spin

That reference in 1 Cor, ie outside Kilpatrick's insertion, doesn't support an isolated case of the name James as we see with Peter.

This notion isn't quite what Kilpatrick talks about: many words that don't occur in any other 1st century writing. He talks about early christian literature and nothing much else in his comparisons, so "other 1st century writing" does not seem to have been consulted. He was showing the rarity of the language in the passage to question whether the text was penned by Paul. If I understand correctly, he opts for it having been something that Paul used rather than wrote.


spin

TedM

It seems to me that in addition to the two examples provided by Ben, all of the following uses of kurios are referring to Christ, taking the context into account. I'd be curious as to why you apparantly would disagree:

Rom 16:11
10Greet Apelles, the approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus.
11Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the household of Narcissus, who are in the Lord.

1 Cor 6:17
15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
16Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."
17But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

1 Cor 7:22
20Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
21Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.

Eph 5:29 (Young’s Literal)
29for no one ever his own flesh did hate, but doth nourish and cherish it, as also the Lord -- the assembly,
30because members we are of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones;
31`for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh;'
32this secret is great, and I speak in regard to Christ and to the assembly;



It is evidence that the idea that Jesus had a brother named James was fairly early. True, it doesn't tie him to a James who was later a pillar, if that is the point you are making. But it does provide support for a biological interpretation in Galatians.


It provides little support for using the term as in 1 Cor 9:5 and Galatians, because the term is used in a different way--a very ODD way IMO if metaphorical.


That's a good point. Ok, we have both a biological and metaphorical brother relationship to Jesus in Mark. Yet, Mark prefers to use the term 'disciples' instead of brothers. When Mark refers to Jesus' brothers, he means blood brothers.


That's one of my points. The rare use of it by Paul and anyone else suggests to me that it was not commonly used metaphorical term as "brethren" was.

Ok. A name with that meaning is only evidence that such a name existed (did it even exist in Paul's day?). It isn't evidence that people were comfortable with referring to themselves or others as brothers of God. Nor, that they saw this as equivalent to Jesus saying his followers during his lifetime were also his brothers.


Perhaps. It is possible. I just think it is unlikley and we have no evidence for it. The quote in Mark is slight support for the concept that people may have referred to themselves brothers of Christ, but not of God himself, which due to your views on kurios, is the ONLY possibility you are supporting.


I'm not referring to just early circulation. I'm referring to any Christian literature. Christians STILL refer to themselves as brothers, but not as "brothers of the Lord". The silence is significant IMO. I would suggest that the reason it isn't used is because it is an unnatural way to use what is normally a biological term in a metaphorical way.



Thanks. With that mindset there is no room for interpretation of anything that isn't crystal clear by Paul, is there? I see now that the examples of kurios above are probably going to be too vague for your taste, no?


He didn't have to, after making such a biological distinction.



Yeah, perhaps the other two pillars just didn't have what it takes to be called a brother of the Lord. It's possible. Just not likely, to this 'mindreader'.

ted

spin

Putting aside your obviously pliable acceptance of the smoothing hand of apologetics, not one of these do anything for your attempt to change anything. Sorry.

Why must o kurios refer to Jesus in these passages??

It would really have been nice if you had understood my comment before replying. You don't have any evidence in the statement you are trying to use, unless of course if you could show what you assume is correct, ie that James the brother of the lord is the brother of Jesus. And so far you've failed.

Unsupported claptrap. Your reasoning is founded on nothing.

Metaphorical? Oh, you mean referring to believers of some sort as brothers? Well, it's done all over the new testament, so where's your beef? Are any of them biological? Could be of course, but you have no way of knowing.

When Jesus says to those with him in 3:31ff, "here are my mother and brothers", he was plainly not referring to blood relatives.

It's still an argument from silence without any reason to believe what you are saying about the silence.

If you can have sons of thunder, then you can have brothers of the lord. There is no reason for you to assume that the lord in the phrase "brother of the lord" refers to Jesus. But then I guess you'll cop out like Ben, and miss the extreme difficulty of a writer using a term with two distinct meanings without giving you a way of telling what the term means in any given case.

Deep analysis based on long thought and much evidence.

Well, if you want to mystify the text by assuming the absolute meaning of the term "lord" was used by Paul both for god and for Jesus, you can make of it6 anything you like. You don't need evidence in that case.

Jesus puts himself on the level of being a brother. That would mean that he too would be a brother of the lord, wouldn't he?

I am, for if you go for later circulation there is no way of knowing that the state of the tradition was the same as that of the earlier texts.

I'm sure you can see some relevance in this piece of retrojection.

When you don't know how good a view of the time you have in the literature, then silence is rather unhelpful. You won't know what you are trying to talk about because you have insufficient data.

The only thing they are good for is to show how far you are willing to stretch to make your views work.

Great circularity.

There seems to have been different factions within early christianity. Paul notes different gospels. He also notes his conflict with the Jerusalem faction, from which he got nothing. We know a James was a brother of the lord for Paul, we know that there were others. He doesn't clarify. The only way you can clarify it is to assume that he uses o kurios with two separate meanings and you can divine without any evidence what any particular one was. If that isn't mindreading, then you'll have to give it another theatrical name.


spin

Amaleq13

For comparison purposes:

Greet Apelles, the approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus. Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the household of Narcissus, who are in God.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." But the one who joins himself to God is one spirit with Him.

Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in God while a slave, is God's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.

for no one ever his own flesh did hate, but doth nourish and cherish it, as also God -- the assembly, because members we are of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones; `for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh;' this secret is great, and I speak in regard to Christ and to the assembly;

TedM

Sure, those are all possible meanings. Just not likely. At the least, Paul is implying that Jesus was "the Lord", or "God", as you have substituted. More likely, his reference to Christ clarified who "the Lord" was which he had just mentioned.

ted

TedM

It's pretty obvious. At least Amaleq tried to show why it wouldn't 'necessarily' refer to Jesus.


