Originally Posted by sschlichter

I beleive it is analogous as long as it is referring to james, who is jesus brother. When you claim that 'brother of the Lord' is a name of a group, it is no longer a direct grammatical analogy.


These are analagous:

David, the servant of the Lord. David is the slave who belongs to the Lord.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

James, the brother of the Lord. James is the brother or kinsmen of the Lord.


This is not:

James, the brother of the Lord. This means what? James is the sole member of a club. you cannot separate brothers in this case because it is part of the name of the group.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

this is analagous to James, the book of the month club and makes no sense.

I would expect to see something similar to

Mark 15:43 autos emaqhteuqh tw ihsou - one of the disciples, or a disciple

or even

Matt 2:13 angelos kuriou - an angel of [the] Lord

one of the brothers of the Lord
a brother of the Lord
a member of the brothers of the Lord
but not The brother of the Lord which would be reserved to indicate the Lord's brother.

I am having a hard time beleiving you do not understand this. However, maybe I am just bad at explaining it to you. perhaps Toto can explain why it is awkward since she indicated as much.

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=325

otherwise, I guess we will have to disagree and move on.



actually, I did not insist it was referring to Jesus. I expect that it is.

I also belevie you set aside references that you should not have.

1 cor 6:14 o de qeoj kai ton kurion hgeiren kai hmaj exegerei dia thj dunamewj autou - Now God indeed raised the Lord and he will raise us by his power. The only Lord that was raised was jesus.

Rom 13:14 is referring to jesus ton kurion ihsoun xriston The Lord Jesus Christ

1 Cor 2:8 ton kurion thj doxhj The Lord of glory

1 Cor 2:16 noun kuriou oj sumbibasei auton hmeij de noun xristou
- mind of the Lord (quoting the OT) mind of Christ - same usage. Especially interesting because he is answering the question of who has the mind of The Lord with those who have the mind of Christ.

1 cor 4:5 elqh o kurios the Lord appears. I expect Paul is referring to Jesus in this passage.

1 Cor 7:22, the Lord is equivocated with Christ again.

1 Cor 9:14, o kurioj dietaxen toij to euangelion katangellousin ek tou euangeliou zhn. I do not recall this being commanded by any other Lord than Jesus. Perhaps you know otherwise.

1 Cor 11:23 tou kuriou o kai paredwka umin oti o kurioj ihsouj The Lord and the Lord Jesus both refenced in the same passage. Actually, this iopens up quite a few references to the Lord where ther Lord's supper is obviously referring to this event such as 1 Cor 11:20

1 cor 16:23, of the Lord jesus, 2 cor 13:13, the Lord Jesus, Phil 4:23, grace of the Lord Jesus,

2 tim 4:8, The Lord, his appearing, referring to Jesus



it is very clear that Phil 2 is assigning divinity to Christ.

not abandoned, it is just not necessary. we can discuss the divinity of Christ in Paul after this.

You will have to explain what faith means in this context and in what way it is not an issue for me.

Originally Posted by spin

the examples I gave you??

David the servant of Saul.

In the context it is clear that David cannot be the only person considered to be the slave of Saul. ... "James the brother of the lord." is no different in basic structure from "David the servant of Saul." "[T]he lord" is an entity like "Saul"....., why isn't "David the servant of Saul" analogous?

Originally Posted by spin

Typical deflection. You're position is like shifting sand. Any way the wind blows. You'll bleat about textual corruption, then show that you don't give a (Avery edit) about textual corruption.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That is simply an untruth, a false accusation.

You have your theory about Hort from some vague memories a decade ago, while on the Westcott Hort thread I am trying to teach you the basics. You probably should try to read the material there and learn.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

In fact, using the term "original autographs" and "original Bible texts" is one of the very major blunders that you can find daily in Bible discussions, used for texts and manuscripts that simply are not. The fact that spin can make the same blunder in this thread, and then try to arrogantly bluster around the misuse, is no surprise.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Here we have an example of grammatical atomism, an attempt to look at a twig to bypass the forest.

Simply, the context. If an environment has three Davids, one is the servant, one is the merchant and one is the accountant, and you write "David, the merchant" the purpose is usually going to be as an identifier, which David. It is clear that there might be 100 other merchants, which is irrelevant to this usage.

If I say "Harrison Ford, the silent film actor" that does not mean that he is the only silent film actor, nor does it mean that there is a special group called "The Silent Film Actors" .. the most common usage will be .. simply an identification of which Harrison Ford.

