Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 02-09-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Here James is mentioned as an afterthought.

I met with Cepha (the important one) and I saw no one else, (oh, except James). The "no lie" part is about it being no lie that he saw no one else, not that he saw James.

jakejonesiv · 02-09-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Or the assumption of unity of authorship is incorrect.

Yes, I overlooked that one. Thanks--I agree.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

As I noted earlier in this thread, the Hebrew Scriptures testify to the concept of "the brother of Yahweh" as a religious designation, not as God's literal brother.

Do we have any evidence of how prevelant the name was, or whether it had any connection whatsoever to a group called "the brothers of the Lord" in early Christianity?

1 Corinthians 9:5 mentions such a group, as well as referring to a Christian wife as a sister. This indicates that the sibling designation (brother/sister) denotes a religous connotation, else they were open to the charge of incest. ymmv.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If the point is simply that the 'concept' was something Jews were aware of and could accept, I'll grant you that, so it does allow for the possibility of such a group of people.
ted

You gave my points a fair hearing. That's all I can really ask for, ted. I see where you are coming from.

Thanks for being open minded!

Jake Jones IV

TedM · 02-09-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Here James is mentioned as an afterthought.

I met with Cepha (the important one) and I saw no one else, (oh, except James). The "no lie" part is about it being no lie that he saw no one else, not that he saw James.

I don't agree with you at all. Not only is an exception not an afterthought, there is no indication that Paul viewed Cephas as the 'important one' of the two. It appears to me that you are reading into this based on some pre-conceptions.

TedM · 02-09-2007, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

1 Corinthians 9:5 mentions such a group, as well as referring to a Christian wife as a sister. This indicates that the sibling designation (brother/sister) denotes a religous connotation, else they were open to the charge of incest. ymmv.

If it had said "sisters of the Lord", or simply "brothers" I'd agree with you. Since it doesn't I don't. My question actually was whether the OT name that means "brother of God" or some such is connected to early Christianity. Since this verse doesn't mention that name, it doesn't serve as evidence for such a connection.

Quote:

You gave my points a fair hearing. That's all I can really ask for, ted. I see where you are coming from.

Thanks for being open minded!

I appreciate that Jake. take care,

ted

jjramsey · 02-10-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

1 Cor 7:22: For 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.

One thing I notice in 1 Cor 7:22 is a parallelism between the first and second parts of the passage: "called in the Lord while a slave" is contrasted with "he who was called while free" and "Lord's freedman" with "Christ's slave." The parallelism works cleanly if the only things being contrasted are slavely and freedom. That points to Paul using "Lord" and "Christ" synonymously.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.