The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

It can also be confirmed that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke by examining 1 Cor.11.24-26 and the LATER EMBELLISHED gLuke

1 Corinthians 11:24

The supposed Pauline revelation MATCHES the version of the Last Supper of the LATER EMBELLISHED gLuke.

Most scholars think that Paul is the source of this embellishment.

The words of institution differ slightly in each account, reflecting a Marcan tradition (upon which Matthew is based) and a Pauline tradition (upon which Luke is based).

 

[Mcreal]

Most scholars think that Paul is the source of this embellishment.

or someone later embellished it.

 

[Craig B]

or someone later embellished it.

Yes. Using Paul's expressions as a source.

 

[dejudge]

Most scholars think that Paul is the source of this embellishment.

Scholars who think that Paul is the source of the embillishment are most likely Christian Scholars, have NO evidence from antiquity to corroborate what they think and have PRESUMED and ASSUMED "Paul" did exist as described in the Christian Bible.

In any event, since you claim MOST Scholars think Paul is the source then you should be able to PRESENT the corroborative evidence.

You cannot do so.

In addition, you put forward a most absurd notion that "MOST" is better than evidence.

"Most people" is irrelevant when we are dealing with EVIDENCE from antiquity.

Now, some of the very Scholars who admit that authors of gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn embellished the post-resurrection story of Jesus have in a most clumsy manner attempted to place the obvious embellishments of the resurrection of Jesus in the Pauline Corpus BEFORE the short gMark.

How can such a most logically fallacious bizarre un-evidence argument continue?

We have manuscripts with the Post Resurrection Embellishments in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and 1 Corinthians.

How in the world could the claim that OVER 500 persons at once was SEEN of the resurrected Jesus NOT be a later writing than one which states only ONE man claimed Jesus resurrected?

If gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn are later Embellishments of the resurrection story then 1 Corinthians is no different.

The evidence adds up.

The Pauline Corpus is a LATE writing just like gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.


Examine Mark 16.5-8

5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Examine 1 Corinthians 15. 3

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 

[maximara]

Yes. Using Paul's expressions as a source.

I might add based on what we have seen with others elaboration not simplification is more the pattern. The Jesus in the seven Paul epistles is far simpler then the one in Mark: no reference to any miracles,nothing about a ministry, no details of exactly who killed Jesus (rulers of this age-Romans or Jews?) or when he was killed.

As I said before we do have examples from the Melanesian cargo cults of movements latching on to real people as the founder of their movement...even if those people has NOTHING to do with the cult's founding as demonstrated by the Rusefel (Roosevelt) and Johnson Cargo Cults.

Look at Robin Hood and King Arthur who may have been based on real people. First you have relatively simple "one-shots" about their exploits. Then layers were added and eventually they got back stories.

Ned Ludd also started out with a "one-shots" incident (What the Luddites Really Fought Against Smithsonian) but since the movement petered out after 1817 there was no more added to Ned Ludd.

So why would Paul's letters break this pattern?

Why would someone go from the relatively complex story of Mark which could easily mined for examples to promote a certain view to the Spartan Jesus of Paul?

Note the letters identified as being NOT from Paul do tend to incorporate elements from the Gospels to service their writer's agenda so why doesn't Paul himself do this? Unless the Gospels didn't exist when Paul wrote his letters (or Paul didn't know about them...which seems iffy).

 

[Craig B]

Scholars who think that Paul is the source of the embillishment are most likely Christian Scholars, have NO evidence from antiquity to corroborate what they think and have PRESUMED and ASSUMED "Paul" did exist as described in the Christian Bible.

In any event, since you claim MOST Scholars think Paul is the source then you should be able to PRESENT the corroborative evidence.

You cannot do so.

In addition, you put forward a most absurd notion that "MOST" is better than evidence.

"Most people" is irrelevant when we are dealing with EVIDENCE from antiquity.

