Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
1) I'm not forced to take it as mere coincidence. You are just being uncharitable to me now. All of the discussion is explained for theological purposes, but retro-actively reading an allegorical account back into a completely different context that Paul is discussing as Verenna and Carrier do is not only unsustainable, but completely ignorant to how Paul was writing. If they were the same, why is there a big intervening area between them separating the contexts? They aren't the same context, so reading the allegory back into Gal. 4:4 which is discussing a different matter is just misreading the text, at best.
2) Mark does not determine what is in Paul. That is just anachronistic reading.
3) And Geza Vermes would then have the passage interpolated, and therefore your thesis collapses because that is a later insertion and not relevant to interpreting the rest of Paul. I'm fine taking Vermes' position, which basically renders yours no threat to historicity at all.
4) That you are reading only what is sufficient for a spiritual/fraternal brother is of no consequence to my argument.
5) I can just come up with more hypotheses supporting historicity:
I) spiritual privileged and carnal brother simultaneously
II) spiritual unprivileged and carnal brother simultaneously
III) carnal brother
IV) spiritual privileged brother only
V) spiritual unprivileged brother only
This still makes the prior probability more in favor of historicity (I-III). Thus, you are still not able to beat my position.
6) "The Risen Christ calls Paul 'my apostle', not "my brother". I don't understand what is evidence that the Risen Christ called Paul as privileged his spiritual brother."
This is all irrelevant to my point.
7) "Correct, ''camp'' is a metaphor for ''here'', hence if we are "here", Jesus suffered not "here", but "outside" here, i.e. outside the earth: in heaven."
Actually, it is a metaphor for the locale of sacrifice.
8) "Jesus is not Melkizedek, but he is ''according to his order'' just in virtue of his being ''without mother and father, without genealogy etc". A birth by woman is denied, too. It is in evidence."
Um, no that is you reading things into the text which it never says. Being of the order of Melchizedek never means that one does not have a genealogy. That is you reading things into the text and is clearly projection.
2) Mark does not determine what is in Paul. That is just anachronistic reading.
3) And Geza Vermes would then have the passage interpolated, and therefore your thesis collapses because that is a later insertion and not relevant to interpreting the rest of Paul. I'm fine taking Vermes' position, which basically renders yours no threat to historicity at all.
4) That you are reading only what is sufficient for a spiritual/fraternal brother is of no consequence to my argument.
5) I can just come up with more hypotheses supporting historicity:
I) spiritual privileged and carnal brother simultaneously
II) spiritual unprivileged and carnal brother simultaneously
III) carnal brother
IV) spiritual privileged brother only
V) spiritual unprivileged brother only
This still makes the prior probability more in favor of historicity (I-III). Thus, you are still not able to beat my position.
6) "The Risen Christ calls Paul 'my apostle', not "my brother". I don't understand what is evidence that the Risen Christ called Paul as privileged his spiritual brother."
This is all irrelevant to my point.
7) "Correct, ''camp'' is a metaphor for ''here'', hence if we are "here", Jesus suffered not "here", but "outside" here, i.e. outside the earth: in heaven."
Actually, it is a metaphor for the locale of sacrifice.
8) "Jesus is not Melkizedek, but he is ''according to his order'' just in virtue of his being ''without mother and father, without genealogy etc". A birth by woman is denied, too. It is in evidence."
Um, no that is you reading things into the text which it never says. Being of the order of Melchizedek never means that one does not have a genealogy. That is you reading things into the text and is clearly projection.