If I say "Harrison Ford, the actor from Raiders of the Lost Ark" I might be identifying which Harrison Ford, or I might be identifying who Harrison Ford is to those who don't recognize the names of recent actors. In fact, the second case is more likely, since few today know Harrison Ford #1. Thus with identical phrasing, you have two different usages.

In Galatians 1:19, if Paul mentions only James, the apostle, it is clear that there can be some ambiguity. Thus we have:

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

This is not a group "the Lord's brothers", nor is it a limitation on how many brothers there are for the Lord, the usage is clearly an identifier. (Not even to give authority, since "apostles" has already done that.) Any other theory has a very high bar of unlikelihood to overcome to even be worth a bunch of bytes.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Originally Posted by spin

You've provided nothing that shows you have even the first principles for dealing with manuscripts. What is obvious is that you have learnt to talk the talk without also learning the walk, so it's all mouth and no action. More talk and no walk. You can crap on about terminology, but all you can do is spew forth a few century old cliches. You've been playing with this crap for a long time apparently without any hobbies, but you've never got any further into it. You won't bite the bullet and actually learn what you need to. I on the other hand have better things to do than stimulate your limpness.

Originally Posted by spin

Why not stick to the examples I gave you??

David the servant of Saul.

In the context it is clear that David cannot be the only person considered to be the slave of Saul. This is the fact that you need to deal with, not manipulating your examples so as to avoid the issue.


Stop making things up.

"James the brother of the lord." is no different in basic structure from "David the servant of Saul." "[T]he lord" is an entity like "Saul".

Don't run away from this, you've been ducking and weaving for far too long. In your thought, why isn't "David the servant of Saul" analogous? Why isn't "Martha the sister of he who died." analogous? What about "Eliezer the son of Aaron" (Num 3:32)? Don't they mean that David is one of Saul's servants? that Martha is one of the dead man's sisters? that Eliezer was one of Aaron's four sons?

Originally Posted by sschlichter this is analagous to James, the book of the month club and makes no sense. I would expect to see something similar to Mark 15:43 autos emaqhteuqh tw ihsou - one of the disciples, or a disciple or even Matt 2:13 angelos kuriou - an angel of [the] Lord one of the brothers of the Lord a brother of the Lord a member of the brothers of the Lord but not The brother of the Lord which would be reserved to indicate the Lord's brother. I am having a hard time beleiving you do not understand this. However, maybe I am just bad at explaining it to you. perhaps Toto can explain why it is awkward since she indicated as much. http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=325 otherwise, I guess we will have to disagree and move on. actually, I did not insist it was referring to Jesus. I expect that it is. I also belevie you set aside references that you should not have. 1 cor 6:14 o de qeoj kai ton kurion hgeiren kai hmaj exegerei dia thj dunamewj autou - Now God indeed raised the Lord and he will raise us by his power. The only Lord that was raised was jesus. Rom 13:14 is referring to jesus ton kurion ihsoun xriston The Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor 2:8 ton kurion thj doxhj The Lord of glory 1 Cor 2:16 noun kuriou oj sumbibasei auton hmeij de noun xristou - mind of the Lord (quoting the OT) mind of Christ - same usage. Especially interesting because he is answering the question of who has the mind of The Lord with those who have the mind of Christ. 1 cor 4:5 elqh o kurios the Lord appears. I expect Paul is referring to Jesus in this passage. 1 Cor 7:22, the Lord is equivocated with Christ again. 1 Cor 9:14, o kurioj dietaxen toij to euangelion katangellousin ek tou euangeliou zhn. I do not recall this being commanded by any other Lord than Jesus. Perhaps you know otherwise. 1 Cor 11:23 tou kuriou o kai paredwka umin oti o kurioj ihsouj The Lord and the Lord Jesus both refenced in the same passage. Actually, this iopens up quite a few references to the Lord where ther Lord's supper is obviously referring to this event such as 1 Cor 11:20 1 cor 16:23, of the Lord jesus, 2 cor 13:13, the Lord Jesus, Phil 4:23, grace of the Lord Jesus, 2 tim 4:8, The Lord, his appearing, referring to Jesus it is very clear that Phil 2 is assigning divinity to Christ. not abandoned, it is just not necessary. we can discuss the divinity of Christ in Paul after this. You will have to explain what faith means in this context and in what way it is not an issue for me.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Steven, either Paul is outright fabricating or this is a post Pauline interpolation since no evidence exists that anyone living in first century Palestine ever heard of any of these stories.