judge

How do you know? Have you checked all the instances yourself?

yalla

Well here are all I could find in Galatians [I may have missed some].

1.1 Jesus Christ and God the Father
1.2 and all the brethren
1.4. our God and Father;
1.14 the traditions of my fathers.
1.19 except James the Lord's brother.
2.4 false brethren

2.20 live by faith in the Son of God

3.7 it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
3.16 And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one

3.26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God

3.29 then you are Abraham's offspring,
4.4 God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
4:7 So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.
4.12 Brethren,

4.19 My little children

4.23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh,

4.26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother

4.31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman
5.11 brethren
6.18 brethren


What do you reckon?

judge

Thanks
The original claim was WRT to all of Pauls writings, though.


I would imagine that spamandham would be interested in all of Pauls writings rather than just galatians.

What about you? Do you think we can just look at Galatians to settle the matter or should we look to all of pauls writings?

I'd be happy to use either as long as there is no "shifting of goal posts."

judge

Hmm..so have you checked all these references yourself?

In all the pauline epsitles?

yalla

Are you hand waving judge?
Are you shifting the goal posts?

Aren't you able to make a start and tell us which of these are real fair dinkum bona fide actual kin familial terms?

Or do you want to give it a miss?

judge

You are the one who shifted the goal posts.
First you claimed this applied to all pauline epistles, now you only want to discuss galatians.

Which goalposts would you like to use?

Galatians 4:23 denotes a blood relationship so even your argument about kin relationships in galatians fails on at least that one point.
Im not sure any of the other verses do though except of course 1:19, which is up for grabs

yalla

Interesting that you should ignore the 20 odd as select one of the few I bolded deliberately.

Look at the rest of that section, which I drew your attention to but did not give all cos it was repetitive.
Now we'll have a look at it all.


For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.


But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.


Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.


Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.


Note that it is an allegory.
That the second not born of the flesh [?], is Jerusalem "and she is our mother"

Jerusalem is a city judge, not a person.


Still think its about family and kin?

spin

On the subject of brothers, take a look at these:

Rom 16:23 Quartus the brother.
1 Cor 1:1 Sosthenes the brother.
1 Cor 16:12 Apollos the brother.
2 Cor 1:1 Timothy the brother.

This last is unjustifiably translated as "Timothy our brother", but there is no "our" in the text. It would be the equivalent of "the brother our" (see 1 Thes 3:2, which features the form in Greek), but all we have here is "the brother". (1 Cor 16:12 is similarly not represented properly in translations.)

These are all specially noted as "brothers" and thus obviously not a brother in the flesh. This use of "brother" gives the individual so nominated some specific status. They are something other than the normal brothers in the faith, so frequently mentioned in Paul. They all have the title of "the brother".

The "brothers of the lord" in 1 Cor 9:5 in a context which expects people of some religious significance, up there along with Cephas and the apostles. (Besides, the family of Jesus doesn't get any place in the stories of the earliest church.)


spin

judge

The reference (to use your own word), is about a kin relationship between hagar and her son.
Hagar was not thought to have had a figurative son but a son from her own womb.

yalla

Doesn't matter what you or I say judge.
Its what Paul says that is important.
And in the case of the children of Abe, who are not contemporary with Paul preceding him, conventionally, by over a thousand years he is using them as he tells us as allegory and metaphor [Jerusalem a city being equated to a person, a mother.
So he takes characters from the Jewish scriptures and attaches special allegorical and metaphorical characteristics to them...child of the flesh and child of the promise [that is an interesting contrast and dichotomy isn't it?].

Its all about allegory/metaphor and relationship to god and Christ Jesus.
Not about kin.

That is what he says.