judge

So close..yet so far.
What a pity it doesnt read...
Quartus the brother...of the lord

Sosthenes the brother....of the lord

Apollos the brother...of the lord

Timothy the brother....of the lord

Then you would really have something.



but not brothers of the lord


Nor brothers of the lord, as we have elsewhere.

Yes yes...you have this part right.

These are clearly different to "brothers of the lord" though (otherwise the same author would have used that wouldn't he?). Although in a friendly forum you'll get people to agree with you, but if you still have aspirations to write peer reviewed papers, you'll need to get better input than you get from your "brothers" (and sisters) here.

judge

If you say so.

yalla

No judge
Paul says so:

"Now this is an allegory ..."
"Now Hagar is Mount Sinai ... "
etc

Metaphor/allegory.

judge

delete

yalla

That is why I said it was interesting.
Cos it ties in with the whole karta saka stuff, the 'of the flesh' stuff.

Paul is talking about a son who is "of the promise" in this verse::
Gal.4.28
"Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise."

See its metaphor, the interest for Paul is in being 'of promise'.

Which he then equates to 'of the spirit':
Gal 5.5
"For through the Spirit, by faith ..." in Christ that is.

and that leads him to what it means to be born 'in the spirit'

Gal 5.17
"For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. "

and he goes into detail as to what 'in the flesh' means here in:
Gal 5.19-21
"Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Not good.
As he points out here:
Gal 6.8
"For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life."
Through faith in Christ Jesus, of course, obviously.

Its all extended metaphor, a dichotomy of opposites, one son of Abe, Isaac, = spirit [in faith in Christ] = lots of goodies [6.28] versus the other son of Abe born from the slave = 'in the flesh" [out of Christ] = lots of nasties [Gal 5.19 ff].

The whole point is to compare faith in Christ =good to no faith = bad.

Its an extended metaphor for a preacher to utilise.
The identities of the persons he appropriates from scripture that predates Paul by lots is irrelevant, he doesn't know them anyway, they are merely literary vehicles for him to exhort his 'brethren/little children' to have the faith Paul preaches.

And it casts light on what he is trying to achieve when he describes JC as been born in the 'likeness of sinful flesh" [ is that in Romans?].

See in Gal 4.4 Paul says:
"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, ... "

Why?
Why 'born of woman and of the law' [just like Hagar's other son but not Isaac] neither of which are 'in the spirit" and cannot lead to righteousness?
So that:
Gal 4.5
"... to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons."
All who are redeemed [and I presume that includes you judge] are 'sons of god'.
Which,of course makes you, judge, a 'brother of the lord' as in lord Jesus Christ cos you have the same father, that is god.
You are James' brother judge!

Metaphorically and spritially via faith of course.
Not really kin at all.














.

aa5874

Gal.4.28 The writer is talking about one who was raised from the dead.

Look at the very FIRST verse of Galatians. The writer established that his Jesus had ALREADY DIED and was in a RESURRECTED state.

Galatians 1:1 - The Pauline writer is CLEARLY writing about the AFTER-LIFE of Jesus NOT before he DIED.

The Pauline writings are a POST-RESURRECTION biography of Jesus similar to Revelation from John.

judge

No Im not a christian.
Just because I think that some of the arguments against chriatian apologists are nonsense doesn't mean I share the same faith as apologists.

spin

Don't be so monomanic, judge.

Now, that's a step forward. You found some cajones and said something definite. There are specially denominated brothers, ie there are people who are beyond Paul's normal use of brother = believer and they are not brothers of the flesh.

Why should you assume any such thing? Is Paul "apostle" (Rom 1:1) a different person from "Paul apostle of the gentiles" (Rom 11:13) or "Paul apostle of Jesus christ"? Next you'll be telling me--when it suits you--that when Paul talks of christ he is talking of someone other than Jesus christ because it behooves you to be argumentative. Then, of course, the lord Jesus christ is another entity again. Obviously, you are just a denialist. You don't like the argument so you deny it for no apparently rational reason -- a fact you will deny.

The post that you were so monomanic about was not a response to you--you note anything of yours cited to indicate it?--but to something spamandham said about brothers (note though, it wasn't addressed to spamandham either, but a general consideration) and to establish the fact that there is a class of people in Paul's religious thought he refers to as "brother" which is beyond the normal brother = believer usage, a fact that you have agreed with. (Perhaps you would now like to retract your rash definitive statement.)

Once a class of people called "brother" (beyond Paul's common usage) can be seen, we may be able to explain what Paul means by "brothers of the lord" in 1 Cor 9:5 and by extension Gal 1:19.

Back to the same drivel that we're used to. You've got nothing to say, no substantive arguments, you ignore anything you have no response to so you don't have to deal with it and you reduce your participation in a discussion to drivel for the same reason whenever you get taken to the point that there is no possible hedging for you. This has been such a frequent occurrence, should I permanently give up trying to communicate with you?


spin

spamandham

He might use the same word of course, but what reason is there for preferring that interpretation, given that Paul uses brother/sister in all other cases in a brothers-in-spirit sense?

Just because it's possible that Paul is using the word 'brother' in this one instance to refer to a kin relationship, does not mean that's the best - or even a good- interpretation.

Mark is a different writer writing a minimum of decades later than Paul. You are retrojecting Mark onto Paul, which is not a valid analytical approach.

Sure, if you think it's common for writers to use a word in one sense dozens of times, and then use it one time in a different sense with no qualification, and where the primary sense fits just fine.

aa5874

That is not true. You too are retrojecting. The author of gMark is not really known. The information from the Church writers about the date of writing and the author of gMark appear to be false.

The information found in gMark could have ALL come from another earlier source.

Likewise the date of the writing of ALL the Epistles cannot be confirmed to be as early as the Church writers claimed when the very Church writers have almost a ZERO track record on credibility with respect to dating and authorship of the NT Canon.

The very Church writers that place the Pauline writings early also claimed gMark was also early and was written since the time of Philo or c 50 CE.

The PAULINE writers wrote about Jesus after he was raised from the dead and the author of gMark wrote about Jesus up to the resurrection.

Chronologically the Pauline resurrected Jesus was AFTER the Synoptic Jesus.

Now, once the Pauline Jesus was a resurrected entity who was the Creator of heaven and earth, then Galatians 1.19 is completely irrelevant for historical purposes.