aa5874

If brother does NOT mean brother literally (physically) then there is tension between brother and Lord.

And If Lord does NOT mean Lord literally (physically) then there is tension between Lord and brother.

Now, look at "Paul's Lord, the Lord, himself.

1 Thessalonians 4.16 There is tension between brother and Lord.

Lords can be spiritual, too.

Solo

I am good.

You persistently ignore my assumption that the "lord" in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cr 9:5 refers not to Jesus Christ but to God. Paul, in my understanding, did not coin the phrase; he simply used the Greek version of the descriptor for the consecrated saints of the Church of God.

I believe you, Ben. But here we are to decide which of the two meanings describes "brothers of the Lord".

The phrase only occurs once, doesn't it ? So, it's a toss. By the way, do you believe that the oath in Gal 1:20 is genuine Paul or is it an interpolation ?

And if genuine, then did Paul swear he met the big James or did he swear he met a brother of the One of whom he wanted to know nothing prior to crucifixion ?

Hmmmmm.....except this one was a bit too cosmic a Lord, for my money.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

Correct. I ignore assumptions and ask for evidence.

No, it occurs twice, once in the singular and once in the plural.

But I was asking you for clear instances of brother used to mean church dignitaries. If you do not have any, from what ground are you arguing that brother means church dignitaries in our two passages?

Genuine, until shown otherwise.

I think he was swearing that he was not lying about the number of contacts he had had with the Jerusalem leaders.

[QUOTE]

Doubtless because of your assumptions.

Ben.

Solo

What evidence do you have that "brother(s) of the Lord" in Paul referes to kinship with Jesus ? I mean other than later church traditions ?

Well, thank you for that, Ben ! That really changes the argument, doesn't it ?

Ben, you know full well there is nothing that could remotely be called evidence that would establish that Paul was referring to either a church designation or kinship. So, spare me the rhetoric. Circumstantially, it is highly improbable that these were relatives, if Paul knows that they existed, goes to Jerusalem by revelation to tell of his correspondence with their dead family member and somehow ends up meeting with some "so-called" pillars, instead of hooking up with them. Especially, if - as he swore - he met with James, previously. Now, I assume (and you have to pardon me for my recklessness) that everyone in Paul's time knew who the head of the church was.

Now you can set this bit of incogruity side by side with the silence of the Acts on James' blood ties with Jesus, or with a letter in someone who imagines he was James, who describes himself as servant of the Lord Jesus Christ(while he speaks of, and to, regular church members as brethern). Ditto Jude (except he addresses the church as "beloved"). Add to it the later, pious nonsense about James from Eusebius (via Hegesippus), which astounds by its naivete.

So, what historically established evidence is there that Jesus had a band of church-going brothers or cousins ? Something more than the beliefs of the 3rd century church ? Pray, tell !

Jiri

Ben C Smith

I gave it already.

And, oh yes, there are also those later church traditions.

You asked. I answered.

If you do not wish me to answer, then do not ask.

Rhetoric? I thought we were calmly discussing the meaning of brother(s) in two obviously related Pauline passages. I gave you my argument; I am asking for yours.

1. I do not think Paul went to Jerusalem to tell the desposynoi of his correspondence with their dead family member. Paul gives us his reason for going, and that is not it.
2. Meeting the pillars was part of the reason for going, and one of the pillars happens to be distinguished as the brother of the Lord.

I gave you my argument from Paul, and I gave you Acts 1.14. Both precede century III.

Ben.

aa5874

"How do you know "Paul" was not lying?

Please produce your evidence, external of "Paul", he urgently needs an alibi.

Who saw "Paul" with James, the Lord"s brother, in Jerusalem?

Unfortunately, you cannot use "Paul" as an alibi for "Paul". Using the so-called epistles of "Paul" to verify or confirm "Paul" was not lying is a useless exercise.

On the other hand, the words of "Paul" can be used against him to show he was not credible and confused about reality.

Solo

You need to learn to distinguish between argument and evidence. There is no evidence whatever in the points you made. To wit:

Since I am not saying that "brother of the Lord" is a "fellow believer" but of a class of fellow believers, this exploration leads to a blind alley.

The 'however' relates 'brothers' in generic sense which I am not considering. So, it has no meaning for my argument. No issue there.

