sschlichter

it is really a tangential issue. however, you should be careful when you are suggesting this happened. spin needs it to be there early enough so all other NT references of james, the Lords brother can be propped up on top of it.

I guess you should really take this up with spin and company.

jakejonesiv

The issue of whether the text is authentic is hardly tangential to the historical question of Jesus' alleged brother. You need it to be from the pen of the apostle in the 50's CE. Spin does not. If it is any later, your historical claims are disconfirmed.

Best,
Jake

Chaucer

Mr. Avery has clearly made a trenchant point here, and it's past time that "Spin" finally address it and not flagrantly avoid it, as here.

Chaucer

Toto

What is Steven Avery's point?

Originally, sschlichter some posts back claimed that the grammar of the phrase "the brother of the Lord" precluded identifying James as a member of a group of brothers of the Lord.

I pointed out that since Jesus had multiple brothers in the gospel story, it could not make much difference - James was one of Jesus' brothers OR one of a group called "brothers of the Lord," and the grammar does not point one way or the other. (Actually it has been speculated that James was the head of this group, and therefore known as THE Brother of the Lord.)

So all we have is an identifier for James, but this could be his title, or meant to distinguish him from another James who was also an apostle - and if the latter, it is still not clear if he was the brother of Jesus or had some special status indicated as Brother of the God.

I don't see any way of getting any more meaning out of this.

sschlichter

my claim was awkward-ness but it is growing toward preclusion.

The need to distinguish James, Jesus' brother from the other James would actually make this use of the article as necessary, not just preferred.

which James, Paul is clarifying, the brother of the Lord. a brother of the Lord would also be awkward in this case. the article is used to identify the james, not the brother. the known existence of another james makes this use more likely.

Since there are numerous cases where Jesus is referred to as the Lord by Paul, there is no reason to beleive any differently here.

consider 1 Cor 6:14 - God raised the Lord


ah, you could make any apologist blush with this one. that would be James, the Grand Poobah of the brothers of the Lord.

spin

Sorry, you brought up this crock of shite and you will not deal with contrary evidence. Your reiteration of stuff that doesn't deal with the evidence I've provided a number of times doesn't mean a thing when you consistently ignore the evidence.

You've been asked several times to look at contrary indications. You've copped out every time.

As to 1 Cor 6:14 and the last supper, I have told you that there are a few examples where kurios has been inserted to refer to Jesus. Congratulations, you have found some of them. But you were supposed to be dealing with your hokey article argument. Be coherent. You have been all over the place though you'll remember refusing to let me present the data. If you will not deal with the substance of your claim about the article then you cannot jump onto other things and expect dialogue.


spin

spin

Your claim was bullshit based on a lack of knowledge of the language, as the numerous examples I've provided show. (And it seems to me that you are projecting an English understanding of the article onto the Greek.)

And we know Paul has already mentioned the brothers of the lord in 1 Cor.

There are numerous cases where Paul refers to god as the lord, so you arbitrarily decide that there can't be believers, who Paul generally calls brothers, believers he calls brothers of the lord? Paul normally uses "brothers" to refer to believers. The notion of "brother of the lord" I've already shown through the name "Ahijah" is not an unusual idea.

We will, if you let us get there.


spin

sschlichter

ok, 1 Sam 29:3. I will have the same answer with your example. personally, I thought the baseball team was much more fun.

dauid o douloj zaoul basilewj israhl (david the slave of king Saul of Isreal)

David is not a member of a group, a franchise, a club named the servants of King Saul. David is a servant that belongs to King Saul. It IS analogous to Gal 1:19. It is the exact same thing. However, if the servants of King Saul were the name of a group, as you claim then it would not be the same thing at all.

Here is an example from Luke 8

(Luke 18:10) "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

No article here. the man is a Pharisee, he is not The Pharisee. the article on the tax collector distinguishes him from the Pharisee. it does not mean he is a member of a group known as 'other'.

(Luke 18:11) The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself like this: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people: extortionists, unrighteous people, adulterers - or even like this tax collector.

Now the man has been identified as a Pharisee. We know that. Next, he is being distinguished from the tax collector so the article is used. he is the Pharisee, not the other guy. he is no longer a Pharisee, but the one in question.


so, we can try one more time. Which is more likely in Gal 1:19? is James, the Lord's brother or a member of a club.

(Gal 1:19) But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

What is he most likely saying:

I did not see any of the apostles except the one apostle whose name is James, not, james the brother of John, but James, the Lord's brother.

The distinction is necessary because there are two James. The distinguishing factor is whose brother he is. he is the brother of Jesus, not of John. it does not mean he is the the only brother of Jesus. The article is distinguishing him from the other James.

Cephas was not described any further because there was no need to distinguish him from someone else. If there was two Cephas' in question then the point of distinction might be different. He may be Cephas, the fisherman from Capernaum. this does not mean he is the only fisherman from Capernaum and it does not mean he joined a union.

Now if the brothers of the Lord were a group of some sort of club or group, then there is a better chance that he would be identified without the article. (complain all you want, that is the case).

I have evidence of a James and there is NO evidence of a brothers of the Lord so I will go where the only evidence is and where logic takes me.

it would also be a strange inclusion. Why is he identified as a brother of the Lord? is Peter not a brother of the Lord. Is the other James not a brother of the Lord. Why was this supplied as a distinction and from what? there are two James and the distinction is whose brother he is. Why use the random membership to a group that is not otherwise mentioned. The only place that it is mentioned is in the context of apostles and Cephas. the very place that I would expect James to be clarified as the Lord's brother.

spin

Only in that it helped you fall over yourself.

Crap. He is logically a member of a group of people who would be classed as "the servants of Saul", just as Jeroboam was a member of a group of people classed as "the servants of Solomon, just as Martha was a member of a group classed as the sisters of Lazarus, or just as Eliezer was a member of a group classed as the sons of Aaron. James is a member of a group classed as the brothers of the lord.

Declaring that "David is not a member of a group" goes back to your hokey baseball club inappropriateness. It has nothing to do with grammar.

(And the Greek isn't useful when it doesn't turn out like Greek: the "j" should be a final sigma, so just use an "s"; and saoul starts with a sigma, not a zeta.)

Omitted the falling over your feet bit.

To peddle your mistake. Will you eventually rewrite grammar to justify yourself?

This is one of those "hands up all you who believe Paul's talking about Jesus here" type interactions. What is more likely to you is a matter of what your conclusions are, so we excise this stuff as well.

And the evidence that Paul knew about these two James? None? Oh, I see. But you like to cover all bases -- no matter how irrelevant they are.

Whatever you believe. You wouldn't know what the case was and can't deal with the grammar complexities.

Except fortunately 1 Cor 9:5. (We have to try to keep you tied to the ground.)

If you look at 1 Cor 9:5, you'll see that Cephas isn't a brother of the lord, so your musing there are inappropriate.


spin

spin

Time ran out while I was editing the previous post. I said:

I needed to add:

If you look at 1 Cor 9:5, you'll see that there is a group referred to as the brothers of the lord, but Cephas isn't one, though Paul tells us in Gal that James is. The use of the definite article is not in any sense strange. I can refer for example to John Lennon as the Beatle, or Michael Jordan as the Chicago Bull, just as various people are similarly referred to with the definite article in biblical verses I've cited.


spin