sschlichter

I actually have no idea what I meant by object, but I have already clarified my point. A servant is the subject in servant of Saul. The 'brothers of the Lord' is the subject in your interpretation. this makes james the brother of the Lord a strange reference.

The fact is that if Paul wanted to indicate that James was the brother of Jesus, the text you see is exactly the way he would do it. If he wanted to indicate he was a member of a group, he had other , better options.

this is what is ironic in this ridiculous assumption. you are pointing out what would be grammatically necessary for Paul to equivocate Jesus with the Lord and then making up wild ass reasons for him to do so. So far, they are more difficult and stretch the imagination and reason worse than if Paul beleived Jesus to be the Lord.

I am in stage #1 in my discussion with you, not in my understanding of why your assumptions are incorrect.

spin

Your "no idea" clarifies your point well.

Referring to David the servant of Saul...
That, as is, makes no sense.

Look at 1 Sam 29:3:

david o doulos saoul

iakwbov o adelfov tou kuriou

[name] relation [name/noun]

Why isn't "James the brother of the lord" a direct grammatical analogy with "David the servant of Saul"?

What do I do with these assertions? (We have no rubbish bin icon.)

Auto-irony!

Did you really want to say that?

I point out two distinct uses of the Greek kurios as already seen in Ps 110. I put aside the titular use and started to go through some of the examples of the absolute use, when you jumped me over your assertion that 1 Cor 9:1b must refer to Jesus. You then tried the sorry christian apologetic based on Php 2:6, which I corrected for you, so you abandoned that and introduced Gal 1:19 with your a priori notion that it kurios must refer to Jesus. (So far you have so far failed dismally to demonstrate your claim.) I would have got to Gal 1:19 in due process, but I was back with 1 Cor. The fact that you have a commitment here is transparent. What isn't transparent is why. The issue is not one of faith for you, why must you refuse to think about the issue logically? You are merely clinging to the fallacious idea that a definite article can help you when I've shown you numerous examples to ease you from your error.

I'd like to stretch your imagination a little more.

As you have shown yourself deficifient at the necessary linguistics (remember "no idea" and your lack of analysis of the Greek article), you haven't reached stage one, you're just a stage #1 wannabe!

If you want to respond, please respond to the grammatical issues you have failed to face so far.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

spin.. there is hardly any translation in use that actually translates the 'literal' way you say.

And this question of the implied article was even discussed by Origen.

"no man will venture to contend that any of these (evil spirits, hypocrites, heterodox) say "The Lord Jesus by the Holy Spirit" Origen, Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom (p. 74) - John Joseph O'Meara - 1954

"Deissmann, in his Licht vom Osten, (Light from the Ancient East Or the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco Roman World - Adolph Deissman and Lionel Strachen 1910 p. 353-357) has revealed by linguistic study the exact significance of "Kyrios lesus." The invocation is a direct confession that Jesus is God. Only by grace of the Holy Spirit, says St. Paul, can any man arrive at conviction of that truth. He thus makes the use of the invocation a positive test of Christianity. He does not make the non-user of it a negative test, but St. John would apparently do so, and this accords with other indications of apostolic custom."
The one body and the one spirit a study in the unity of the church - Thomas Alxexander Lacey (1925)

The rest is mostly typical spin. Here I just wanted to respond to the clear and interesting. You are welcome to disagree, spin, but please don't try to handwave, pretending that scholars have not researched this usage closely.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This is one of the stranger, more humorous comments, showing the poverty of skeptic think. No one presents any evidence that James, the Lord's brother is the James that is the brother of the Lord . Apparently spin wants the ossuary with the birth certificate included... a picture by the grassy knoll .. to start ...

shh.. steve .. sensible thinking .. is that allowed ?

Shalom,
Steven

jakejonesiv

Something funny is going on with the first trip to Jerusalem in Galatians. Out of the blue, we read Paul swear an oath about the truthfulness of a most prosaic matter.

Galatians 1
¹⁸ Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.
¹⁹ But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.
²⁰ As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying!

It is all a bit strange. Paul is claiming a "secret" trip to Jerusalem in which he met only two persons, Cephas and James, and then an oath before God that he is not lying. The redactor protests too much! The reader requires the extra assurance of the oath because something new has been added. We have indications from the church fathers that the "first trip" to Jerusalem is a fiction.

The first trip to Jerusalem was not in Marcion's version of Galatians as seen from Tertullian AM 5.3.1 and Irenaeus AH 3.14.3. That means the trip "after 14 years" was the only trip, not the second trip. When quoting Galatians 2:1, neither Tertullian nor Irenaues had "again" as in the current text.

Current text of Galatians 2:1, NAB, "Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem...:
Tertillian, 'he tells us that "after fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem,"' AM 5.3.1.

So the earlier text, before interpolation read,

But when (God), who from my mother's womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. ....interpolation... Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles.

Gal. 2:2 says "I presented to them the gospel." Who are "them?" The "apostles" way back in Gal. 1:17. Now we know why the interpolator made Paul's alleged first visit such a secret, "I did not see any other of the apostles.." (1:19), because the first time the apostles heard Paul's gospel was 14 years later! Thus the interpolator had to add the lying oath to cover what was "brand new" information. The purpose was to subvert the Marcionite doctrine that the gospel was given exclusively to Paul by revelation.

The elimination of Paul's first trip to Jerusalem as an interpolation, also vanishes the reference to "James the brother of the Lord" (1:19) which is often adduced for a human, historical Jesus. It proves nothing. The text is a late 2c. catholic interpolation to oppose Marcion's doctrines.

Jake Jones IV

spin

You're not a stranger to being in this this position. The "the" is clearly not there. All you have to do is look. You should be the first person to complain that someone is not being literal with a translation.

Tacit admission of your last load of bunk.

You were peddling a mixture of bad translation and irrelevance. Nothing new for you, is it? :wave:


spin

Toto

No one presents any evidence that the James who is portrayed as the brother of Jesus in Mark, who appears to think that Jesus is crazy and is not one of his followers, is the same person as the James in Paul, who is a pillar of the church and outranks even Peter. Later Christians made up a story about James' conversion after his vision of Jesus, but there is no early evidence of this.

If Paul wanted to indicate that James was the brother of Jesus, why would he not have said "brother of Jesus" or even "brother of Christ Jesus" or "brother of Jesus Christ?"

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Looks like Adolf Deissmann makes a lot more sense than run-on spin, who simply peddles "bunk, bad, peddle," etc. Better than most of his posts though.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Toto, who ran from his previous "no evidence" comment, tries it again.

First answer this post.
http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=343

Except for the clear evidence that in four first-century accounts there is a James that is recognized as being the brother of Jesus. If that is "no evidence" then what is "not no evidence" ? You turn logic upside down, Toto.

Where is your evidence that the James conversion was made up ? Josephus ? Or are you just concerned about the vision aspect ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

That post asks cryptically "What would you consider more than no evidence ?"

Any evidence is more than no evidence. :huh:

Surely we all realize that there was more than one person named Jacobus or James in Israel. Why should the Galilean James the brother of Jesus, son of a carpenter, be the same person as James the head of the Jerusalem Church? Is there an iota of evidence linking these two James?

It is a logical inference from the fact that the NT does not tie these two James together, and Christians made up lots of explanations for anomalies in the text.

Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus I believe refers to a different Jesus. I think that "called Christ" is a later marginal note copied into the text.

I have no idea what you mean by the "vision aspect."