From your own cited text, "the rest of the apostles" and "Cephas" also have this right. Not does the text say anything about whom they have the right to marry, but whether they may take such wife on their travels. Your reading is bizarre.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
But surely we have agreed that these bolded parts of the TF are interpolated, and noted that this is the universal opinion of scholars, while you and I go further and dismiss the entire TF as inauthentic. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9965180&postcount=3663 where we agree exactly on this, on the interpolation of these very words by later Christian copyists. Now you cite this very material! What on earth are you thinking of?
I have commented on that already.
Back to the provocative distortions, eh? The Gospel of the Historic Jesus!
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Brainache
James sends some men. So what? Peter is in Antioch; he can't send anybody from Jerusalem. James is in Jerusalem; he can send somebody from there. In Peter's absence, maybe James is the senior man onsite in Jerusalem. Or, maybe the Jerusalem church as a whole sent the men, and Paul is using the device of personification.
There is not one word from Paul that the men, once they are in Antioch, have any instructions about Peter from James, or act as James' emissaries. There is not one word that they claim authority over Peter. It isn't even in evidence that Peter couldn't order them to eat with Gentiles if he were so inclined - but since they might puke all over the table and floor, maybe Peter feels he would enjoy his own meal better if he didn't exercise his authority. There is not one word in Paul that James orders Peter to do anything, neither face-to-face nor through emissaries.
Who's in charge in Jerusalem (if anybody was) is a squabble between some Protestants on the one hand, and the apostolic succession churches on the other (RCC or otherwise, with the Anglicans in the middle, maybe). It's not my fight. The combatants rely a lot on Acts. There is nothing in Paul, however, that puts James in authority over Peter, or vice versa. Paul describes only Peter as his peer, but that doesn't mean James agreed, or that Paul's interest in personal status had anything much to do with how the Judean church conducted its business.
David Mo
As I pointed out in an earlier post, in the example I wrongly awarded Charles' duchy (Cornwall) to John, Duke of Somerset.
The correct example sentence would be:
Charles and John, the Duke of Somerset, left the party to have a smoke.
What we conclude here is just that John is Duke of Somerset, and not Charles.
Quite so. The issue, however, is whether or not Charles is a duke. And quite so (based on what I take your "just that" to mean) that the sentence doesn't say, imply or suggest that Charles isn't a duke. It just doesn't say anything about Charles and the status of being a duke.
We couldn't tell that from the example sentence (here corrected, as above)
Charles and John, the Duke of Somerset, left the party to have a smoke.
I can ramp it up
Prince Charles and John, the Duke of Somerset, left the party to have a smoke.
Is Prince Charles a duke as well? The sentence doesn't say, the sentence doesn't remove the possibility, and if I consult another source (which I can in this case, but not in the case of Paul's letters). I find that yes, Prince Charles is the Duke of Cornwall. Meanwhile, the sentence does at least suggest that John isn't a prince, as also happens to be taught by other sources.
Bottom line: I do not know whether or not Peter is a "Brother of the Lord" as Paul uses that phrase. My only source is Paul, and he doesn't say.
proudfootz
This kind of "sister" wife would be clearly parallel to a companion of Paul who, while not being a wife to Paul (and maybe that's a whole 'nother story), would neverhteless help him with the preaching, and so be worthy of material support.
No, according to Paul, all apostles are entitled to have a traveling companion. Builds of three are rhetorical devices to emphasize points, in this case (as in so many others), that Paul is not just any old apostle, but is at least on a par with the BoL's and is the very peer of Cephas. Paul doesn't have a wife (it seems), but he is seeking some accommodation.
No. In both cases, Cephas is mentioned specifically in addition to one or more BoL's. There is nothing said, either way, about his being separate from or included within the other category. In this case, Cephas is also mentioned specifically in addition to all apostles other than Paul. Is it your view that Paul means that Cephas is not an apostle? That is not my view.
I am less impressed, since there is nothing in Paul that says there even is a single leader in Jerusalem, much less that James is that leader. It could be a troika (James, Peter and John), for example, or simply a consensusal arrangement. Paul doesn't say.
James sends some men. So what? Peter is in Antioch; he can't send anybody from Jerusalem. James is in Jerusalem; he can send somebody from there. In Peter's absence, maybe James is the senior man onsite in Jerusalem. Or, maybe the Jerusalem church as a whole sent the men, and Paul is using the device of personification.
There is not one word from Paul that the men, once they are in Antioch, have any instructions about Peter from James, or act as James' emissaries. There is not one word that they claim authority over Peter. It isn't even in evidence that Peter couldn't order them to eat with Gentiles if he were so inclined - but since they might puke all over the table and floor, maybe Peter feels he would enjoy his own meal better if he didn't exercise his authority. There is not one word in Paul that James orders Peter to do anything, neither face-to-face nor through emissaries.
