judge

Yes its so clear, paul should have mentioned DNA
Well at least someone here has sense of humour.

spin

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

If you didn't want to talk about the stuff you talked about, why did you?


spin

spin

Sounds like a western (as in cowboys and indians) type response.

But to answer the question, given all the crapping on about κατα σαρκα, Paul probably would have said αδελφος κατα σαρκα, "brother in the flesh", wouldn't he?


spin

judge

Wow what an amazing coincidence. You know what paul probably would have said....(based on?)
And (super) conveniently it just happens that this would fit with your theory.

Wow....it must be true

spin

You are probably confused by "The lord says to my lord" (ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου) as well.

The lord Jesus christ: this is a titular use of κυριος. It doesn't substitute a name. It gives his position, just as "my lord" does in Ps 110:1.

Note that in Gal 1:19, κυριος is a substitute for a name, just as "the lord" is in Ps 110:1.

When you make things too simple, you usually get them wrong, as in this case.

Conspiracy theories? And don't talk about cherry-picking: you're just projecting.


spin

spin

Gosh, you are so unable to talk about BC&H, aren't you?


spin

judge

Wow! Amazing! This fits with your theory as well!
You come up with convoluted over complicated theory full of rationalisations and improbable explanations and this makes your theory even better.

maryhelena

Yes, in the context of the whole NT storyline, Paul could be saying that Jesus of Nazareth had a blood brother. The whole *storyline*. It is that storyline that has to be historically verified before one can take any specific element out of it and make a claim for its individual historicity.

If one views that storyline as a pseudo-history of early Christianity, which I do, then three options present themselves in regard to Galations 1:19.

1. It’s just a part of the gospel storyline, a follow on storyline.
2. It has no connection to the gospel storyline.
3. It has relevance to an earlier historical group that preceded Paul.

Note: 1 and 3 are not the same thing, they are not synonymous. No.1 is pseudo-history. No.3 is history. Confusion caused by Paul? Probably, after all the gospel storyline has been given a veneer of historicity. With the result that the actual history of the relevant time period has been submerged under the pseudo-history. (in other words, history and its prophetic interpretation ). Thus, a possible double meaning from Paul. The gospel storyline plus its foundational historical core.

Logically, the early proto-christian groupings prior to Paul, if, as I believe they did, revolved around a historical inspirational figure - then a blood brother, or brothers, would be a natural circumstance.

Even, for the sake of argument, one wants to go with some mythicists that want to maintain that Paul knew nothing re the gospel storyline, one is still left with Paul’s own admission that something was going on prior to his time, some proto-christian movement. To assume that this earlier movement did not look to a historical, inspirational figure is, surely, to assume too much.

Thats my take on things - for what its worth...

spin

Ya don't expect to understand when you refuse to read, do ya?


spin

dog-on

Why isn't the fact that this verse is contested, from teh moment that this epistle is mentioned in the historical record, relevant to the question posed by the OP?