These absurd remarks contain elements of INTERNAL inconsistency and contradiction that cause THEM to explode and be reduced to a heap of rubble, destined to be swept on to the garbage PILE of fallacies and absurdities! Why? Because you say that it is

a most absurd notion that "MOST" is better than evidence.

But you have just written

Scholars who think that Paul is the source of the embillishment are most likely Christian Scholars

So where is the CORROBORATIVE evidence for your own "most"? Is it not "most" absurd to WRITE "most" and then denounce the use of that very word as irrelevant?

 

[maximara]

I don't know whether those letters are earlier or later than any gospels. But I am just arguing with the claims made here by HJ people who do say Paul's letters were written around 50-60AD ...

... so when I say "Paul could have got the name of Jesus from what he believed was written in the OT", I am of course just reminding the HJ posters of that. It's not me claiming Paul's letters were written c.50-60AD, it's the HJ opponents here who are all saying that ... dejudge knows that very well, but it does not stop him replying as if it was me that was claiming Paul's letters were written c.50-60AD ... why he feels it's good idea to completely misrepresent things like that is anyone's guess.

As I said before the majority of Christ Mythers accepting the pro HJ dating of the seven epistles is an Occam's Razor.

All but the most extreme pro HJ accept that there are four Pauls in the NT:

"1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)

2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)

3) Pseudo-Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)

4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)"

Pauls 2-4 can be dispensed with which leaves us with what by his own account is a guy having visions getting called on the carpet for trying to take the Jesus cult in a certain direction and finally winds up imprisoned awaiting execution (for some reason).

Unlike Jesus we have what are the supposed writings of Paul. Also unlike Jesus we have one or perhaps two contemporaries (Ignatius of Antioch and perhaps Clement of Rome) write about Paul.

So a non historical Paul requires these works be forgeries as well. Which Kenneth Humphreys does regarding Ignatius with gusto and throws Polycarp (80 – 167) under the bus as well which given the age Polycarp would have been makes no sense (odds are anyone who knew Jesus or his followers would have long been dead by the time Polycarp became an adult). Clement of Rome is such a cypher that there is not indication how old he was and so is a maybe.

I have compared Jesus to Apollonius of Tyana but how does Paul compare? D.M. Murdock has a good quick reference chart comparing them but there there are key details she leaves out.

Both Paul and Apollonius left writings credited to them.

Both Paul and Apollonius had at least one contemporary write about them.

So why accept Apollonius of Tyana who was turned into as much of miracle working demi-god as Jesus as a historical person but throw out Paul?

Even the Christians didn't claim the pagans took Jesus exploits and slapped them on Apollonius of Tyana. Heck, the Christians don't even claim that Apollonius of Tyana as a fiction created by the Pagans to discredit the feats of Jesus.

No, the Christians brilliant explanation for the stories of Apollonius of Tyana was his feats of trickery and demons.

 

[dejudge]

There is a massive amount of evidence from antiquity that the Pauline version of the post-resurrection narratives are LATER Embellishments.

In the short gMark ONLY ONE UNKNOWN man in white clothes claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

In the Pauline Corpus the number was OVER 500 persons at the SAME TIME was SEEN of the resurrected Jesus.

The "OVER 500" is clearly a LATER Embellishment which was not even known by gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

It is so so easy.

The Pauline writers are claiming to be WITNESSES of very SAME LATE EMBELLISHMENTS in gMatthew, gKLuke and gJohn that Jesus appeared to the disciples AFTER he was raised from the dead.

I have presumed and assumed NOTHING.

This is documented in the Pauline Corpus.

1 Corinthians 15:15

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

In gMark there is ONE UNKNOWN man but in the Pauline Corpus OVER 500 persons including the Pauline writers are WITNESSES that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Every Epistle under the name of Paul attempts to corroborate OR HISTORICISE the LATER EMBELLISHMENTS of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and Acts of the Apostles.

Now Examine Galatians and gMatthew .

