LegionOnomaMoi

And your background in linguistics is....? Have you studied linguistics or construction grammar? Have you read the works of Fillmore, Lakoff, Johnson, Langacker, Hudson, Bybee, etc.? I doubt it.

How about Greek? Do you own or have access to the BDAG, LSJ, the BDG, Schweitzer, Smyth & Messing, etc.?

Or Hebrew?

In fact, what knowledge do you possess that in any way makes you qualified to judge what a greek construction means?

aa5874

Paul NEVER needed a real Jesus. Paul himself NEVER claimed he SAW a real Jesus. The Pauline did NOT write that he REGRETTED that he did NOT see a living Jesus.

Paul never claimed he saw Jesus crucified but he stated he was VISITED by the resurrected Jesus.

Paul was EXTREMELY DELIGHTED to talk about the Non-historical resurrection of which he could NOT recall.

2 Corinthians 12:2 KJV Paul NEEDED BELIEF--FAITH.

NO Christian today will ever see a real Jesus they will ONLY BELIEVE.

They just need to BELIEVE Jesus lived, that he died and resurrected on the THIRD day.

Romans 10:9 KJV The resurrection of the supposed Jesus was a NON-HISTORICAL act and could NOT have happened whether or not Jesus was real.

A resurrected character can ONLY be BELIEVED to have resurrected.

spin

Bandying about terms is not arguing anything.

Now this is downright silly. Do I have to write the Greek term every time because you want to be obnoxious? Do people bitch about the fact that you cannot provide the Greek except in transliteration?

If you'd like to argue an evidence based case, I will listen.

You are so eager to flaunt your disagreement, but you are not dealing with what you need to. Paul generally uses "brother" in a non-biological sense, so one expects him to use it that way. When there are no contextual indications, you understand the term as expected. Try this: show where Paul actually uses "brother" to indicate a biological brother with the requisite signs that it actually signifies it, then show the signs in Gal 1:19 where he does the same. Linguistics is generally an evidence based discipline.

You'll have to figure that out. But I doubt that you will because you have not argued evidence and you have shown here that you go for polemic without content, which doesn't inspire any desire for continued discussion.

spin

I'm impressed that you can cite lists of names without a shred of content so easily. Sophomore reading lists? (And perhaps you'd like to distinguish which Lakoff you are blurting. Oh, wait, I think you gave the game away when you mentioned Langacker. My bad.... )

tanya

Hello again, Legionaire!

Thanks for your contribution. It is always fun to read your posts. I enjoy them, all.

May I humbly suggest, if you sincerely are curious about spin's, or David's or Joe's, or Earl's competence with Greek, and Hebrew, that you use the SEARCH button at the top of the web site.

Here's a couple of references to some relatively recent (past couple of years) exchanges, which clearly demonstrate both spin's and David's competence with Greek, and spin's knowledge of Hebrew.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....ghlight=origen

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....highlight=mark

All of the forum members are geniuses, so no one ever makes any mistakes.

hjalti

He doesn't use the term "the lord" at all. "The lord" is english!

(I know that this comment is silly)

Duvduv

Besides the reference to James, where else in the epistles is the word kurios used to refer to Jesus without using the words Jesus or Christ where it's not clearly understood in the context that it refers to Jesus?

aa5874

Again, the NT Canon is a NON-HERETICAL compilation. It is NOT expected that the Pauline writings would contain the HERESY that Jesus was human with a human father.

In fact, in the Pauline writings there is ZERO mention that Jesus had a human father but it is claimed Jesus was God's Son.

It is time people here UNDERSTAND the Significance of a Canon.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT born of Man--it was BORN of the SPIRIT.

Galatians 4:29 KJV
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

The Pauline Jesus was a SPIRIT.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV
And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

It is a complete waste of time and absolutely absurd for people here to attempt to argue that the CANON is Heretical and still argue simultaneously that it was MANIPULATED to appear NON-Heretical.

Bernard Muller

to Spin,
"sister" is used both ways by Paul: as a blood relative and a female believer. For the first case: Rom16:15
I do not agree as far as its usage in Galatians. I stand by what I wrote. Furthermore, the overly pretentious "brother of God" would have that James branded as a heretic by the Jews. And Paul had no reason to raise the status of that James up to the stratosphere.
Now you make an argument from silence! Then you explain why it should have been specified, assuming a few things in the process. So let me make an opposing argument:
That James was already known by "Luke" community to be Jesus' brother.
"Luke" did not want to reiterate the blood relationship in order to give an advantage to that James against an already low in credential Paul.
Even if I had examples, that would not prove anything, because examples showing the opposite could be found.
The main thing I did is a total reconstruction of the beginning of Christianity, with many elements (which I justified but not necessarily proven) from early texts and where everything fit and make sense. That should count for something. My methodology is stated in: http://historical-jesus.info/author.html

LegionOnomaMoi

Having a background (or even expertise) in Greek is in no way comparable to a background in linguistics. And then there is what type of linguistics. An expert in classics and indo-european linguistics may still have no idea what "construction grammar" or "Construction Grammar" refers to or how modern grammatical theory is applicable here.