Who's in charge in Jerusalem (if anybody was) is a squabble between some Protestants on the one hand, and the apostolic succession churches on the other (RCC or otherwise, with the Anglicans in the middle, maybe). It's not my fight. The combatants rely a lot on Acts. There is nothing in Paul, however, that puts James in authority over Peter, or vice versa. Paul describes only Peter as his peer, but that doesn't mean James agreed, or that Paul's interest in personal status had anything much to do with how the Judean church conducted its business.
David Mo
As I pointed out in an earlier post, in the example I wrongly awarded Charles' duchy (Cornwall) to John, Duke of Somerset.
The correct example sentence would be:
Charles and John, the Duke of Somerset, left the party to have a smoke.
Which, I assume would be, with the above correction
What we conclude here is just that John is Duke of Somerset, and not Charles.
Quite so. The issue, however, is whether or not Charles is a duke. And quite so (based on what I take your "just that" to mean) that the sentence doesn't say, imply or suggest that Charles isn't a duke. It just doesn't say anything about Charles and the status of being a duke.
I haven't argued that Paul is a "Brother of the Lord" in any sense. I haven't argued that any other named apostle besides James is a "Brother of the Lord" in any sense. We know there is at least one more, because Paul uses the term in the plural elsewhere, but Paul doesn't say who else is a "Brother of the Lord."
Anybody who saw the risen Jesus and becomes a teacher of that experience is an apostle, in Paul's apparent reckoning. Paul is apostle to the Gentiles just as Peter is apostle to the Jews. Gentiles is a portfolio, Jews is a portfolio. (Between them, that's everybody.) Paul and Peter are the only apostles Paul mentions as having portfolios, and Peter is the only apostle Paul mentions as his peer.
That's not in evidence. Back to the example. What status Prince Charles has differentiates him from John Seymour. What status John Seymour has, Charles also has, and more besides. What John doesn't have is, in fact, what distinguishes him from Charles.
We couldn't tell that from the example sentence (here corrected, as above)
Charles and John, the Duke of Somerset, left the party to have a smoke.
I can ramp it up
Prince Charles and John, the Duke of Somerset, left the party to have a smoke.
Is Prince Charles a duke as well? The sentence doesn't say, the sentence doesn't remove the possibility, and if I consult another source (which I can in this case, but not in the case of Paul's letters). I find that yes, Prince Charles is the Duke of Cornwall. Meanwhile, the sentence does at least suggest that John isn't a prince, as also happens to be taught by other sources.
Bottom line: I do not know whether or not Peter is a "Brother of the Lord" as Paul uses that phrase. My only source is Paul, and he doesn't say.
proudfootz
I disagree, the issue is whether apostles can travel with a wife at church expense. There is no noun phrase "sister(s) of the Lord" in Paul. "Sister" here - not sister of the Lord, just sister - is plainly not literal blood kin. Paul is not promoting incest, lol, but I can't see any reason to think that Paul doesn't mean simply "a wife who is a member of the Christian faith." That is relevant to his argument, because a wife who is a member of the faith can help her spouse with the preaching; for example, by having access to other women in settings that are closed to men.
This kind of "sister" wife would be clearly parallel to a companion of Paul who, while not being a wife to Paul (and maybe that's a whole 'nother story), would neverhteless help him with the preaching, and so be worthy of material support.
Oh, I understand very well thank you. And what is perfectly clear is that you do not have a case at all, for all the reasons that I just listed for you. And if you read that Vridar link to Doherty’s comments on this, you will find all those same points and more explained in much greater detail.
Whether or not you accept what Doherty or Carrier, and in fact most sceptic authors, have written since Bauer in the early 1800’s, is your own business. But there are numerous very obvious reasons why those three words in a late Christian copy of one of Paul’s are not safe as evidence of Jesus.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
So far every discussion concerning the bible always comes down to the specific meaning of one word. I see we have reached that stage and can now spend the next few pages arguing over what meaning long dead people gave to a word.
(actually it's the plural evocative form and as such refers to everyone as brothers)
Elementary dear Watson
(Holmes never said that)
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/signature/elementary.asp
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Dejudge's learned word of the day: Irrelevant.
I'm rarely claimed to be human, either, and yet...
Belz...
Fiend God
Again, your claim is a well established fallacy.
The author of Galatians SPECIFICALLY claimed his Jesus was the NOT a man but was the Son of God who was Raised from the dead.
