show_no_mercy

Technically, Acts 12:7 doesn't have the word "the". The "the" is implied, but it's written in English to make it grammatically correct in English.

Loomis

Right. The opposite side of the coin is also true. But “brother of the Lord” is (at best) ambiguous, whereas “brother in the Lord” isn’t.

Loomis

Like I said in my other post – the author of Acts 12:7 was probably just barrowing the phrase from the LXX, and didn’t really give it much thought. I don’t think “angel of the Lord” in Acts 12:7 is a reliable source for evaluating “brother of the Lord.”

Loomis

That makes sense to me. The subject is a rat hole. If there is a bigger issue then zoom out.

dogsgod

The following is the argument put forward regarding the meaning of brother of the Lord:



"Because you lack understanding of syntactic formulae for kin identification. We the formula X of Z or X the Y of Z throughout greek literature to identify people, in lieu of last names. Which is why your "contradiction" is not a contradiction at all. It is easy to use terms like "brethren" metaphorically. We are dealing with single lexemes used metaphorically. Happens all the time.

James, the brother of the Lord, is not a matter of a word used as a metaphor. It is a clear formula. The entire formula has a specific structure and syntax, which Paul never uses metaphorically. The same is true throughout greek literature. This is, actually, the exact same way Josephus identifies James (and many, many others). Hence, no contradiction.

When you show me how X.nom/acc/dat. the Y.same case of Z.gen. is used metaphorically, then you can talk about contradictions.

And your contribution REALLY falls apart with Josephus."



Here is a link://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/94713-why-people-doubt-jesus-existed-21.htmlhttp://www.religiousforums.com/forum...xisted-21.html

mountainman

Many people have suggested that Paul was using drugs to assist his visions. Perhaps his cell was about to be searched by one of the warden's angels?

Toto

That sounds just a little too definite for what we know about Koine Greek and its usage by people like Paul (or Josephus.) How do we not know that the "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Cor is not also metaphorical?

It looks like "Oberon" has created a rule based on observed usage of "syntactic formulae for kin identification." But all of his cases involved actual names of persons, not titles like "Lord" - so this example breaks his rule already.

Loomis

That seems like a valid argument to me. It’s not enough for you to show that Paul could have meant a ‘spiritual brother’; you have to show that he didn’t mean ‘biological brother’.

This subject is too boring. Arguments about contradictions are boring. It’s the reconciliations that excite me. It’s your bed. Now sleep in it.

I’m outta here. :wave:

dogsgod

thanks for your input. See you next time re more excitement.http://www.freeratio.org/images/smilies/hallo.gif

darstec

Besides aldelphos there is the Greek word phrater which meant a member of a close knit clan, i.e. sister, brother, aunt or uncle but later it was used exclusively for male brother in the family. Adelphos can be ambiguous.

Not knowing exactly when Paul's letters were written we can only guess if phrater would be a more appropriate word for kin or if the more general adelphos was meant to convey a spiritual relationship. Unfortunate we can't even use this to determine dates.

Curioser and curioser.