We will see again that the author of Galatians addresses LATER EMBELLISHMENTS found in gMatthew.

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This passage is a LATE EMBELLISHMENT not found in the short gMark and ONLY Found in gMatthew.

It is stated or implied in gMatthew that Jesus of Nazareth COMMITTED the Church to Peter.

The Pauline writers would make a change they now claim or imply the RESURRECTED Jesus COMMITTED Peter to the JEWS but Paul to the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

It is clear that the Pauline Corpus is virtually exclusively a clumsy attempt to HISTORICISE the LATER EMBELLISHMENTS in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and Acts.

The Pauline writers were WITNESSES of Fictional Embellishments and Participated in the very same Fiction.

The Pauline writers are themselves EMBELLISHED characters they NEVER had any real existence.

The Pauline writers attempted to historicise the Embellished resurrection of the LORD God Creator from heaven.

What folly!!!

What fiction!!!

What a pack of lies!!!

Examine Galatians 4.4.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..

Again, we have more EMBELLISHMENTS in Galatians not found in the short gMark.

The Pauline Corpus was fabricated in attempt to corroborate and historicise the LATER EMBELLISHMENTS in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

 

[maximara]

There is a massive amount of evidence from antiquity that the Pauline version of the post-resurrection narratives are LATER Embellishments.

In the short gMark ONLY ONE UNKNOWN man in white clothes claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

In the Pauline Corpus the number was OVER 500 persons at the SAME TIME was SEEN of the resurrected Jesus.

The "OVER 500" is clearly a LATER Embellishment which was not even known by gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

Except 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 is a little strange:


5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.



On line 5: wasn't Cephas one of the twelve? If not then who was this 14th guy (as Judus has supposedly either burst out his belly or hung himself before Jesus returned)?

On line 7: wasn't James one of the twelve? Also aren't the twelve the apostles?

More over if you really look at this it doesn't make sense.

Jesus appears to Cephas and then to the rest of his inner circle so that makes sense. But then Jesus appears to 500 nameless people before appearing before James (who we are told is his biological brother) then to the apostles (but didn't he just do that?) and finally Paul himself.

So James is #513 or #514 on the I meet the resurrected Jesus parade with Paul who knows how much further down the line.

In fact, some think that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is a Post-Pauline Interpolation as shown in "Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation" by Robert M. Price and Herman Detering's The Falsified Paul. p. 3.

Also there are translation issues as shown in 1 Corinthians 15 and the “500 Witnesses”

As I have keep saying (and you dejudge keep ignoring) is that we have editors in addition to the writers and we know that they have meddled with Paul's (and those who wrote in Paul's name) writings. Even if the passage is Paul's and not some latter editor's addition it may not mean what it says in English.

Based on how much Paul harps on him getting his information regarding Jesus through revelation (ie vision) this sudden shift to eyewitnesses is strange and makes the idea these passages were added later reasonable.

 

[Craig B]

There is a massive amount of evidence from antiquity that the Pauline version of the post-resurrection narratives are LATER Embellishments.

Not in the passages you have quoted, there isn't! You cite Matthew. Here is the exalted status of Peter as described there.

Matt 16:17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Then you selectively cite a part of Galatians 2, trying to indicate an absurdity, that Paul knew Matthew. That he didn't is shown in the very chapter you quote from Galatians.

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles)

That's all find and dandy, but dear me, what's this a couple of verses later?

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned. 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’

Are you really telling me that the person who calls Peter a self-condemned hypocrite has been reading Matthew telling us that Jesus gave Peter the keys of Heaven? Do you really think Paul was copying Matthew? Is it not evident that this can't possibly be the case? Because obviously Paul knew nothing about Peter being the foundation of the Church, or binding and loosing in Heaven and Earth.

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline Corpus does not support a human only Jesus and does not represent early Christianity.

The Pauline Corpus represents fiction, mythology, forgeries, false attribution and deception.

