judge

You cant show that mark wrote decades after Paul. You can make a guess that he did, but you need to realise that it is just an educated guess.

You can't beas certain as you wsih to be about this.


Have youpersonally checked every reference to paul refering to a brother?

judge

One important point you hide here is that brother means "blood brother". That is a meaning of the word!
So you compare apples with oranges.


I explained myself before (ironic how you dont read, and then project that on to me....and then project the projection )

I told you(in this very thread) I play devils advocate with you. What else do you get here?
Dolts who fall over themselves to agree with you?
Are you just seeking praise and affirmation, or to have your ideas tested?

As I keep mentioning you have said you have aspirations to write a peer reviewed paper in this area...surely then you want some feedback?

spamandham

Ok, so maybe Paul meant blood brother this one time, and maybe Mark sat at the same table as Paul as they wrote together. Maybe Pete is right and Eusebius invented all of early Christian history, but I don't see how any of these maybe's factor into the best understanding of 'brother' as Paul uses it in this instance.

Yes.

There is only 1 time that Paul uses a variant of brother to refer to something other than a spiritual brother, which is Romans 9:3. Note that he clarifies what he is talking about in that instance:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race,

There is also an instance in which Paul refers to the lord's brothers, where it is not meant in a blood sense, 1 Corinthians 9:5:

Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?

Look, I've asked you several times to justify your position, and you keep coming back with "yah well maybe that's what he meant, and what else would you expect him to say if that is what he meant".

If you don't have an actual argument, I don't see any point in continuing.

judge

Ummm...how do you know that this isn't referring to blood brothers of Jesus?

I told you the way it seemed to read, to me, and why.
I dont really care which way it reads.

Being a former christian, I have an interest in the topic and an interest in whether there is a reasonable alternative to the traditional reading.

Its amusing that once one leaves religion one is , in some quarters, expected to subscribe to all sorts of nonsense just because it runs counter to the religious view.
But leaving religion, involves, IMHO thinking for oneself, not blindly accepting views which just happen to run couter to religious views.
The fact is I dont think we can justify reading it the way you want to.
Hopefully that's ok?

spamandham

Good lord. *My rationale* is the only thing you and I have been discussing together in this thread. Must I really repeat the argument again? I can't see how that's a productive use of my time. It's ok if you don't want to justify your reading with anything of substance. We're both wasting our time.

spin

For some reason you fabricate things. What have I hidden exactly and where is your evidence? I've made statements in this thread such as 'Paul consistently uses "brother" to mean a fellow believer, so there is no obvious reason to think that he is not doing the same here.' You falsely claim that I am hiding something, yet here I am simply arguing for a specific meaning used by Paul, a meaning you seem unable to contradict or accept, so the specious accusation is your "way out".

When one is attempting to play devil's advocate, surely they know a little about what they are trying to advocate. If I wanted this level of naysaying, I could just as easily go to theology web.

Your fudge of claiming to play the devil's advocate doesn't change the basic complaint.

Can you see any of these dolts here, judge? Can you point them out? Or are you just talking though your hat? What was that you mumbled?

Given your lackluster performance in this thread (etc), which of these do you honestly think you are capable of providing??

In which area was that again, judge?

And surely you have a better understanding of the notion of feedback than what you have been doing here.


spin

judge

Well your rationale that galatians 1:19 is not about a kin relationship is based on the fect that paul never uses brother elsewhere to denote kin.

So...are you really going to say the same about the use in 1 Corinthians.

Isnt that circular reasoning?

spin

For judge's benefit,

the usage of "brother" (singular) in Paul:

Rom 14:10, 13, 15, 21, 16:23, 1 Cor 1:1, 5:11, 6:6, 7:12, 15, 8:11, 13, 16:12, 2 Cor 1:1, 2:13, 8:18, 22, 12:18, Gal 1:19, Phil 2:25, 1 Thes 3:2, 4:6.

As you couldn't find them yourself, feel free to check them out from this list. Can you find any comfort in Paul's use of "brother"?


spin

spamandham

...and if we include plural uses, as well as references to sisters, the list is nearly 100.

yalla

This has become ridiculous.