Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

..Doug, I am claiming that there is only one plausible usage, a vital rule of exegesis requires it, and I drew an analogy to illustrate the importance of that rule. I am saying that the pattern of usage is only a back-up principle to be used only when the context does not make the meaning sufficiently clear. That is why you don't get a mop when you hear about someone who "exploded with joy."

Where do you find this "rule?"

Why do you think that the context makes the meaning clear, when you have to call in out of context information from the gospels and Josephus to make your argument?

The immediate context is, "James ... of the Lord," and that entire phrase is part of the context of Paul's epistle to the Galatians, which is part of the context of early Christianity.

To find the rule I am talking about, do a search for "rule of context" + bible in Google scholar. Plenty of apologetic sources claim it as a rule, but it is also a rule that we unconsciously apply to understand absolutely anything said or written day to day. You would never use pattern of usage as the primary way to understand the meaning of a word. If you disagree, then give me an example.

Iskander · 06-10-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

.................................................. .................................................. ...........................
the fact that brother has two meanings. ...........................

The Holy Roman Catholic Church says that “lord’s brother” means a relative of Jesus. In Mathew 12:46 and 13:55 and also in gal 1-19, but they say that these blood relatives of Jesus are not his brothers but his cousins.

“His brethren. These were the children of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, sister of our blessed Lady; (Matthew xxviii. 56.; John xix. 25.) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour. (Challoner)”
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id30.html

That brothers and sisters are blood relatives of the man Jesus is obvious in Mat 13: 55 and following:

55 *Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary; and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath he all these things?

Toto · 06-10-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

To find the rule I am talking about, do a search for "rule of context" + bible in Google scholar. Plenty of apologetic sources claim it as a rule, but it is also a rule that we unconsciously apply to understand absolutely anything said or written day to day. You would never use pattern of usage as the primary way to understand the meaning of a word. If you disagree, then give me an example.

I didn't see a non-Christian apologetic source for this so called rule. I know from personal experience here that Christian exegetes tend to make up rules to get the result that they want - you will find Christians who claim that an ancient manuscript must be presumed to be accurate unless there is some evidence against it.

And even if it were a rule, you have expanded the context to include all sorts of material that is not strictly part of the context.

For example, suppose you had an account of a war, and the single phrase "the general exploded." You know from general usage that this is probably an explosion of anger or some other emotion - typical of generals in warfare. But your method would find references to exploding bombs in the rest of the story, call those "context," and decide that the general must have blown himself up.

aa5874 · 06-10-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

To find the rule I am talking about, do a search for "rule of context" + bible in Google scholar. Plenty of apologetic sources claim it as a rule, but it is also a rule that we unconsciously apply to understand absolutely anything said or written day to day. You would never use pattern of usage as the primary way to understand the meaning of a word. If you disagree, then give me an example.

I didn't see a non-Christian apologetic source for this so called rule. I know from personal experience here that Christian exegetes tend to make up rules to get the result that they want - you will find Christians who claim that an ancient manuscript must be presumed to be accurate unless there is some evidence against it.

And even if it were a rule, you have expanded the context to include all sorts of material that is not strictly part of the context.

For example, suppose you had an account of a war, and the single phrase "the general exploded." You know from general usage that this is probably an explosion of anger or some other emotion - typical of generals in warfare. But your method would find references to exploding bombs in the rest of the story, call those "context," and decide that the general must have blown himself up.

And then you find out that the war story was fiction. There were no bombs or general.

What an explosion!

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2010, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

To find the rule I am talking about, do a search for "rule of context" + bible in Google scholar. Plenty of apologetic sources claim it as a rule, but it is also a rule that we unconsciously apply to understand absolutely anything said or written day to day. You would never use pattern of usage as the primary way to understand the meaning of a word. If you disagree, then give me an example.

I didn't see a non-Christian apologetic source for this so called rule. I know from personal experience here that Christian exegetes tend to make up rules to get the result that they want - you will find Christians who claim that an ancient manuscript must be presumed to be accurate unless there is some evidence against it.

And even if it were a rule, you have expanded the context to include all sorts of material that is not strictly part of the context.

For example, suppose you had an account of a war, and the single phrase "the general exploded." You know from general usage that this is probably an explosion of anger or some other emotion - typical of generals in warfare. But your method would find references to exploding bombs in the rest of the story, call those "context," and decide that the general must have blown himself up.

The word is "exploded." The context is "...the general exploded." The larger context is the account of a certain war. The largest context is the various accounts of a certain war and the generals.

The pattern of usage (not the context) is that the word written by the same author typically refers to bombs that scatter shrapnel.
...
The word is "brother." The context is "...the apostles... James, the brother of the Lord." The larger context is Paul's epistle to the Galatians. The largest context is early Christianity and all of the relevant documents.

The pattern of usage (not the context) is that the word written by the same author typically refers to fellow Christians.

Toto · 06-10-2010, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I didn't see a non-Christian apologetic source for this so called rule. I know from personal experience here that Christian exegetes tend to make up rules to get the result that they want - you will find Christians who claim that an ancient manuscript must be presumed to be accurate unless there is some evidence against it.

And even if it were a rule, you have expanded the context to include all sorts of material that is not strictly part of the context.

