show_no_mercy

Posting this again for sschlichter's benefit.

So when does Paul say that Jesus is "god"? Does Paul not know that the "lord" in the LXX is simply a circumvention of saying YHWH?

No Robots

Certainly, Paul wanted to assert the primacy of his own mystical revelation over the fleshly connection that the family and disciples had with Christ. And, in a sense, Paul was right: His revelation was in many ways better than their understanding. But Paul did not deny the existence of these fleshly connections to Christ, even if he did want to downplay their importance.

spin

So far we haven't found that Paul acknowledged the existence of these fleshly connections of Jesus, so of course you can't expect him to deny what apparently isn't there. All we have are people turning "brothers of the lord" into "brothers of Jesus" based on material extraneous to Paul. He doesn't, as one would expect, call these brothers "brothers of Jesus (Christ)", the obvious transparent means available. I think you are guilty of anachronistic clouding of Paul's text.


spin

No Robots

Paul frequently uses "the Lord" for "(Jesus) Christ".

So, you deny that Christ had siblings? Do you also then affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary? Do you think of her as Theotokis?

spin

Are you saying this without having read post #420 of this thread and its distinction between titular and absolute, ie the difference between uses of kurios in LXX Ps 110:1, "the lord said to my lord"? (the second being titular.)

I think Paul never uses the absolute form of kurios for Jesus. There are about three interpolations where some later scribe who believes as you do had no qualms in using kurios for Jesus.

Mark and Matt later say he did.

Waxing contentless.


spin

Amaleq13

And that is why it is odd that he would choose to describe James in such a fashion.

His readers wouldn't have known who Paul was talking about if he referred to him as the James who was a "pillar" in Jerusalem?

As a choice by Paul, it is bizarre.

sschlichter

willful ignorance!

(Rom 1:3) concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh,
(Rom 3:25) God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

(Rom 8:3) For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

(1 Cor 15:3) For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received - that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
(1 Cor 15:4) and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,(1 Cor 15:5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(1 Cor 15:6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
(1 Cor 15:7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
(1 Cor 15:8) Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.

sschlichter

not if the other James was also a pillar in Jerusalem.

Minimalist

Because, in legal terms, they are self-serving documents.

No Robots

Interested parties will find a detailed discussion in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, by Larry W. Hurtado. I will quote one passage:

There is further indication of the routinized Christological use of “Lord” among Jewish Christian circles of the earliest years in Paul’s references to “ the brothers of the Lord” (1 Cor. 9:5, hoi adelphoi tou kyriou) and to James, “the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19, ton adelphon tou kyriou). In both cases Paul seems to be deliberately referring to these figures in formulaic expressions by which they were honorifically designated in their own circles.—p. 111, n. 77