judge

We cant assume the meaning of the greek word for brother any more than we can assume the meaning of the english word. What if paul wanted to say literal brother? He would have to use that word, wouldn't he?

Lets have look at the immediate context in Galatians chapter 1(as an example )

1.Eight times Paul uses theos for god.These instances are in red

2.In verse 3 Paul refers to Jesus as lord. This marked in green

3.Then in verse 19 (again in green) Paul tells us of the lord.

How can we possibly think he means god in verse 19?

1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me,
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be glory for ever and ever
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24And they praised God because of me.

Galatians chapter 1 (as an example), Theos means god and kurios means Jesus. in verse 3.
So if we find kurios again in verse 19...then...........?

spin

Wake up, wake up, you sleepy head,
Come on, get up, get out of bed.

Have you ever tried to fathom the phrase "the non-titular κυριος"? Obviously not. What is the difference between the two uses of κυριος in "the lord says to my lord" (in LXX Ps 110:1)? The first is non-titular, the second is titular. The non-titular is a substitute for a name. The titular is for a description of a person. This is a simple distinction that exists in the religious tradition that Paul and the early gospels belonged to. "The lord Jesus said" features the titular usage. "The lord said" is non-titular.


spin

spamandham

Yes, but just because it's possible that 'brother of the lord' means 'blood brother of Jesus', does not mean that's the best understanding in light of the universal way Paul uses familial terms to refer to fellow believers.

Whether or not 'lord' refers to god vs Jesus is independent of whether 'brother' means 'blood brother' vs. spiritual brother. What is the rationale for preferring a blood relationship in this one case?

yalla

Rationale as in reason?

Hope?
Convenience?
Desire?
Habit?
Desperation?

All of the above?

Rationale as in explanation?

Doug Shaver

I suppose some do believe that.

Solo

A short summary: you claimed above in post #6403480 that Paul uses the non-titular kyrios to refer to Jesus "securely" only in 1 Cor. To which I brought a few examples from letters other than 1 Cor which everyone (I know of) who commented takes as unambiguous reference to Jesus (as the risen one).

You argued that because YHWH was used in the same OT verses with elohyim, "the lord" in 1 Cor 7:22 (For he that is called in the Lord, a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, free, is Christ's servant. )
should be read as reference to "god" and not to "Christ", even though it all but destroys the balance in the poetic paradox that was clearly intended by affecting that the ομοιως compares Lord to Christ instead of the reversal of roles between "freedman" and "slave" when one accepts Christ (the risen Jesus) as the lord.

I said you were arguing my case.

You sent me a "hysterical" smilie. (thank you !)

Now, every intelligent exeget I know of agrees that Paul often uses the non-titular kyrios to refer to Jesus (in the "risen state"- see the taboo on the reference in his flock to acts and deeds of Jesus while alive, 1 Cr 2:2.) I asked you if you knew someone who interpreted the non-titular "lord" in Paul as nearly exclusively refering to god (the father).

You declined to answer in what looked like making virtue out of necessity and invited me to supply the names of exegets who would e.g. read the Rom 10:12 reference of "calling upon the name of the Lord" to be saved as one invoking the psalmist Lord (God), without appropriating the phrase for "Lord Jesus" (Rom 10:9) to whom it relates.

I answered:

And you said:
To which I say, have a great day !

Jiri

spin

Wrongly. Assumptions aren't secure examples.

Obviously the reference was to the LXX.


ομοιως doesn't function in the verse as you seem to think. There is no direct comparison between lord and christ, but between one called to the lord as a slave and being a slave to christ. Christ is the mediator for god. As representative for god similar terminology will be used. You have assumed your conclusion with 1 Cor 7:22.

And you were just as wrong when you first said it as now.

You're welcome.

And you mention these unnamed persons because??

Lord Jesus plainly features a titular use of κυριος. In the same verse (10:9) Paul mentions god, who Paul's readers are asked to believe raised Jesus. V.11, "No-one who believes in him [god] will be put to shame." (Isa 28:16) V.12, the same lord is the lord of all... V.13, "Everyone who calls on the name of the lord shall be saved." (Joel 2:32)

Keep trying. It would be good if the issue could be dealt with plainly. As is, there is far too much pollution of Paul from later ideas pundits are bringing to his thought.


spin

aa5874

It is most futile to continue to argue about the meaning of a greek word when the LORD JESUS was GOD in the Pauline writings.

The LORD Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God, was raised from the dead and was returning to earth for dead believers.

"James the Lord's brother" is completely irrelevant and changes nothing about the resurrected Creator.

What does "James the resurrected Creator's brother" do to the description of the one who was raised from the dead?

ApostateAbe

Before pushing this point, I should have had in mind the general mythicist tendency to believe that the gospels were expressing something drastically different from what Paul expressed, even though the gospels depended on Paul. The hypothesis that the gospels changed the meaning of Galatians 1:19 is unlikely, but it is consistent with the entire unlikely model. The idea that Paul's Jesus was purely mystical is again defeated with ABE and the explanation that Paul merely focused on the mystical element of a human Jesus, for a reason that is easily discerned given Paul's situation among his competition. But, that would be an argument for another thread, not this one, and I concede your point.

judge

Hang on
This convo started because you told me üneqivocally that "blood brother of jesus"was not the right translation. I challenged this.
But now it looks like we are in fact pretty close.