spin

Assumptions do not make an argument. If their non-believer friends know who their lord is, then there is no point in using "the lord". Non-believers have no commitment to the lordship of this Jesus. Worse, you have no reason to believe the phrase was used outside christianity. All you are doing here is stonewalling, because you have no better response.

You don't have any evidence so you are speaking through your hat on the whole subject.

Show me evidence for a pre-existing phrase and then evidence for Paul going against his personal usage of language that you are trying to circumvent.

The last sentence is like a joker in the deck. It doesn't follow suit from what came before.

But as Cephas was not an elder in the Jerusalem assembly, unlike James. The Corinthians knew him. Jerusalem sent agents. Cephas proselytized. He was not one of those believers who ran the Jerusalem group, which is the meaning I get from "brother of the lord" and is just as applicable to your above six points. You are still pushing a conjecture, which offers nothing more than this.

Linguistically? No, you have no evidence. And an evidenceless argument has no validity.

No plethora of Jesi exists within christianity which provides the context where the phrase is found.

:tombstone:

And you can keep your opinion. It has no evidence behind it.

I don't understand what you are saying essentially.

(The wider linguistic context suggests the two are interpolations, based on the general use of "the lord" for Yahweh. A Philological analysis also suggests they are.)

TedM

I'm tired of this. If Jesus of Christianity had brothers and you think there was no need for Christians to distinguish which Jesus in the entire country was meant whenever someone mentioned his brothers -- either to fellow believers or some outside of the faith who were aware of their belief in Jesus as Lord, and you don't think that would have been necessary from day ONE, I think you aren't really giving this much thought. These would be FACTS spin. They don't require evidence except for people who don't want to think. edit: to clarify-- these almost certainly would be facts IF the assumption of existing biological brothers who were part of the early movement is accurate.


What's funny is you ask me to show you evidence of a pre-existing phrase when the implication of your theory that there was a group called "brothers of the Lord (meaning God)" is that the group called that pre-existed Paul! Yet you have NO evidence that it pre-existed Paul other than your own 'conclusion' based on the linguistics. Or, are you going to now claim that Paul made up the phrase himself?

Which is it? Paul made the phrase up to describe a group that really never had a known name, or Paul was not following his own linguistic approach because he was using a phrase made up by others? --in which case your linguistic argument must shift from "Paul's usage" to the "usage by others preceding Paul's letter to the Galatians"--something we have no evidence for. Do you see the problem?



A small but important group of men in early Christianity, that didn't include the apostle Cephas, among which at least some were married, and one was known by the name of James. It follows. Not a strong link by itself but it is consistent with tradition.


I'm sure you have a reason to think that the Cephas/James pairing in Ch 1 was not the same Cephas/James pairing in Ch 2, but I'm not sure I want to hear what it is. Cephas the 'pillar' traveled to Antioch. He wasn't 'running' the Jerusalem group then...Obviously there was no requirement that they stay in Jerusalem.

Not if Cephas from Gal 1 is the same as Cephas from Gal 2. Then that Cephas wouldn't have been a brother in the Lord even though James was, even though both were leaders in Jerusalem. Don't you think the odds of a different Cephas/James pair in two succeeding chapters is somewhat small?

spin

There's nothing here, TedM. You continue to assert your conclusion that there was a group of brothers of Jesus, with an established reference as "brothers of the lord". You continue to assert with a straight face that within christianity a phrase such as "brothers of Jesus" would have no significance. You also continue to, or try to, confuse the uses of "lord": Jesus as lord shows you that it has nothing to do with the pre-existent use of "the lord".

This is merely a suggestion working from Paul's usage of words and the pre-existent use of "the lord ( = Yahweh)".

This is one of those evident blunders: when people are fixated on a meaning and cannot reflect on it, the attempt to get them to reflect by showing alternatives doesn't help exit from the fixation. Rather than consider the lack of evidence for your baby, you merely focus on showing why the alternatives must be wrong.

Now your common sense is failing you. What's left?

The problem is that you are swerving to miss your own silliness. Paul uses "brother" and "the lord" in specific ways, the former for "believer" and the latter for Yahweh. When talking about blood relations he adds "in the flesh" to clarify. We examine "brother of the lord" and find "brother" with no indication of "blood relation", so we are left with a word apparently indicating what he would usually mean by it. Paul's use of "brother of the lord" as received by him needs no editorial touch up.

No, it doesn't.

Tradition here means developments after the time of Paul and therefore not relevant. If nothing else you have got some idea of the implication of noting the significance of the special kurios in the linguistic context Paul inherited. We have a development between that time and the edition of Luke that uses the special kurios for Jesus. However, this later tradition has fed back into interpretation of the earlier use of the special kurios and helped confused interpretation of the text. This process may be happening with "brothers of the lord": later tradition may be clouding the text. That's why dating traditions is essential and promiscuous use of them must be avoided.

Umm, Cephas could easily have his base in Jerusalem. However, we find him in Antioch and Corinth. We also have James sending agents from Jerusalem. Paul's data suggests different roles for the two. If the phrase "brother of the lord" is used as I suggest, there is no reason to try to force Cephas into the group.

