IF the PAULINE writers knew that they were writing fiction but wanted people to believe Jesus did exist as a God/man?

What IF the Jesus CHRIST story was an INTERPRETATION of PROPHECY?

What IF the NT was a prophetic perspective on historical events?

Now examine the NT.


Mark 13:1-4 - It was not an historical unknown figure or a crazy blasphemer that triggered the Jesus CHRIST story.

It was the belief that the Fall of the Temple was fulfilled prophecy and that the END OF TIME was imminent when God would judge the world. See JOEL 2.

The JESUS story was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple and the Pauline writers were aware of the Jesus story.

Even one of the Pauline writers claimed there was an APOSTLE called JAMES in Galatians 1.19.

spamandham

It's possible that Paul is referring to kinship every single time he uses variants of brother. Perhaps the early Christians were all family members. But is that the best, or even a good interpretation?

I don't see anyone here arguing that it is impossible for 'brother' to refer to kinship in the passage in question. The argument is that it's is a poor interpretation, rather than an impossible one, given how Paul consistently uses the word to refer to fellow Christians.