Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-07-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Reading "the brother of the lord" in Gal 1:19 doesn't allow us to assume that it refers to Jesus.

Ok

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We are dissuaded from doing so

Well you might be . :devil1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

because it is a non-titular kurios, which Paul clearly uses for god

Actually Paul uses Theos for god 8 times in just the first chapter of galatians.
Why did you ignore this?

Strange, when you ignore so much, that you accuse others of doing so. As I said to you earlier in this thread,

Paul has no problem using both θεος and the non-titular κυριος for god. One expects that he does it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

and which is seen referring to Jesus in at least one instance as an interpolation.

Possibly

Check out the diplomatic footnote to 1 Cor 11:29 in the NRSV, "Other ancient authorities read the Lord's body." The "lord" has been removed from the text because the editors could not justify including it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We only think

We only think, or you only think?

Perhaps you could suggest why, based on Paul's text alone, you would think otherwise. Then you will probably admit that it's not from Paul alone, but later literature as well. You cannot derive the reading you want from Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

about the "James the brother of the lord" referring to James the brother of Jesus because of later literature, literature which may have started with this reference in Paul and rationalized it, based on the later notion that Jesus could be refered to with the non-titular kurios.

If Paul meant god then he woyuld have used theos as he does 8 times in just the first chapter of galatians and again throughout.
Why are you hiding this fact?

Why don't you read what I say rather than ignoring so much and then making complaints like this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul seems to be saying that James is a brother of god.

No because if paul menat god he woyuld have used the word he uses for god in the surrounding verses.
Eight times in just the first chapter. Why do you keep hiding this fact?

If you'd read what was said to you in the first place it would save you a lot of grief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

In fact paul shows that he probably in all likelihood does not mean god by using kurios instead of theos.

How do you account for the fact that both the non-titular κυριος and θεος are freely used in the LXX for god, yet you want Paul to use these words differently when not dealing with the LXX? When Paul cites LXX passages with the non-titular κυριος does he mean god or Jesus? Hopefully, you will say "god, obviously". When in 1 Cor 14:21 Paul adds to an LXX quote, "says the lord", does he mean god or Jesus? Hopefully, you will say "god, obviously".

When in 1 Cor 2:16 Paul quotes Isa 40:13, "for who has known the mind of the lord so as to instruct him?", he then adds, "But we have the mind of christ." Are we to believe that "the mind of the lord" and "the mind of christ" are the same thing in Paul's thought? Or are we to see that although "we" don't have "the mind of the lord", "we" have the next best thing, christ's mind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

All you are doing is cherry picking data, hiding the facts that show your theory to be nonsense.

You're back to talking fluent rubbish in this case because you've cherry-picked what you read. Wipe the egg off your face.

spin

spamandham · 06-07-2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Before pushing this point, I should have had in mind the general mythicist tendency to believe that the gospels were expressing something drastically different from what Paul expressed, even though the gospels depended on Paul. The hypothesis that the gospels changed the meaning of Galatians 1:19 is unlikely...

To conclude it's unlikely, I think you first must make assumptions about the intents of the authors. What are those assumptions, and what is the basis for making them?

spamandham · 06-07-2010, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

This convo started because you told me üneqivocally that "blood brother of jesus"was not the right translation. I challenged this.
But now it looks like we are in fact pretty close.

Well, it *isn't* the right translation. That doesn't mean it's unequivocally impossible that Paul meant 'blood brother of jesus', it's just that this is an unlikely meaning given the context of the rest of Paul.

spin · 06-07-2010, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Then again, maybe Paul was trying to confuse his readers rather than communicate.

1.In verse 3 he uses kurios to refer to Jesus.

2. No less than eight times he refers to god a theos in the first chapter!

3.Then Spin would have us believe that in verse 19 he suddenly starts using kurios to refer to god even though he has only just used it to refer to Jesus!

maybe Paul was just trying to confuse rather than communicate.

1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God (theos) the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me,
3Grace and peace to you from God(theos) our Father and the Lord(kurios) Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God(theos) and Father, 5to whom be glory for ever and ever
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God(theos)? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God(theos) and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God(theos), who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord(kurios)'s brother. 20I assure you before God(theos) that what I am writing you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24And they praised God(theos) because of me.

This is basically a cut and paste of the same erroneous thought I responded to earlier, a response you for some reason did not respond to.

In short you are confusing the titular and non-titular uses of κυριος, which a Jew like Paul would not do. (Ps 110:1, remember??)

But while we are here, look at this passage (1 Cor 10:14-22):

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?

The contrast between sacrifices to god and sacrifices to demons are made in v.20 along with the contrast between the cup of the lord and the cup of demons in v.21. The parallelism should make clear that we are dealing with the same referent each time with first "god", then "the lord". To underline this, the following verse talks of provoking the lord to jealousy (similar to anger, see the parallelism in Rom 10:19*) and while one frequently finds references to provoking god, one doesn't find the idea of provoking Jesus. The lord in the passage I quote is god. Paul is using the non-titular κυριος for god and it is in concert with θεος.