I have SHOWN the WRITTEN statements of the Pauline Corpus where it is EASILY seen that the post-resurrection narratives are LATER Embelllishments.

The version of the post-resurrection visits by the resurrected Jesus in 1 Corinthians is a Later Embellishment.

The claim that the resurrected Jesus committed "Paul" to the Gospel of the Gentiles in Galatians is a LATER Embellishment.

Now, let us IDENTIFY the LATER Embellishments in the Epistle to the Romans.

Remember in the short gMark when the women visited the burial site they found an EMPTY Tomb and an UNKNOWN man in white clothes.

The women visitors FLED from the Empty Tomb Terrified.

See the SHORT gMark 16.8

Mark 16:8

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

But, now the LATER Embellishment in Romans 1.

Romans 1

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

The early version of the Jesus story does not state that Jesus was DECLARED to be the Son of God because he was raised from the dead.

In the short gMark, the supposed visitors were TREMBLING with FEAR and FLED from the Empty Tomb TERRIFIED and said NOTHING to anyone.

The declaration that Jesus was the Son of God by the resurrection is a LATER EMBELLISHMENT in Romans 1.

There are more LATER EMBELLISHMENTS in the Epistle to the Romans.

In the short gMark, there is NO COMMISSION to preach the Gospel to the whole world by the Resurrected Jesus.

In fact, in the short gMark, the LAST words of the Jesus character was "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me ?

The post-resurrection COMMISSION to preach the Gospel is found in the LATER EMBELLISHED version of the Jesus story.

Examine gLuke.

Luke 24

Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Examine Acts of the Apostles 1

Acts 1

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.........But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The Epistle to the Romans MATCHES the LATER EMBELLISHMENTS in gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.


Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The Entire Pauline Corpus is a LATE compilation fabricated AFTER the LATER EMBELLISHMENTS of the post-resurrection narratives of the LATER Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge

Do you really think that when Paul wrote

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

he had in mind already existing written gospels? Do you really think anything as absurd as that?

 

[dejudge]

It is extremely easy to IDENTIFY the LATER EMBELLISHMENTS in the Pauline Corpus because we have manuscripts with the SHORT gMark, the LATER Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

The short gMark states the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth --the kingdom of God was at hand.

There is no claim that Jesus of Nazareth would die and resurrect for Remission of Sins for all mankind in the short gMark.

It is the OPPOSITE.

In gMark, Jesus want the Populace to REMAIN in Sin.

In gMark, Jesus BOASTS privately that he DELIBERATELY spoke in parables so that NO-ONE would understand him.

Not even the disciples of Jesus understood the parables UNTIL Jesus PRIVATELY gave an explanation.

I Presume and Assume NOTHING.

It is documented--gMark's Jesus wanted the Populace to REMAIN in sin.

Mark 4

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

The story was changed in gJohn.

The Later gJohn EMBELLISHED the Jesus story and claimed God LOVED the world and gave his Son for the Salvation of all mankind.


John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

gJohn 3.16 is an obvious LATER EMBELLISHMENT when compared to gMark 4.

Now, examine the Epistle to the Romans.

Romans 5:8

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The Epistle to the Romans is a LATER EMBELLISHED writing about the Love of God which is found in the LATER gJohn.

Mark 14:21

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

The Love of God for the death of Jesus teaching in gJohn and the Pauline Corpus are LATER EMBELLISHMENTS.

1 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans are ALL LATER EMBELLISHED writings.

There is more documented evidence that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus is a Late Compilation.

 

[Craig B]

How did Paul come by the knowledge of what Jesus had said, according to these scholars, absent intercourse with the apostles themselves, i.e. Mark's gospel?

Are you being serious? Paul had no intercourse with any person who previously met Jesus? He reports such contacts. If you disbelieve this you have to rearrange the accepted chronology of composition of the NT texts. But there is no good reason to disbelieve that Paul met Peter / Cephas and James.

