Diogenes the Cynic

Why would he think he had to? Who does that in normal speech? It is common even in modern English now to use "brothers" and "sisters" figuratively in a variety of contexts (not just religiously, but also in social contexts like "Lodge brothers" or "Sorority sisters"), yet those people still refer to their literal siblings without qualifiers. Paul's reference in Cor. 1:19 is a plainly normal, non figurative construction and context.
As I said already, the Apocalypse of James is a 3rd century work which assumes the aieparthenos and which therefore has to explain why Jesus had a brother. That apologetic, in itself, proves that people thought Jesus had a literal brother.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are dated by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century so what you claim is IRRELEVANT.

The Pauline writings and the Apocalypse of James may have been written around the same time period.

You have been BASKING in your PRESUMPTIONS too long.

Please, show that the Galatians 1.19 was written before c 70 CE and James the Apostle was a real person.

There is NO credible sources of antiquity that mentioned an Apostle called James and letters attempting to place Paul before c 70 CE are forgeries.

You are ABUSING your PRESUMPTIONS of James and Paul since you regard them as history.

If you are NOT prepared to show that James the Apostle was a real person then what is the point in posting???

We already know people PRESUME all sorts of things WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

Your Presumptions are NOTHING new. That is what you have been doing for years.

Mandelbrot

No, that is giving an interpretation. The text says brother of the lord. Jews replaced the tetragrammaton with adonai (lord) so all the text is saying is James the brother of Yahweh. Where Jesus comes from is nothing more than wishful thinking.

If it really meant the brother of Jesus, it would say that as it does in Josephus but there it referred to Jesus son of Damneus.

Diogenes the Cynic

Paul calls Jesus "Lord" constantly, and does not identify Jesus as God. He also never says anybody else is a "brother" of God. He calls fellow believers brothers of each other, and brothers "in Christ," but not of Christ. He twice refers to "the Lord's brother[s]," and both times distinguishes them from the Apostles.

aa5874

One does NOT resolve Galatians 1.19 by linguistics.

The matter has been resolved.

Jesus was the Son of God in Galatians.

Why do you continue to mis-represent the Galatians writer??

Apologetic sources that use Galatians 1.19 ALSO claim Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and the Son of God WITHOUT a human father. The Gospels claim Jesus was the Son of a God and the Son of a Ghost.

The Galatians writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being.

Please, tell us WHEN Galatians WAS written???

Please tell us how you can establish the veracity and historical accuracy of Galatians???

Your PRESUMPTIONS about Galatians are WORTHLESS and cannot be accepted by those who challenge the historical accuracy of the Pauline writer.

You MUST establish and provide Credible sources of antiquity, NOT Acts of the Apostles and the Seneca/Paul letters, as corroboration for Galatians.

Please, the days of PRESUMPTIONS about Paul are done. You have been BASKING in your PRESUMPTIONS for far too long.

Diogenes the Cynic

For the umpteenth time, "son of God" does not mean anything supernatural in Jewish vernacular.

spin

Oh my. Stop oversimplifying. When "lord" is a title it is used for Jesus "constantly". When it is not a title, such as in the quotes from the LXX it is a name substitute that refers to god. In Gal 1:19 it certainly isn't the usual titular use found with Jesus.

Except of course those believers of status mentioned in 1 Cor 9:5 who could marry.

And rather tellingly he calls no-one at all "brothers of Jesus".

And both times regard people of status within the believing community.

tanya

"Jewish vernacular" ???
what is that?

Hebrew?

Syriac?

How about "God" ??? Is that a reference to the supernatural, or "in Jewish vernacular" does "God" mean someone human?

I think you err. I deny that YHWH is "natural". For me, and for several billion other humans, YHWH and Zeus are just two figments of human imagination.

aa5874

For the umpteenth time your claim is completely erroneous. People here understand what Son of God means.

Jesus Christ is ISOLATED by NT authors and Specifically Identified as the Son of God and NEVER claimed to have a human father.

Apologetic sources that used the Pauline writings ALSO claimed Jesus was the Son of God WITHOUT a human father.

You cannot show that Son of God could NOT mean precisely what it says so you are wasting your time.

And further, you cannot show at all that the Lord's brother means the Lord is human.

And again, please show that the Pauline writings were COMPOSED before c 70 CE and that Pauline writings are historically reliable???

You very well know that if the Pauline writings were composed in the 2nd century then Galatians 1.19 is WORTHLESS.

ALL presumptions about Paul and the Pauline writings are REJECTED and are NO longer acceptable.

HJers have been BASKING in their PRESUMPTIONS and Imagination for far too long.

Diogenes the Cynic

Odd that the Cephas and John weren't awarded that honor, and that neither Paul or the Gospels makes any mention of this elite group