ApostateAbe

If Paul needed to use the word, "brother," to denote a literal kinship, then what word would he use? The pattern of usage has a very significant limit. We don't decide the meaning of a word based exclusively on the way the word is used.

"Why did you throw away my computer?"

"You said it crashed."

"WTF?"

"Every time I have heard you use the word, 'crashed,' it describes something that is completely destroyed from a collision."

When there are more than one meaning of a word in a certain language, then we decide the meaning based primarily on the context. If the context does not resolve the issue, only then should we look at the pattern of usage.

• Paul uses the word in a special sense: brother of the Lord.
• Paul identifies this man as an apostle named James. A man named James was the brother of Jesus according to Matthew, Mark and Josephus.

The meaning is resolved from the context.

I'll repeat this point: if Paul needed to use a word to denote literal kinship, then what word would he use? Answer: he would use the word, "brother."

yalla

And it just got more so.

Abe, your point has already been covered.
By a couple of people.

Check the back pages.

ApostateAbe

I made several points. Has anyone made the point that the pattern of usage is secondary to the context?

judge

Like english he would use the word "brother".

Just like in Galatians chapter 4 when he wrote of the relationship between hagar and her son (for use in a metaphor), he used the word "son".

Doug Shaver

Probably the same one.

We're not claiming that "brother of the lord" is inconsistent with "sibling of Jesus." We're claiming, contrary to what your argument seems to be, that "sibling of Jesus" is not the only plausible meaning.

Paul's pattern could not be clearer. He frequently uses "brother" to mean a relationship other than biological. That is not disputed by anybody -- not even, I'm pretty sure, by you.

From Paul's pattern of usage, then, we may reasonably infer that when he called James "the lord's brother," he did not necessarily mean "Jesus' sibling."

judge

In your analogy you hid the fact that brother has two meanings.
Presumably because the analogy doesn't work when you take that fact into account.
Or maybe you just forgot about that fact?

aa5874

This sums up the futility of the arguments about Galatians 1.19. By using Galatians 1.19 alone it cannot be resolved what "brother" actually means.

If the Pauline writer meant "blood" brother then he would have used the very same Greek word as if he meant "philosophical" brother.

And this was known for the last 1600 years.

So, the simplest way to resolve Galatians 1.19 is to show that it is irrelevant.

What did the Pauline writer say about his Jesus? Who was the Pauline Jesus? Was the Pauline Jesus human after all?

The Pauline Jesus was equal to God, the Creator of heaven and earth and was raised from the dead on the third day. And without the resurrection of Jesus mankind would remain in sin.

There may be TWO meanings for "brother" but ONE Pauline Jesus who was the Creator, EQUAL to God, and was raised from the dead.

1Th 4:16 - The LORD does not NEED an human brother, mother or sister ONLY GOD his FATHER. He is LORD and was before anything was made.

Col 1:17 - The LORD JESUS was EVEN BEFORE his supposed mother.

Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant for the last 1600 years at least.

spin

Doh! That's just plain silly. I think you need devil's advocate lessons.


spin

ApostateAbe

Doug, I am claiming that there is only one plausible usage, a vital rule of exegesis requires it, and I drew an analogy to illustrate the importance of that rule. I am saying that the pattern of usage is only a back-up principle to be used only when the context does not make the meaning sufficiently clear. That is why you don't get a mop when you hear about someone who "exploded with joy."

Toto

Where do you find this "rule?"

Why do you think that the context makes the meaning clear, when you have to call in out of context information from the gospels and Josephus to make your argument?