Indeed there is excellent reason to believe that the description in Galatians of Paul's dealings with James and Cephas is not plagiarised from gMark or any other gospel.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.

As well as shaking his hand they presumably conversed with him on the subject of Jesus. At least me may assume they did, if we're looking for conduits through which Paul received his information (of which, by the way, he has not much). Either that, or Jesus told him all this stuff from the sky during his visions, which I find it both impossible and unnecessary to accept.

 

[maximara]

The Pauline Corpus does not support a human only Jesus and does not represent early Christianity.

Nobody here has claimed that in a long time. As I have keep pointing out the seven epistles (each a least two letters edited together) support the idea of a Jesus being the product of a vision.

In those seven letters Paul gives no meaningful details but rather vague John Frum Ned Ludd like references.

 

[maximara]

Are you being serious? Paul had no intercourse with any person who previously met Jesus?

Must. Resist. Temptation. To. Use. Other. Meaning. Of. Word.

He reports such contacts. If you disbelieve this you have to rearrange the accepted chronology of composition of the NT texts. But there is no good reason to disbelieve that Paul met Peter / Cephas and James.

Actually as explained before there is reason to doubt this as the James brother of the Lord passage is concerned. It reads like an after thought and doesn't really fit.

Even if it is real:

"Later Christian legend (first attested to only late in the second century, a whole lifetime or two after Acts was written) replaced this [[James, son of Alphaeus|James ben Alphaeus]] with James 'the brother of the Lord', but Luke clearly has no knowledge of this connection (nor, we must conclude did any source he may have had) Nor do any of the other Gospels show any awareness that any brother of Jesus ever had a role in the church at all, much less as a leader. Mark had already suggested ''none'' of Jesus family entered the church, as he has effectively disowned them (Mk 3.31-34 (repeated in Mt. 12.46-50 and Lk. 8.19-21; echoed directly in Jn 7.5 and 19.26-27 See Chapter 10 (§4). - Carrier, Richard (2014) ''On the Historicity of Jesus'' Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 373

 

[Craig B]

Must. Resist. Temptation. To. Use. Other. Meaning. Of. Word.

Actually as explained before there is reason to doubt this as the James brother of the Lord passage is concerned. It reads like an after thought and doesn't really fit.

Even if it is real:

"Later Christian legend (first attested to only late in the second century, a whole lifetime or two after Acts was written) replaced this [[James, son of Alphaeus|James ben Alphaeus]] with James 'the brother of the Lord', but Luke clearly has no knowledge of this connection (nor, we must conclude did any source he may have had) Nor do any of the other Gospels show any awareness that any brother of Jesus ever had a role in the church at all, much less as a leader. Mark had already suggested ''none'' of Jesus family entered the church, as he has effectively disowned them (Mk 3.31-34 (repeated in Mt. 12.46-50 and Lk. 8.19-21; echoed directly in Jn 7.5 and 19.26-27 See Chapter 10 (§4). - Carrier, Richard (2014) ''On the Historicity of Jesus'' Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 373

Where did I mention James being a Brother of the Lord? Paul relates in Galatians that he met James, Cephas and John. I think it likely that he did, that these were the same people named elsewhere as associates of Jesus, and that he may well have received information from them, though as is well known he exhibits little direct knowledge of J's biography.

In this context it is not important whether James was a blood sibling or a follower, of course, so no argument on that topic is necessary.

 

[IanS]

Are you being serious? Paul had no intercourse with any person who previously met Jesus? He reports such contacts. If you disbelieve this you have to rearrange the accepted chronology of composition of the NT texts. But there is no good reason to disbelieve that Paul met Peter / Cephas and James.

.

Paul’s letters do not claim what you would like to claim for them. We have been over this exact same point at great length before.

You are assuming that this figure "James" was definitely a true blood brother of Jesus. But Paul's letter does not say that. All the letter says is "other apostles saw I none, save James the lords brother".