See above.

TedM

Let me clarify for readers who don't want to wade through the mess:

The phrase "brothers of the Lord" is typically considered by mythicists to be referring to a group within Christianity of fellow believers. Spin believes the group most likely was part of Jerusalem Christian leadership.

This group pre-existed Paul -- otherwise the phrase he uses in Gal 1 and 1 Cor 9 would have no meaning to his readers, since he provided no explanation at all.

Therefore, the phrase "brothers of the Lord" pre-existed Paul's usage since a pre-existing group would already have a pre-existing name.

Therefore Paul probably wasn't using a phrase that was his own.

Therefore we don't know if Paul would have developed the same phrase on his own, or a different one.

Therefore a comparison of the wording to Paul's usage is potentially invalid -- it's apples to oranges.

Therefore conclusions based on such a comparison are invalid.

The comparison that would be valid would be to writings of the people that came up with the phrase for this special group. Such writings have never been found.

Therefore the linguistic argument for Paul's usage of "the Lord" is seriously flawed, due to false the assumption that Paul himself originated the phrase.

spin

Let's face it. TedM has no argument and no evidence. He just has a conclusion ("the brothers of the lord" must be "the brothers in the flesh of Jesus") that doesn't agree with Paul's usage. He cannot support it and so he will talk about anything else to hide the fact that he has nothing to recommend his view--beside later tradition, which he knows can cause anachronistic interpretations.

I have returned to the phrase and used Paul's language to see the phrase "brothers of the lord" to mean "believers of god" and noting that it is used for James and other important figures who are not apostles, I conjecture that the term is used for figures of importance in the Jerusalem group, because there are not enough examples of the phrase to make a definitive conclusion about.

Hence we come to TedM's litany of therefores, which are as useful as a pogo stick to a fish. The classic is the assumption at the end: Therefore the linguistic argument for Paul's usage of "the Lord" is seriously flawed, due to false the assumption that Paul himself originated the phrase. The only flaw here is the assumption of the assumption that Paul himself originated the phrase. This is just TedM piffle, which he obviously didn't think too hard about. I didn't claim that Paul originated the phrase.

[T2]In fact when TedM suggested previously:

Or, are you going to now claim that Paul made up the phrase himself?

I responded:

Now your common sense is failing you.

[/T2]

The post I am responding to shows some trace of his sense returning to him, though he still falsely claims that I assume "that Paul himself originated the phrase". The old common sense needs oiling.

Overlooking TedM's false claim, I did say that Paul would use "brother" to mean "believer" and "the lord" to mean "god". Obviously, if the phrase means what I conjectured, then it adheres to Paul's usage. Had it gone against his usage, I think he would either not have used it or at least modified it. He certainly isn't dealing with what I've been talking about, but has created a straw man to burn, so his post is rather irrelevant.

Not only does TedM have neither evidence nor argument for his views on the meaning of "brothers of the lord", but he even makes false accusations that have been already dealt with.

TedM

Really? That's called an 'assumption'. It's got to be figured into your analysis. Why would he modify a well-known phrase and not explain the modification to his readers?

spin

Geez, you cleverly caught those code words "I think".

He shows the way he uses his language. That has been explained to you umpteen times and it seems to drop out of your head that many times as well.

TedM

There is no need to modify a phrase that is in use by others and would be known to his readers, spin. Nor would he need to show why he used the term if it was in some way unusual for him to use. Why modify "the brother of the Lord" to "the brother of the Lord Jesus" when everybody already would know which group he was talking about?

The group pre-existed, and had a name that denoted a special relationship to either Jesus or God. The simplest way for Paul to reference that group would be to simply use the name they used. As such, it is not likely he would have modified it.

Therefore, while your linguistic argument is potentially of value for the likely meaning of any passage with "the Lord", we cannot say whether the linguistic argument you put forward can be used to make meaningful conclusions with regard to the two passages with the specific phrase in question.

Ok, I've beat my side of this to death.

Back to your op, do you have a quick explanation for why you say 1 Cor 6:14 is an interpolation? Is it simply because it isn't needed between verses 13 and 15 or do you have something a bit more substantial than that?

spin

The seed of David is used a few times in the Hebrew bible, yet when Paul uses it for the son of god who was born of the seed of David in Rom 1:3 he adds "in the flesh".

When you are not using evidence you can say whatever you desire.

On the contrary if it means what you want it to, ie the brothers in the flesh of Jesus, it is descriptive and you have nothing to say.

I know.

It's the way the rhetorical structure in 1 Cor 6:1-19 is linked together. The same linkage is used several times:

(word)... Do you not know ... (word)

1 Cor 6:14 interrupts the linkage "the lord is for the body" ... "do you not know your bodies are members of Christ?" and changes the subject, though obviously you can see a logic to the temporary subject change--an editor doesn't insert things randomly. It is a temporary waylaying of the discourse

That's the short. I won't be discussing the issue. I merely give you a brief answer as requested.