maryhelena

My disposition????

spin, if I have misrepresented your position on *brother* in Gal.1:18,19 - then please correct that by clearly stating that you do in fact support a reading of *brother* in that text as being a reference to a biological brother. Easy - put your cards on the table.

There is no need to get on your high horse here and make allegations about my 'disposition'.............:huh:

Ambiguity about your position on *brother* in Gal.1:18,19 - OK - clearly state you position on *brother* in this text.

spin

Without some form of exegesis, you don't understand any text.

To have a refutation, you need to show relevance: when was John written in relation to Galatians? Oh, that's right, you don't know.

tanya

Correct, I do not know.

Neither does anyone else, however. The question is whether or not to accept "Paul's" notion of kurios to identify Jesus as son of YHWH, given that "Paul" uses kurios to describe both YHWH and Jesus. Further, Paul, in this passage of Galatians, apparently describes Jesus ("kurios") as the sibling of James the Just.

Then, if I have understood your repudiation, John can not be cited as evidence equating Jesus to YHWH, i.e. to refute the idea "...that equating the non-titular κυριος to Jesus is against the Jewish usage of the time, ...", because, at that time, Jewish usage of Kurios was reserved exclusively to descirbe YHWH.....

But, you know, perhaps better than anyone else on the forum, from your first hand voyages to Qumran, that the DSS demonstrates use of YHWH in Deuteronomy, NOT the Hebrew equivalent of "kurios", adonai. Then, it is at least possible, that our extant copies of the entire LXX, e.g. Codex Sinaiticus, have been redacted, to conform to 4th century political dictates, which adopt Paul's writings--and their widespread use of "kurios", in place of YHWH, as central dogma.

spin

Ground control to Major tanya, there are two different usages of the word κυριος as ably illustrated by LXX of Ps 110:1, cited in the NT as "the lord said to my lord". There has been a reason I have been talking about the issue for so long.

Again, catch up.

LegionOnomaMoi

They have. That's why we have what's known as the "Socratic problem" and why we Joël concluded after decades of study “…man mag in dieses Problem sich lange Jahre und immer wieder versenken…und kann doch am Ende von Sokrates sagen, was er von sich selber bekannte: wir wissen, daß wir nichts wissen.” As for Homer, it's pretty much accepted we have no idea if there was such a person. The bigger question is whether a single author stands behind either epic, let alone both. Before making blanket statements about historical study, you might want to acquaint yourself with it.

dog-on

Sarcasm fail dude...

LegionOnomaMoi

Like Euripides? Or Josephus? Or any number of classical or hellenistic authors?

jdl

And in two languages at once.

LegionOnomaMoi

How is "theology" relevant? You said "coherent ideology." Paul clearly has problem with how the "ideology" of those who were "disciples before him." And that's just Galations.



As opposed to assuming a coherent ideology when what we have is evidence of diverging ideologies and schisms? Or assuming that Acts was a particular genre, written by someone who had the letters of Paul because of the assumption of this "coherent ideology" ?



Nor is it relevant. The question is independent attestation. So either you deny Q exists, in which case you face an entirely different issue, or it does, and we have independent attestation within the synoptics alone, without including John or Thomas.

That's certainly the position of evangelical scholars who want to deny the importance of extra-canonical sources.

There is, and we can.



A text is either dependent, or not. If there is evidence that it is dependent, then we can argue it is. If there is not, then there is no reason to. All your argument consists of is conjecture based on false assumptions.


That's ridiculous, and this would be the only place in the entirety of historical study in which this holds. Sources written by different authors are independent unless we have good reason to believe that they are not. Any given account of a person, event, institution, etc., will share features with an account of the same. To assume that this necessitates dependence unless proven otherwise is ridiculous.

spin

Ironic, isn't it, with all our piss and wind about the start of christianity.