judge

This is akin to arguing that a guy playing a round of golf, talking about his shots, has established a use of the word "drive" and that even if he is in his car going home, "drive" must still refer to golf.

Duvduv

I don't think this refers to the Lord in the theological sense as in other places:
1 Cor.2:8: 8 None of the rulers of this age [ comment: in historicizing would be = PILATE/HEROD] understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But here it appears to:
14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?

Cor 7:12: 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

Cor 7:17. This one doesn't make much sense in English, but the Lord appears to be Jesus with God in the same sentence:

17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

In 2 Cor 12 it is visions from Jesus that are being considered in the overall context.
2 Cor 13:10 appears to be Jesus: This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

1 Thess 4 sounds like Jesus as well. However, on second reading through them there appears to be more ambiguity than at first glance. There are God, Lord, Christ and Jesus. And some writer or redactor seems to write or interpolate so as to create the ambiguity.

In Romans 14 it also seems to be Jesus. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

And if James the Brother of The Lord (see my previous post where James is mentioned without this appellation), means the "brother of God" then all I could say that I think makes sense is that it is equivalent to the Hebrew name ACHIYAH as in Achiya the Shilonite where the Hebrew means "MY BROTHER IS YAH" or an extra vowel for Achya meaning "The brother of Yah". In this case I think I recall that the idea of brother is like friend of God, devotee or the like as in the name YEDIDYAH.

Back to you......

Duvduv

One further comment. In this verse 1 Cor 2:14 the idea is that the believers are the "limbs" of the body of Christ to be resurrected whereby God raised "the Lord." Does this mean that the resurrection of the Christ is allegorical by virtue of a "resurrection" (new birth) of the believers who are the limbs of Christ?

Bernard Muller

to spin,
Paul used OT quotes out of context, as Christians will do later, to "prove" his doctrine.
And 4 verses earlier, we have Jesus Lord, most often translated as Jesus is Lord (which makes more sense).
Titular or not. Jesus is called Lord.
Same comment for titular. For 2:16, the quote asks the question: "For who has known the mind of the Lord ...?" Paul answered "But we have the mind of Christ". So Lord is Christ. Another example "Paul used OT quotes out of context, as Christians will do later, to "prove" his doctrine".
Ref 1Co7:12,17,25. Paul got is gospel from heavenly Jesus, not God.
I do not agree with that for 1Co11:23-27. More so when gLuke version of the last supper has come to us with variation in early manuscripts, concerning Lk22:19b-20 (absent in some). It looks "Luke" copied on gMark fairly accurately, except reversing the order (to make it according to Jewish tradition --Jesus was a Jew). Then an interpolator added 19b-20, copied from 1Cor in order to have at least a part of the sequence conforming with gMark & gMatthew versions.
For 1Cor14:37, again, Paul got his gospel from Heavenly Jesus, not God. For 1Co15:58, that comes right after 15:57, where Jesus is declared Lord Jesus Christ.
For 2Cor12:1,8 the Lord says to Paul "... my power is made perfect in weakness ...". Then, at the end of the same verse. we have "... so Christ's power rest on me ...". It shows the power is from the same entity, so the Lord is Christ in that verse.
For 13:10, the Lord who has given authority to Paul is the same than in 12:8.

Maybe, but put into a Christian perspective. 4:17b says "We will be with the Lord forever" (right after the resurrections and raptures) and then 5:9b-10 says; "our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that ... we may live together with him". Again it looks the Lord of 4:15-17 is Christ.

Duvduv

Bernard, in this case doesn't it mean that Paul had the mind of Christ, thereby being able to know the mind of God. Rather presumptuous of course but that's what it sounds like to me. And it's hard not to see the clear ambiguities as if the author intended it that way.

Same comment for titular. For 2:16, the quote asks the question: "For who has known the mind of the Lord ...?" Paul answered "But we have the mind of Christ". So Lord is Christ. Another example "Paul used OT quotes out of context, as Christians will do later, to "prove" his doctrine".

spin

You need to have read this.
As I've already indicated to Bernard Muller, this is titular, the "lord of glory", not a non-titular. It is irrelevant.

As I acknowledged, 1 Cor 6:14 is certainly a usage of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus. Pay attention.

?

God gave the revelations. What Paul doesn't understand "god knows" (12:3b).

Who but god gave Paul the authority??

There is no ambiguity in Jewish thought when dealing with both god and the lord. They are one and the same referent, as in christianity is the case with christ and Jesus.

Would you care to argue that James 5:7,8, which refer to "the coming of the lord", refers to the coming of Jesus?

Now look at 1 Thes 4:13, which makes it clear that god himself is coming: "God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus." The verse is fascinating in the way translations have had problems with it. Here is a rough rendering of the Greek:

[T2]ο θεος τους κοιμηθεντας δια του Ιησου αξει συν αυτω
God, those having fallen asleep in Jesus, will bring with him[/T2]
Notes:

1. god is the subject of the verb "will bring" (αξει), ie "god will bring with him those...", so it is god who is coming.
2. δια του Ιησου can also mean "through Jesus" (the main meaning of δια), though it is difficult to relate that understanding of the phrase to the rest of the sentence. Hence the translation fun.

"Lord of..."

You are working on the basic idea that "brother" is somehow biological. If you think "fellow believer" when Paul uses "brother", you'll be more likely to arrive at an understanding of the phrase "brother of the lord". To use a more modern phrase, "brother of the cross" how do you understand "brother"? What about "hand" in "the hand of the lord"? The biological notion gets in the way of understanding the phrase because we aren't attuned to Paul's usage of the term "brother". I see it as James being acknowledged as having a special place in the congregation, he is "the brother of the lord", as an honorific to distinguish him and the rest of the brothers of the lord from all the other (ordinary) brothers.

spin

Plainly, "Jesus is lord" is titular. You need to think of the non-titular κυριος as if it were a name.

