spin

No response necessary, sschlichter.

sschlichter

that is okay, I will just respond to some of the other false claims you made in your last post.

The priest of Baal, is a horrible example and does damage to your argument. the priests of Baal is not a name. It is a collection of priests that belong to Baal. It can be used in a logical sentence even if you do not let us know whose priest it is.

I saw the Priest.

I saw the Priest of Baal.

of course, the brother of The Lord is the same thing when referring to the actual brother of the Lord but not when referring to a group whose name is the brothers of the Lord'.

I met with James, the brother.

I met with James, the brother of the Lord.

if the brothers of the Lord was a title, it would be analogous to the example I gave earlier, that is...

they are the Knights of the round table.

He is a Knight of the round table or one of the Knights of the round table.

not, He is the Knight of the round table.


if there is a group called brothers of the Lord then James is not the brother of the Lord, he is a brother of the Lord.

angelo

Jesus himself said that whoever followed his teachings was a brother and sister. He apparently had little time for his real family.

spin

Doh! "David the servant [o doulos] of Saul" (1 Sam 29:3), "Jeroboam, son of Nebat, the servant [o pais] of Solomon" (2 Chr 13:16) -- like these kings only had one servant each.

sschlichter

the servant is the object. Now pretend the 'servants of Paul' is the name of a baseball team and refer to one of the members in greek or english.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This simple refutation bears repeating.

First Paul calls James "the brother of the Lord" to identify which James.

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

We are told that really that is ambiguous, (it is very clear, 'which James' is being identified, the James that is the Lord's brother) and we should fast-forward to Origen.

So spin does not know his Bible.

The discussion should have simply ended there. The rest in helpful for background but simply extra.

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son?
is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James,
and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,
the brother of James,
and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at him.

(spin didn't even bother to play the silly redaction game when presented with the scriptures he had bypassed .. spin could also try another common style attempt "Matthew and Mark wrote this to match Paul" .. both would be the skeptics in wonderland)

sschlichter showed additional harmonies of understanding, but they are not necessary for the principle ponit.

Origin was simply referencing a multi-confirmed identification, Gospels, Paul, Josephus.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:" (Josephus Antiquities Book 20: chapter 9)

The fact that spin has strainedly attacks the Josephus reference is not even relevant, the whole theory of Origen origin is mishegas. Why bother ? Doesn't really matter, spin wants to build some complex theory on this, maybe many, about kurious and Lord and who knows what else, so all you have is GIGO.

At this point the proper thing to do would be to flop down the whole Origen origin nonsense. Yet once a skeptic comes up an oddball, weird theory, why let refutation references get in the way.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

The "object", you say!? Do explain yourself.

sschichter, the servant of Paul, known for his extended fumblings of the ball, dropped another slam from the Watcher of the Skies, Judd "Knickerbockers" Fenton in the last innings on Sunday at the Fruit Bowl. The servant of Paul, also known for his spread-eagle poses after missing his catches won the Klutz of the Match award. After the match Knickerbockers said, "I wish the whole team had the talent of sschlichter." Watchers won 27 - 19.

I just love to follow those tangents. This is a third generation tangent now.


spin

Toto

It is simplistic, not simple. It assumes a unity of the New Testament, and ignores internal conflicts. Do we have any reason to think that the gospels are literal history? Or if they are and Jesus had a brother named James, that this same James is identified as a non-believer in the gospels, as a pillar of the church in Paul, and then in Josephus and Hegesippus, after several decades, has somehow morphed into a Jewish priest?

You reject all of modern NT analysis, which is your right, but if you are going to persuade anyone else, you need to at least try to engage with it rather than just asserting that your ideas are correct and everyone else is [insert your favorite dismissive adjective here.]

sschlichter

While you did a bang up job describing a servant that belongs to Paul, it is a very awkward way to describe a member of the team and you demonstrated this very well.

Only you would find the actual meaning of the 5 words in question in Gal 1:19 as tangential to the issue of the what those same 5 words mean.

unfortunately, what really was is not determined by the stubborn.

sschlichter

I am curious what this is referring to. Please beleive me when I say I am not being argumentative. I actually want to know what NT analysis you are referring to (assuming you are referring to the conversation at hand).

I have seen ethereal speculation of a group called 'brothers of the Lord'. There is no such group mentioned anywhere and no evidence presented as to why it should be considered besides bad grammar.

evidence for the person of james has been presented from other NT books. I understand not accepting them as proof of the existence of james but I have seen no reason to beleive that the brothers of Jesus in Matt, Mark were pulled out of Paul. Was such analysis presented? I see no reason to beleive that the meeting in Acts was pulled out of Paul. No evidence has been presented to this point, has it? just assumptions.

evidence for the person of james was presented from Josephus, which I understand has modern scholarly acceptance. Josephus does not mention the brothers of the Lord, that is certainly not disputed by anyone.

How is it that the group was well known enough to be used as a moniker to readers of Paul in two separate cities, yet Josephus only saw fit to mention james, the brother of Jesus, not james the member of the group, brothers of the Lord or the brothers of the Lord at all.

I understand considering that the earlier writing influenced the later one. lets' consider it, but not assume it. There is more evidence for a James, brother of Jesus than there is for a group called brothers of the Lord.

~Steve