And we have shown numerous reasons why that single never again repeated reference to a "lords brother", probably only meant a brother in faith, if in fact it was not a later interpolation anyway (it's in the precise form of a later addition, and it is of course only known in much later Christian copies anyway).

I should not need to remind you that this same "James" supposedly wrote his own gospel describing all his Jesus messiah beliefs. And never once does he even attempt to claim that he was the actual brother of Jesus.

What you are doing here, and what you and other HJ people here are doing, is showing a huge helping of confirmation bias ... ie your bias of pre-existing belief in Jesus as a real person, leads you to feel sure that two ambiguous words such as "lords brother", mean that Jesus was a human being ... but that is pure projection or inference or guesswork by you ... the words need not mean an actual a human brother at all, and there is far more evidence to show that they only meant a brother in the faith.

In fact, if you look in Wikipedia for "Paul's Vision", two directly relevant passages are quoted successively as follows -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle
Paul's letters
In the Pauline epistles, the description of the conversion experience is brief. The First Epistle to the Corinthians[9:1] [15:3-8] describes Paul as having seen the risen Christ:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

—1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV


The Epistle to the Galatians also describes his conversion as a divine revelation, with Jesus appearing to Paul.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

—Galatians 1:11-16, NIV


Even the most cursory glance at those two passages shows that Paul explicitly says that the beliefs he held about Jesus were "not of human origin" and "not received from any man" and "nor was (I) he taught it" ... instead he said that his belief in Jesus, i.e. "the gospel I preached" came to him explicitly as divine "revelation" ... and he is saying that after he had apparently spent many years persecuting the beliefs of these other people such as James in the so-called "Church of God" ... IOW, he is coming as close as ever possible to specifically saying that he did not get his Jesus belief from anyone such as James in any earlier persecuted Church of God ...it was "not of human origin", "not from any man", "not ever taught it", it came to him as divine revelation, i.e. as a religious theological belief.

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline Corpus does not support a human only Jesus and does not represent early Christianity.

Nobody here has claimed that in a long time. As I have keep pointing out the seven epistles (each a least two letters edited together) support the idea of a Jesus being the product of a vision.

What?? You don't know what you are talking about.

People here ACTIVELY and PRESENTLY use the Pauline Corpus to argue that Jesus was a real human being and that the Epistles represent early Christianity.

In those seven letters Paul gives no meaningful details but rather vague John Frum Ned Ludd like references.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The Pauline Corpus have more "details" about Jesus than ALL other Epistles.

In the Pauline Corpus it is stated that Jesus was the LORD from heaven, God Creator, the Son of God and a Woman who was KILLED by the Jews and that he resurrected on the THIRD day after he was crucified, buried and that OVER 500 persons was SEEN of the Resurrected Jesus.

 

[maximara]

Paul’s letters do not claim what you would like to claim for them. We have been over this exact same point at great length before.

You are assuming that this figure "James" was definitely a true blood brother of Jesus. But Paul's letter does not say that. All the letter says is "other apostles saw I none, save James the lords brother".

And we have shown numerous reasons why that single never again repeated reference to a "lords brother", probably only meant a brother in faith, if in fact it was not a later interpolation anyway (it's in the precise form of a later addition, and it is of course only known in much later Christian copies anyway).

Out of curiosity I checked Greekbible

ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. - Galatians 1:19

μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς; - 1 Cor. 9:5

In the original Greek there is NO DIFFERENCE between what is translated as "brethren" (actually Brothers) of the Lord in 1 Cor. 9:5 and Brother of the Lord in Galatians 1:19.

I in fact, pointed this out to Craig B before and he blew it off but as this shows that Paul made NO distinctions between the spiritual brothers of the Lord and the supposed biological brother James.

Also in the section regarding the supposed 500 witnesses Paul lists James separate from the apostles (both the 12 and others...who ever they are) but in Galatians 1:19 he is counting James as an apostle.