spin

Remember this, all you infidel, when all the protesting dies down, Steven Avery simply doesn't care what the original biblical text says.


spin

Toto

Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (or via: amazon.co.uk) can be previewed on Google books

I don't see how the quote provided supports Steven Avery's position.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Then New Testament agreements are clearly evidence, as is Josephus.

The first iota of evidence is that they are both listed as the brother of Jesus in the context of Jesus of Nazareth. Much more than an iota.

For which you offer Toto-Evidence.

The problem, Toto, is that you do not understand concepts of evidence. You cannot take your own presumptions about the NT to pretend that it does not "count". And your Josephus theories are the RESULT of your Bible presuppositions only, hand-tailored.

Thus you can attempt to minimize the evidence .. say it is not much evidence to you ... (which makes us wonder why you even care about Paul's comments, a bit perplexing there).

However to handwave "no evidence" shows either that you are lacking in logic or full of presuppositional bias. Yet even if biased, if you worked with simple logic you would rightfully say something like "I don't see that evidence of the NT as conclusive, or even strong". That would be proper and fair dialog. Why is that so difficult for you ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

spin, when you produce the "original biblical text" give a holla. If you are concerned that your unique translation theories are not accepted elsewhere, argue it out in the Journals.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

What is "the quote". What is "Steven Avery's position". You are being a bit vague here.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Not the brother of Jesus, but the brother of the Lord, by someone who has never been shown to use the word "brother" as meaning anything other than "fellow believer."

A bit of projection there?

OK - I don't see your claims of "evidence" from the NT to be worth the pixels they are written in.

If this were something resembling a court of law, the evidence would not be admissible.

Toto

See your post here.

What was your purpose in quoting this?

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.

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.

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.

aChristian

Do you understand that in Greek the verb to be is often implied? (I think you do.) Also with names and titles, the article is sometimes present and sometimes not.

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 damn about textual corruption.


spin