Don't get argumentative. If you don't want to get the idea I'm putting to you, then that's fine, but if you are trying to deal wit it, you should grapple a little more. The issue is whether we are dealing with the first or the second usage in "the lord said to my lord". The first is god.

No. You haven't got a handle on the discussion and you omitted my later discussion on it. You must understand the significance of the quote in context, which will help you when Paul adds, "but we have the mind of Jesus", and he does know "the mind of the lord".

That functionally means that the Lucan version, based on Mark, is closer to the form found in 1 Cor 11:23-26. The easier explanation is that 1 Cor 11:23-26 was adapted from Luke to its new context.

Again though, you are working from your own prepackaged thoughts and not dealing with the issue of the context of the passage which it interferes with. That's why I pointed out the importance of the interpolation in v.29. It is highly significant and you ignored it.

Paul tells us in Gal 1:15f that god revealed his son. Is that what Paul thought or not?

No response to the impact of "god knows".

Having the same conversation twice (with Duvduv), but it is certainly god coming, as indicated in 1 Thes 4:13, for god is bringing those who have fallen asleep in Jesus (see the discussion in the middle of my previous post to Duvduv). Once you realize that, strengthened by James 5:7,8, there is no problem. All you need is to get rid of the christian encrustations on the verse.

Duvduv

I don't think I confused the idea of a biological brother in reference to the name Yedidyah or Achiyah. So James the brother of the Lord can mean James with a descriptive adjective like Yaakov Yedidya or Yaakov Achiya in relation to God or Jesus as one of the brethren, but in this case the distinguished person who is THE brother of the Lord and not just A brother. In this case it could be either "THE Lord" meaning God, or "the Lord" under God, i.e. Jesus.

However, I still feel that in the examples I pointed out there is some ambiguity that you could appreciate. Perhaps the Greek "feels" differently than the English. And again I point to the Homilies where he is called James who is known as the Brother of the Lord.

Unfortunately I don't recall if Earl Doherty dove into all these aspects in his interesting discussion on the subject in one of his articles

LegionOnomaMoi

This is WHY I aksed you about linguistics. Even before and outside construction grammars (e.g., case grammar, Localist grammar, Functionalist grammar, HPSG, etc.) your analysis above doesn't reflect modern grammatical theory. Before construction grammars, your analysis of "drive" and adelphos would still recognized by most linguists as fundamentally flawed (see, e.g., Somers' 1987 Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics, Anderson's 1971 The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localist Theory, or any other of the many works and theories dealing with thematic roles, frames, and similar argument/role approaches to grammar). It is even more inadequate since construction grammars began to be THE model across linguistic theories of grammar. Croft's 2001 monograph incorporated typological research and approaches and begat Radical Construction Grammar. Lakoff's seminal study on There's-constructions in Women, Fire, & Dangerous things was later seen as a construction grammar approach before the term existed.

So if you haven't read Fillmore, Kay, & Michaelis' Construction Grammar, Goldberg's Constructions, any of the edited volumes from the series Constructional Approaches to Language, any number of papers in various journals (esp. Congtive Linguistics), or even some grammarians who aren't construction grammarians (like Jackendoff), then you won't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Paul uses the term adelphos in galations in a particular type of construction employed in Greek. It's a schematic construction which allows plenty of variation (like the famous the X-er, the Y-er construction from Fillmore et al.'s 1988 paper), but within certain parameters. It's purpose is to distinguish individuals, and is one method comparable to surnames. Kinship identification constructions employ an X the Y of Z construction. Sometimes these (and other identification constructions, esp. geographic) do not require a matching Y (in terms of case) NP but merely a X of Z where Z is a genitive NP.

Paul uses brothers in christ, brothers, etc., all the time. But James the brother of the Lord uses a specific construction employed all the time to identify individuals by kin. The reason it doesn't matter in the slightest how Paul normally uses "brother" is because, as modern linguistic research is shown, language is composed of constructions and prefabs, from the more atomic (words) to the increasingly schematized (the most schematic being things like transitivity). I can use read a novel about some getaway driver which uses drive in the sense "driving a car" thousands of times. However, as soon as I see "driving me crazy/up the wall/insane/mad/out of my mind/etc., I recognize a driving me X construction where X refers to a particular state of mind. The same is true in Paul. James, the brother of the Lord, is not comparable to other uses of "brother" because Paul uses it in a recognizable formula we see throughout greek texts.

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying "drive means 'using a car' in general, so 'Your driving me crazy' must mean 'your moving me by car to a location known as crazy.'"

spin

As you seem to be unable to deal with what people say to you without reconfiguring as something else, you obviously aren't interested in a discussion. The utter mindlessness of your last paragraph indicates that you prefer the sight of your own words to dealing with the intentions of others.

You have ignored the arguments I've put forward. Instead you have plowed on with the already refuted argument about "specific construction employed all the time to identify individuals by kin". Is Titus a biological brother of Paul (1 Cor 2:13)? You'd have to say so, given your rubbish about the "specific construction employed all the time to identify individuals by kin". The only difference is instead of του Ραυλου you have μου (which is what μου implies), otherwise the construction would be identical. You have no way of giving sense to the phrase in Gal 1:13 except for the "specific construction" dogma you have pronounced.

The simple set of examples which you didn't deal with I gave should have disavowed you of much of the rot you have gone on with here. As it hasn't, it is clear that you aren't interested in the topic, but just want an argument. :wave: