sschlichter

of course you can, and it is awkward.

sschlichter

the classification of people is different then the name of a group, isn't it?

Is David a member of a group called the servants of Saul, no he is a servant that belongs to Saul, or Saul's servant.

I know you are aware of the difference because you objected to the translation of the Lord's brother. It changed the meaning because you want the Lord's brother to mean something else than what Paul wanted it to mean. You would not have had the same objection if one translated the Servant of Saul as Saul's servant.

I presented the evidence that Paul and his readers knew about the two James', now you present the evidence for a group called brothers of the Lord or move on to you next point and quit blaming me that you were unable to present your evidence.

spin

Well, don't read anything then. You'll be disappointed.

"Emily Deschanel, the star of Bones on FOX" here.

"The star of "Bones," David Boreanaz" here.

"Even though Zack is no longer gonna be a regular he will always be the star of Bones" here.

Who is the star of Bones? Doh! Nothing awkward about this use of the definite article. You just don't even know your own language well enough. Awkward, my eye.

"The Zutons had a chance encounter with Ringo Starr in Los Angeles, and gave the Beatle a sneak preview of their new songs." Here.

"Abraham Lincoln and John Lennon: The President and the Beatle" Here.

"I was shocked and appalled to learn that this was the same docter who forced George Harrison to sign a guitar as the Beatle lay dying." Here.

Yes, there is a group called the Beatles... or there was. And Mick Jagger will get called "the Rolling Stone".

When confronted with a use of the definite article in Greek contrary to your expectation:

iakwbos o adelfos tou kuriou Gal 1:19

dauid o doulos saoul 1 Kings 29:3
David is not the only servant of Saul.

ieroboam .. o pais salwmwn 2 Chr 13:6
Jeroboam is not the only servant of Solomon.

eleazar o uios aarwn Num 3:32
Eliezer is not the only son of Aaron.

h adelfh tou teQnhkotos marta Jn 11:39
Martha is not the only sister of Lazarus.

you hedge:

I'm glad that you can post this with a straight face. David is a member of a group you can refer to as the servants of Saul. Martha is a member of a group you can refer to as the sisters of Lazarus. The definite article can be used contrary to your opinion. Emily Deschanel is the star of "Bones" -- she's not the only one, but no-one but you has problems with the statement. John Lennon is the Beatle in the context of that which is written about him and only you have problems with them.

Now I have certainly wasted too much time on you.

:wave:


spin

sschlichter

you certainly did waste your time. All great examples that are analogous to a group of people who are stars, servants, brothers, and sisters.

However, you are claiming that the brothers of the Lord is a name of a group. the name is composite and is not logical in its parts like these other examples.

servants, stars, brothers, and sisters are all subjects. you are equaiting these, not with the word 'brothers' but with the name brothers of the Lord.

The only example that is applicable is the Beatle. I am surprised that you did not notice the use of the beatle and the president was the same as the example I gave you from Luke 18 where The article was used to contrast the pharisee from the tax collector.

I would certainly call John Lennon one of the Beatles. If you ask me which John Lennon (or otherwise require me to identify him) I would say John Lennon the Beatle because he is not John Lennon the plumber.

James is being distinguished with something by being further identified as the Lords brothers. (this translation being a point you failed to reply on, perhaps distracted by your web search for definite articles.)

We could move on or we could stay stuck here.

spin

Bill Clinton and Bill Pullman are two well-known names to most readers....

1. Bill is a saxophonist in his spare time....
2. Bill likes women....
3. Bill has been in many movies....
4. Bill suffers from insomnia....
5. Bill is married....
6. Bill got into a sex scandal....
7. Bill was the president....
8. Bill got to make rousing speeches....
9. Bill likes cigars....

Here we have two people, but I am only using one name to refer to them. Sometimes you can work out who I was talking about from the context, but it can be struggle. At other times you just don't have a clue. It's not a very useful way to communicate to a reading audience, yet this is how people think that Paul was writing when he used the term kurios. There are two types of people who don't have problems with such an analysis of Paul: believers and people who don't think about the issue.


spin

-------------
Check your answers (select the text below):
1. Clinton 2. (Don't remember) 3. Pullman. 4. (I forgot.) 5. (I forget who I was referring to... in fact they both are though.) 6. Clinton. 7. I mightn't have mentioned but I was thinking of the film "Independence Day", Pullman. 8. Ditto, Pullman. 9. Clinton... I don't know whether he enjoys smoking them though.

spin

I certainly realize that now. So, I'll just leave you where you're stuck and move on.


spin

sschlichter

very good. Here is another game. See if you can pick out the two options that are not awkward in their use of the definite article (or lack thereof)


Option 1:

Everyone knows James. He was there from the beginning. We have all heard the stories about Bob, Peter, James and his brother John. However when I met in Jerusalem, it was with the other James, the brother of Bob.

Option 2:

There is a group of people. They go by the name Bulls of chicago. I have written many letters but never mentioned them to anyone. As a matter of fact, no apostle, no disciple, no letter written or word spoken ever referred to them. Recently, I went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James, the Bull of chicago.

Option 3:

Everyone knows James. He was there from the beginning. We have all heard the stories about Bob, Peter, James and his brother John. However when I met in Jerusalem, it was with the other James, a brother of Bob.

Option 4:

There is a group of people. They go by the name bulls of chicago. I have written many letters but never mentioned them to anyone. As a matter of fact, no apostle, no disciple, no letter written or word spoken ever referred to them. Recently, I went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James, one of the Bulls of chicago.

spin

Stop throwing up tangents. You've had your opportunity to justify your crap.


spin

sschlichter

ok, but I expect you are also wrong about the use of kurios in general, it is not ambiguous at all. The use of kurios is ample reason in and of itself to view Paul as assigning divinity to Christ. Do you want to talk about that (as in 1 Cor 6) or go back to Phil 2:6?

spin

Paul uses the term kurios in two distinct ways, reflecting the usage of the term in LXX Ps 110, "The lord said to my lord...".

1. the titular usage "Jesus is lord", the "lord Jesus Christ", "my lord"; and
2. in lieu of a name, "the lord said..."

It is the second usage that is under consideration. Does Paul use the term indiscriminantly for two different referents? This would seem to be for an author a course for confusion, for the reader has no way of knowing the content of the word when used, except what can be intuited from the context. Normally one would avoid doing such a thing.

It is clear that Paul uses kurios referring to god, especially in cases where he is citing the LXX -- though we cannot rely on the reading audience's knowing that he was citing the LXX. At other times for example 1 Cor 2:8b and 6:14 it is clearly used for Jesus. Is this Paul, guilty of using a term for two different referents? I'd answer "no", arguing in each case from contextual clues that these are obvious candidates for interpolation.

In 1 Cor 9:1 we find "Jesus our lord" and Paul's "work in the lord"; these are #1 and #2 of the distinction above, though the proximity might confuse. The expression "in the lord" can be found frequently enough in the LXX, so there should be little trouble seeing that it refers to god in 1 Cor 9:1 (& 9:2). When we arrive at 1 Cor 9:5 and the brothers of the lord, we hit the conflict seen in the recent part of this thread: because Jesus had brothers, "the brothers of the lord" must refer to the brothers of Jesus. The text itself doesn't help us -- if we assume that Paul can use the word kurios indiscriminantly for two different referents.

I don't like relying on the possibility of an interpolation when there are no clues for such an alteration, so I'm left with two choices: either Paul does use kurios for two different referents or "the brothers of the lord" doesn't refer to Jesus. The first choice is so unpalatable that I opt for the second choice.


spin