If you are asking that, then you don't have the ability to follow my arguments.


I said "Mark", not "Mark's Jesus". See the difference?


In your world.


Who says? Isn't that an assumptions from you?


It's clear from most of the contexts what the meanings are. No writers are clear 100% of the time. As Ben said, Jesus was referred to as Lord all the time. For some reason you can accept Paul's use or "our Lord" but not "the Lord". Whatever. Your pet theory is based on your ability to read Paul's mind. Don't you get that yet?


No, you don't make of it anything you like. You then look at the likelihood of different interpretations. Something even YOU do, spin. The likelihood that Paul was referring to some metaphorical group is close to zero.


What kind of twisted logic is that? That makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying that if I feel like some kind of member of a brotherhood, I must conclude I'm a brother to God. Ridiculous. In Christianity, God is the Father, and Jesus is the son, not the brother. All believers on earth are brothers. That's it. You are extrapolating in a weird way here.


Bottom line: Paul could be referring to James and some others (in 1 Cor 9) that were known as brothers of God, but there is scant evidence for that concept. Nothing near what I would expect. Mark, who likely is NOT relying on Paul mentions Jesus' brothers, including James. This tradition was early and kept. Much better evidence for what Paul was referencing. It's pretty clear to me, but if you don't see it that way because you refuse to look at the difference between remote possibilities and actual probabilities based on the evidence that does exist--as sketchy as it may be, there is no point in continuing to debate the issue.

ted

spin

More circles.

TedM it's usually difficult to follow your arguments. Your response doesn't show you followed the comments you are not responding to.

The difference was plain. You made no point. Would you care to try again?

I guess you missed the lesson that silence is usually not a good argument for anything.

No, it's about grammar. You are making assumptions about language and I'm trying to show that they are unfounded.

Are James and John literally sons of thunder? Obviously not. Was James literally the brother of the lord?

I don't believe you, if you want to argue for two functional significances for the term. I have argued int he past that the three exemplars in 1 Cor have the appearance of text disruption.

True, but they do attempt to be clear enough to be understood by those they are writing for. This means, consciously, no equally possible significances for the one term.

I think he was wrong and made no coherent attempt to justify his ramble.

Try to understand: "the lord" functions as a direct reference or name, while "our lord" is a descriptive relationship or position.

Rubbish. You are just making a case that descriptive grammar should be taught to everyone.

I thought that's what you've already done. You're convinced without any cues from the text about what o kurios means to Paul.

You don't do that at all. You have no way for an ancient reader to know what most of the Pauline references to o kurios despite the fact that yuor modern bible will often tell you that Paul cites the LXX in certain places and in many of them there is the phrase "the lord". Of course the anient reader had no necessary idea that those passages were citations from the LXX. How could that reader know when Paul used o kurios to refer to YHWH when there are simply no cues to aid knowing?

Ameleq13, a kinder soul than I, has, through simple substitution, led you to the water so that you can see that there is no necessary reason for assuming that o kurios means Jesus in any of the passages you were relying on. So, why do you insist that you can divine when it refers to Jesus and when not?

It's trying to assume that Paul's use of o kurios is coherent.

1900 years of apologetics isn't helpful.

The only thing ridiculous to me is your willingness to say that Paul uses the term o kurios to mean two distinct references without necessarily supplying the cues to distinguish between the usages.

I'll withdraw the comment. It only seems to confuse you.

There is scant evidence for anything else. In fact, in Paul there is no alternative evidence provided.

What you'd expect is built on 1900 years of apologetics.

You cannot assume uniformity of person merely on a name. Jesus rejected his family. The christian heritage has reinstated the family despite the rejection tradition.

Building early tradition from the forms in later tradition is risky business. You can move forward from an earlier tradition to a later one, but when you do't have the earlier one it's merely hazardous to try to go back, as you have little to no references points to check your results.

1900 years of apologetics yet again.

Why won't you contemplate the importance of the linguistic precedent that words don't casually mean different things without any cues.

TedM, all you are saying is that if I don't agree with you I must be wrong.

I don't think there is any point in going further when you aren't prepared to look at the problem without those 1900 years of baggage weighing your thoughts down. It seems you're destined to go on repeating the same unprocessed stuff. It's not easy to leave such weight behind and make untinged analyses. You can see a similar difficulty when thinking of the birth narratives that put the shepherds and the three wise kings in the same picture. Apologetics has woven two discordant stories to make them appear to be one. That's hard to shake off. The brother of the lord necessitating that you see Jesus is harder. It is still apologetics.


spin

Amaleq13

What evidence establishes or supports this probability statement?

Jesus is not mentioned in any of the quotes. Instead, there are references to being a "member of Christ" or being "in Christ". This is not an individual being described but a concept or state of being. And, assuming spin's view, it is this state of being that is being connected to God.

TedM

That's fine with me. If you want to focus on one thing, I might consider it, but I just don't have the enthusiasm for long posts, like I once did.

take care,

ted

TedM

Is not "the Lord's assembly" also "Christ's assembly", according to the writer of Ephesians? Is not "the Lord's slave" also "Christ's slave"? Is not not one who "joins himself to the Lord" also "joined to Christ"? These sound like Christ is a being to me. As such, so is "the Lord". And, therefore Paul uses o kurios to refer to both God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Pertaining to Galatians, it isn't quite the same: The question is whether Paul would also use the term to refer to Jesus. I think I've given you a couple of examples in the past where he does, (Lord's supper, crucified the Lord of glory). I guess spin will not accept those due to his belief that they are interpolated.

ted