spin

Mark is the name of a text. That text even doesn't reflect the comments Eusebius attributes to Papias about Mark being the interpreter of Peter.

If one can get any meaning out of what you said, the statement would make the conjecture about Origen unnecessary. James was a common name. There are many Jameses in the new testament. That is sufficient for a tradition that a James was a member of the Joseph and Mary family.

I don't expect you to understand the linguistic issue that a writer doesn't use a word (in this case kurios) that has two referents without distinguishing between them. And I guess I can't hope that you'd try to understand the chronological problem of retrojecting ideas from later texts into earlier ones.


spin

spin

You have terminally scrambled the issue in your head, because of your incoherent use of the term "lord".

Paul's term "James the brother of the lord" was written before any gospel was. The significance of Paul's usage of kurios when it isn't being used as a title is the heart of the discussion not something that you can assume.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

I asked for your proposed dates as presumptions behind whatever this theory turns out to be. Why not give them.

Note simply that spin has a theory and he has not yet:

Said whether he agrees that Matthew and Mark refer to James as the brother of Jesus.

If this is yes, explained why Origen even enters the discussion.

Given dates for any of the writings.

Given the basis for his fiat declarations about Paul's view of James as :

Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother.

spin, do you actually see Paul here referring to James as simply one of a band of men called "the Lord's brother". You actually do not see Paul using the declaration here as a way of identifying which James ?

And you see the similar usages in Mark and Matthew and Josephus as simply unrelated to the understanding of Paul ?

I'm making the questions here as simple as possible, and also asking for your proposed dates for Matthew, Mark and Paul which we can compare with Josephus.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Because you are burden shifting yet again.

This is irrelevant to what you were attempting to comment on. Try and get your head around what is being talked about.

You need to understand the discussion before your ask irrelevant questions.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Remember, this is spins theory of Origen origin. He is the one who brought it up as a way to minimize Paul's reference to Jesus == kurios.

Typical spin, no cogent theory, no dates, no nuttin. Paul's text stands with a simple and clear reading and understanding, one that stands on its own and fits perfectly with Matthew, Mark and even Josephus.

Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother.

Jesus is the Lord, of whom James is the Lord's brother. spin has another theory, which is his right, and he wants you to accept .. something .. but he absolutely refuses to make it understandable, to explain his comments, to give dates, etc.

The irony is that apparently the skeptics like this type of theory built only on confusion over obfuscation. You learn a lot watching this forum. That is one reason I like reading and posting, you see the utter poverty of the competing anti-NT theories. Including theories that would e.g. try to attack the NT identification of Jesus == kurios.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

sschlichter

yes, his claim appears to be that the use of the Lord is ambiguous and Paul never equates Jesus with the Lord of the LXX.

the premise is based on the fact that these two references (Gal 1:19, 1 Cor 9:5) are the only places that jesus appears to be equivocated with the Lord.

To fall in with this claim, you need to swallow the following pills:

1) ignore the awkwardness in Gal 1:19 of referring to james as The only member of that group.

2) ignore the equivocation of Jesus with the Lord in the epistles.

3) ignore all other forms of assigning divinity to Jesus by Paul .

4) ignore both uses of the Lord and assignment of divinity in other NT books or optionally assume with spin that all NT references to james and Jesus are based on Paul without evidence to that effect.

5) ignore the evidence (biblical and otherwise) for the existence of a James, the brother of jesus.

6) take spin's word that there is a group called brothers of the Lord even though there is NOT one peice of evidence for it's existence.

I am still on step 1. Once you have been lulled to sleep on all these issues and convinced that the theory is based on modern NT analysis then I think you are then supposed to come to the conclusion that the phenomena is proof of later interpolation.

spin

Actually, you never let me get to the meat of the issue, so it's not strange the stuff that follows shows you didn't.



This is shown to be rubbish of your own inventing.

Assuming your conclusion.

If this Pauline "divinity" of Jesus were true, what does that have to do with the way Paul uses the term kurios?

It's more complicated than this of course. There is no sign in the nt that anyone considered the particular James in Gal 1:19 as being a brother of Jesus. You have failed to show any evidence for the notion. All you do is follow christian apologetic.

Rubbish.

I have merely suggested an alternative for the benefit of those who will not do their job properly, but who need to be weaned of apologetic analyses.

I wouldn't have said so. To me you are at the pre-stage of needing some linguistics background before you continue to make your generalizations based on fuck all.

You have ducked and weaved on justifying your dismal attempts at talking about the language. You dropped some crap about "an object", asked about it, you give silence. You made a claim about articles and I showed that it was baseless given analogies with the use of articles in other situations, such as with servant, guard, and sister. All you give is silence on the issue. I understand. You've got nothing to say. But that doesn't mean that you will not stop babbling on.

As you are self-claimed only at stage #1 of your scale, aren't you simply clueless about what happens after that?? And your prophetic abilities are unlikely to earn you any money.


spin

spin

Where exactly does Paul use kurios for Jesus when it isn't a title and what makes you think from what Paul says that it refers to Jesus?

(As I indicated earlier I know of such uses of kurios, and I haven't been able to establish that the brother of the lord constitutes one, though I've seen lots of the usual apologetics as to why it must.)


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

1 Corinthians 9:5
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife,
as well as other apostles,
and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Such evaluations can be in the eye of the beholder, so I will allow you to take this further, I was simply curious as to what was the whole purpose of the Origen convolutions.

On verses I consider this one one of the most significant. Also 1 Timothy 3:16 in the Received Text.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand,
that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:
and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord,
but by the Holy Ghost.

When you have the discussions with the JW about their NT translation decisions (placing in the Tetragram) there are about some verses that they especially do not do the substitution, and this is one. Here are some others.

Philippians 2:9-11
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,
and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

John 20:28 -
And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.

Acts 7:59-60
While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed,
"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Then he fell on his knees and cried out,
"Lord, do not hold this sin against them."
When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Hebrews 1:8-10
But unto the Son he saith,
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, even thy God,
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth;
and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Not to say that spin is taking the JW view, I share these just to share some significant verses where they held back from Kurios == LORD == Tetragram == Jehovah.

Understood. I was just trying to see if he actually had a theory he would express and how he fast-forwarded past Matthew and Mark (and Josephus) to Origen. The rest is irrelevant to me, although you may want to try to work his ideas into a tangible theory.

btw .. I personally consider "the LXX" as not significant in this discussion.

Thanks for the feedback.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

This is the problem with using a bad translation.

The text that your translation has as "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord" says, oudeis dunatai eipein kurion ihsoun -- and that's TR. Yup, no article, no verb to be, just "no man can say lord Jesus".

But then you should understand the problem with the translation.

Umm, look at the Greek. It's the same basic problem. Bum translation. "...confess for lord Jesus Christ..." [exomologhshtai oti kurios ihsous xhristos] (If one used the KJV text as it is, it would be titular anyway.)

Anachronism. You can't show when the text was written. This isn't Paul. Besides, "my lord" is titular.

More titular usage. Sorry. But then, the issue is about Paul, not Acts.

Umm, Paul? Remember? We are trying to understand his use of language. And, just so you know, when you address someone as "lord" you are acknowledging their titular position.

I do wish you would concentrate.


spin