Correct.

The group ("brothers of the Lord") is not identical to apostles in general. It is not conterminous with believers in general. But is it coterminous with some subgroup other than apostles ? If point 4. is to exclude the possible existence of another subset - which overlapped partially with apostolic function - then logically it is demonstrably false !

"brother" already implies gender, but again this point is only to cement the setting of the false dichotomy of "brother at large" vs "brother as Jesus' kinsman".

so ? :huh:

So, this is the concluding point of your evidence. At the end of your strenuous exercise you are still left with the possibility of a group of believers other than kin who could fit the description. Then you say, that this group would require some "clearer" evidence. Then, on the basis of the false binary of "either kin or all believers" you set up for Paul, you say the literal meaning of kin is the more appropriate one.

That, dear Ben, is poor logic. You admit the possibility of a subgroup to which James belonged. So the question you should be asking is not how Paul describes all believers but how he would describe this putative group. You would like to show conclusively that the phrase itself excludes the existence of such a group but you can't. So you set up a demonstrably unsound argument for eliminating it. That is all I see. Certainly no evidence !


Well, these traditions are not scriptural as far as I can tell. I am not disputing that the NT assigns a family to Jesus, but there is nothing that I have found that says that the family members became church members or functionaries. Are you aware of anything other than your wishful reading of Paul ?

But my point to you, my friend, is that Paul does not speak to the desposynoi (or even of them) which is the strangest thing considering that he preaches a gospel featuring their resurrected relative as the central figure to God's plan, and goes to Jerusalem to make sure he is not wasting his time. Could it be there were no desposynoi in Paul's time ? Could you show us where this term even occurs before Eusebius (his account of Sextus Julius Africanus) ?

So-called pillar ?

Acts 1:14 precedes even the Pentecost.

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson

How many classes were there, what are the names of these classes and the Greek title used for them, and where specifically does Paul speak of them as a class distinct from the class he reputedly calls "brothers of the lord"?

Jeffrey

Solo

I would not go as far as enumerating the classes but 1 Cr 12:28 provides a sort of nomenclature of Paul's own church:

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

"Brothers of the lord" would not be part of this structure, as it likely was a grouping specific to Jerusalem, roughly co-terminous with the designation of "saints". It is to this group that Paul and men ordained by him evidently measured themselves (Rom 1:7 cf. Rom 15:25-26). I am leaning to the view that Paul wanted to be recognized by this group (i.e. accepted as member of the inner circle of the church) which did not happen. To this conclusion I am drawn by the observation that regardless how one interprets Gal 1-2 one cannot deny that after fourteen years of Paul's missionary activity:

1) the Jerusalem church of James was held as (perhaps the final) authority among the Jesus-professing communities in the Diaspora (2:2), and

2) Paul did not have access to the inner circle of the church, i.e. relied on outside reference for choice of interlocutors. (2:6).

It is IMHO improbable that James "reputed to be a pillar" (2:9) references James "the lord's brother" of 1:19 as obviously the former is known to Paul by his his titular descriptor (or kinship ties to Jesus) and as undisputed leader of the church (2:12). Paul would have (and it is my view that he did) respect this James, who evidently led the church and enforced compliance to the rules by church members (2:12). This clashes harshly with the generally deprecating view of those in conference with Paul (2:6,9).

Jiri

Ben C Smith

The point is that we do not need special evidence to take brother in its literal sense.

That is not the purpose of point 4 at all.

Incorrect, when used generically. In a language like Greek, a mixed group of males and females would ordinarily be called by the masculine name. Working backward, this means that we cannot assume all are males just because we find the masculine name used of a group.

It is the same way in many modern languages, such as Spanish. An entire church of men and women can be referred to as los hermanos.

Yes, that is certainly a possibility. Is it a probability?

No, that is not the basis for the argument, as explained above.

Yes, I explicitly admit this as a possibility. But I am driving toward a determination of probability.

Yes! I gave you Acts 1.14, which explicitly says that the mother and brothers of Jesus were part of the early church.

I was using the term to refer to the dominical family; nothing more. I did not mean to imply that the term itself existed at the time.

Yes, it does. And it shows the mother and brothers of Jesus participating in the church. Again, you asked, and I answered.

Ben.