(Interesting to note that christ is the sacrifice on the table of the lord.)

spin

(*Rom 10:19b, "I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, by a nation void of understanding will I anger you.")

judge · 06-07-2010, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

All you are doing is cherry picking data, hiding the facts that show your theory to be nonsense.

You're back to talking fluent rubbish in this case because you've cherry-picked what you read.

spin

What we see here is again that whilst you post in a friendly forum you will act as if you really believe what you say.
For years we watched you with the same hyperbole go on and on about nazareth. Then came the announcement that you were so confident about it it you would put in a peer reviewed paper.
But what happened? When it came to taking your ideas which you were so bold about, into the real world, you lose your nerve.
Its the same case here. You carry on you cherry pick data, when challenged you resort to insult.

You've already blown your cover, by all the nazareth stuff. Its too late. We know as a matter of history that you will carry on acting confidently, all the while knowing in your heart that your ideas wont stand up were you to take them out of a friendly atmosphere.
What are you left with? having to grandstand with half interested people here. All the while wondering when the world will discover your genius. When you say stuff like the following

"When are people going to admit that the non-titular use of κυριος for Jesus is a later development in the christian tradition?"

Yes..when will the world realise the genius that you are. When will all those stubborn fools see things your way? :devil1:

And so all the while you search around for something, anything to help you, whilst ignoring the immediate context.

spin · 06-08-2010, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're back to talking fluent rubbish in this case because you've cherry-picked what you read.

spin

What we see here is again that whilst you post in a friendly forum you will act as if you really believe what you say.
For years we watched you with the same hyperbole go on and on about nazareth. Then came the announcement that you were so confident about it it you would put in a peer reviewed paper.
But what happened? When it came to taking your ideas which you were so bold about, into the real world, you lose your nerve.
Its the same case here. You carry on you cherry pick data, when challenged you resort to insult.

You've already blown your cover, by all the nazareth stuff. Its too late. We know as a matter of history that you will carry on acting confidently, all the while knowing in your heart that your ideas wont stand up were you to take them out of a friendly atmosphere.
What are you left with? having to grandstand with half interested people here. All the while wondering when the world will discover your genius. When you say stuff like the following

"When are people going to admit that the non-titular use of κυριος for Jesus is a later development in the christian tradition?"

Yes..when will the world realise the genius that you are. When will all those stubborn fools see things your way? :devil1:

And so all the while you search around for something, anything to help you, whilst ignoring the immediate context.

For chrissake, judge, if you aren't going to deal with anything, can you do so in a more concise manner?

spin

judge · 06-08-2010, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For chrissake, judge, if you aren't going to deal with anything, can you do so in a more concise manner?

spin

I could, and I may, but seriously, have you noticed that you get left getting yourself in a tizz, arguing with me on these things?
Dont you wonder why you dont attract more discussion? (the lord knows you are very familiar with the subject and have excellent knowledge and skills)

Im just not that interested in doing it. I see lots of weaknesses with lots that you say, but dont really see the point of bringing these things up with you.

If you had some humour about you, I might be a bit more inclined to discuss. Or even a hint of open-mindedness.

I basically play devils advocate with you, testing your ideas. Thankfully I am past caring about whether we can prove or disprove some of these things.

But I do have some interest in it all so will make comments, but I dont feel any obligation to reply to anything when it so easily can descend into insults.
I really do have more fulfilling things to do.

spamandham · 06-08-2010, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But I do have some interest in it all so will make comments, but I dont feel any obligation to reply to anything when it so easily can descend into insults.
I really do have more fulfilling things to do.

Could one of those more fulfilling things to do involve explaining why you think "blood brother of Jesus" is the better understanding, given that of the dozens of times Paul uses variants of 'brother', this would be the only time he used it to actually refer to a blood family member?

judge · 06-08-2010, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But I do have some interest in it all so will make comments, but I dont feel any obligation to reply to anything when it so easily can descend into insults.
I really do have more fulfilling things to do.

Could one of those more fulfilling things to do involve explaining why you think "blood brother of Jesus" is the better understanding, given that of the dozens of times Paul uses variants of 'brother', this would be the only time he used it to actually refer to a blood family member?

Q.So...if paul wanted to refer to a blood brother, what word would he use?

A. He would use the word he used in galatians 1:19

With this in mind and given the immediate context and its use of theos and kurios. And then, as a secondary consideration we have mark chapter 6 and various other sources telling us that jesus had a brother named james.

The convoluted conspiracy theories dont seem as strong to me. In fact they seem darn weak.

Was paul trying to confuse his readers? Referring to Jesus as lord (kurios) and then just after wards talking about the lord (kurios) having a brother, with no explanation?

The simplest explantion is that paul (like all our other early sources) thought Jesus had a blood brother named James.

Otherwise we are left with complicated conspiracy theories and cherry picking data.

yalla · 06-08-2010, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Q.So...if paul wanted to refer to a blood brother, what word would he use?

How about..."blood brother"?
Or ..... "the blood brother of the lord Christ Jesus"?
Or ....."the blood brother of the lord Christ Jesus who shares most of the same DNA"?

Now how hard was that?

That Paul did not do any variation of the above shows that Gal 1.19 is to be taken as all the other kin references in Galatians and other Pauline epistles.
That is, as not denoting kin.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.