For example, suppose you had an account of a war, and the single phrase "the general exploded." You know from general usage that this is probably an explosion of anger or some other emotion - typical of generals in warfare. But your method would find references to exploding bombs in the rest of the story, call those "context," and decide that the general must have blown himself up.

The word is "exploded." The context is "...the general exploded." The larger context is the account of a certain war. The largest context is the various accounts of a certain war and the generals.

The pattern of usage (not the context) is that the word written by the same author typically refers to bombs that scatter shrapnel.
...
The word is "brother." The context is "...the apostles... James, the brother of the Lord." The larger context is Paul's epistle to the Galatians. The largest context is early Christianity and all of the relevant documents.

Why do you persist in misusing the idea of "context?"

Quote:

The pattern of usage (not the context) is that the word written by the same author typically refers to fellow Christians.

The pattern of usage in the English language is that when people explode, it is generally a metaphor for an emotional explosion.

But how would you determine in my example that the general chewed out a subordinate rather than blowing himself up?

I think you have just demonstrated that "context" and "pattern of usage" are malleable enough for you to reach any conclusion you want.

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The word is "exploded." The context is "...the general exploded." The larger context is the account of a certain war. The largest context is the various accounts of a certain war and the generals.

The pattern of usage (not the context) is that the word written by the same author typically refers to bombs that scatter shrapnel.
...
The word is "brother." The context is "...the apostles... James, the brother of the Lord." The larger context is Paul's epistle to the Galatians. The largest context is early Christianity and all of the relevant documents.

Why do you persist in misusing the idea of "context?"

Quote:

The pattern of usage (not the context) is that the word written by the same author typically refers to fellow Christians.

The pattern of usage in the English language is that when people explode, it is generally a metaphor for an emotional explosion.

But how would you determine in my example that the general chewed out a subordinate rather than blowing himself up?

I think you have just demonstrated that "context" and "pattern of usage" are malleable enough for you to reach any conclusion you want.

How would I determine in your example that the general chewed out a subordinate rather than blowing himself up? Perhaps because a myth that was common at the time said that he chewed out a subordinate. I hope that argument sounds familiar.

If you take a word's pattern of usage as a certain kind of context, then fine. It is the sort of context that is much less relevant than the sorts of context that much more explicitly and directly clarifies the meaning--the way the word is used in the sentence, the circumstances of the account, the common beliefs, and that sort of thing.

aa5874 · 06-10-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

......For example, suppose you had an account of a war, and the single phrase "the general exploded." You know from general usage that this is probably an explosion of anger or some other emotion - typical of generals in warfare. But your method would find references to exploding bombs in the rest of the story, call those "context," and decide that the general must have blown himself up.

The word is "exploded." The context is "...the general exploded." The larger context is the account of a certain war. The largest context is the various accounts of a certain war and the generals.

The pattern of usage (not the context) is that the word written by the same author typically refers to bombs that scatter shrapnel.

The pattern of usage cannot determine the veracity of the story. Whatever you think "exploded" mean will EXPLODE if the story is non-historical.

Quote:

The word is "brother." The context is "...the apostles... James, the brother of the Lord." The larger context is Paul's epistle to the Galatians. The largest context is early Christianity and all of the relevant documents.

The very same can be applied to Galatians 1.19. It is most likely that the Pauline writings are non-historical with respect to the LORD Jesus.

The Lord Jesus had a mother but was the Creator of everything in heaven and earth and existed BEFORE his mother was even born.

Quote:

The pattern of usage (not the context) is that the word written by the same author typically refers to fellow Christians.

Once James was believed to be the brother of the Lord by Pauline writer then previous "pattern of usage" is irrelevant since the very same Greek word could be used to mean "blood brother".

"Pattern of usage" resolves nothing in Galatians 1.19.

show_no_mercy · 06-10-2010, 01:25 PM

One of the oddities of Paul's letters and his use of "brother" is that he uses "brother of the lord" in 1 Cor and Galatians, yet uses "brother in the lord" in other epistles ("in the lord" is in Philipeans, 2 Thess, Colossians, Ephesians). The two phrases are never used in the same letter.

Why the switch?

I would think that the two phrases were interchangeable. The "brothers of the lord" in 1 Corinthians is the same special group of "brothers in the lord" in Philipians.

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

One of the oddities of Paul's letters and his use of "brother" is that he uses "brother of the lord" in 1 Cor and Galatians, yet uses "brother in the lord" in other epistles ("in the lord" is in Philipeans, 2 Thess, Colossians, Ephesians). The two phrases are never used in the same letter.

Why the switch?

I would think that the two phrases were interchangeable. The "brothers of the lord" in 1 Corinthians is the same special group of "brothers in the lord" in Philipians.

Philippians is an undisputed Pauline epistle, but 2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians are each disputed by critical scholars and probably not written by Paul.

Paul doesn't seem to use the phrase, "brother in the Lord," as far as I can find. Can you tell me specifically what passage in Philippians you are talking about?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-10-2010, 01:25 PM	#239
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	One of the oddities of Paul's letters and his use of "brother" is that he uses "brother of the lord" in 1 Cor and Galatians, yet uses "brother in the lord" in other epistles ("in the lord" is in Philipeans, 2 Thess, Colossians, Ephesians). The two phrases are never used in the same letter. Why the switch? I would think that the two phrases were interchangeable. The "brothers of the lord" in 1 Corinthians is the same special group of "brothers in the lord" in Philipians.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.