Multiple Apologetic writers admitted James in Galatians was NOT the brother of the Lord Jesus.
1. Galatians 1:1 KJV
2. Galatians 1. 11
3. Galatians 1. 15
4. Galatians 4:4 KJV
5Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19
6. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus
proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
You may need to read it again:
"Do we not have the right to take along a sister [as] wife, like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"
What kind of cult do we have here which talks about taking one's sister as a wife?
Yes, perhaps they aren't talking about marrying their sisters, but merely using them as if they were their wives?
The point is that it is most likely Paul is talking about believers and using the terms 'brothers' and 'sisters' in a figurative sense.
proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
Indeed we agree Josephus was targeted by christian forgers.
Perhaps we can get posters to understand why that undermines the arguments made along the lines of 'Josephus and Galatians are reliable evidence of an 'historical non-magical Jesus'.
I think the two of us working together with dejudge should be able to put that argument to rest.
I'm making the same salient and cogent point dejudge is making - there are severe difficulties in using these materials about a cosmic Jesus to tell us much of anything about whether there ever was a man who fits the modern notions of an 'historic Jesus'.
As for 'provocative distortions', check out the log in your own eye.
proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
I largely agree with you here, it is interesting to note that 'sister' is commonly translated as 'believer' while 'brother' in the same sentence is simply rendered literally.
To my eyes it appears there is no reason not to translate both descriptors in the identical way.
You don't think anything of the sort. You are lying.
There you go again!
You have just rendered that exercise quite superfluous. You will never, it seems, be able to engage in a serious discussion of these issues.
proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
No.
Why is it every time you paint yourself into a corner you start with accusations about lying?
You and dejudge agree Josephus is useless. I concur with this consensus.
What's so terrible about pointing out our common interest in debunking spurious arguments based on such drivel?
I can and I do, with serious posters.
Which proves that your invitation to me to join you and dejudge is not even a joke, but total insincerity.
proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
If it amuses you to continue such absurd accusations, there's nothing anyone can do to stop your trolling.
Belz...
Fiend God
Come on, guys, shake hands and say you're sorry.
Again, we see HJers presenting the very worse un-evidenced argument for their HJ.
As soon as HJers assumed their Jesus was only a man then the Bible, especially Galatians, could NOT be expected to corroborate their HJ.
The Canon of the Church, including all the Pauline Corpus, speaks about a Mythological Jesus--God Incarnate--the Son of God born of a Holy Ghost and a woman.
Galatians is completely compatible with the Doctrine of the Church.
Galatians 4:4 KJV
Galatians 2:20 KJV
The Pauline Jesus in Galatians was NOT the assumed HJ.
Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant to the HJ argument.
The Lord Jesus was a resurrected myth character in Galatians which was revealed to a Pauline writer after he was in conference with entities WITHOUT Flesh and blood.
Galatians 1
Again, it is CONFIRMED that Paul was a Liar and grew up in an atmosphere of Lying.
There are no entities without flesh and blood.
The HJ argument is based on the Pauline lies in Galatians.
The un-evidence HJ argument is a failure.
As soon as HJers assumed their Jesus was only a man then the Bible, especially Galatians, could NOT be expected to corroborate their HJ.
The Canon of the Church, including all the Pauline Corpus, speaks about a Mythological Jesus--God Incarnate--the Son of God born of a Holy Ghost and a woman.
Galatians is completely compatible with the Doctrine of the Church.
Galatians 4:4 KJV
Galatians 2:20 KJV
The Pauline Jesus in Galatians was NOT the assumed HJ.
Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant to the HJ argument.
The Lord Jesus was a resurrected myth character in Galatians which was revealed to a Pauline writer after he was in conference with entities WITHOUT Flesh and blood.
Galatians 1
Again, it is CONFIRMED that Paul was a Liar and grew up in an atmosphere of Lying.
There are no entities without flesh and blood.
The HJ argument is based on the Pauline lies in Galatians.
The un-evidence HJ argument is a failure.
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 453
I just finished the book. I do not see it as a slam dunk for HJ. Ehrman placed great emphasis in Paul having known Cephas and James, the Lord's brother (sibling of JC according to Ehrman).
I'm still in the we can't know camp.
I'm still in the we can't know camp.
It is virtually impossible to use the Bible to show that Jesus was a known human being with an earthly father.
The NT Canon of the Church is a compilation of Non-Heretical writings.
In the Pauline Corpus--Jesus was the Son of a God and was raised from the dead.
Effectively, Ehrman's HJ is a Myth.
Last edited:
No.
Ehrman's HJ is a product of Historical research.
There is a big difference that you would do well to learn.
- Status