Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 11:27 AM

"Son of God" means nothing. It's not a special title and implies no divinity.

aa5874 · 05-05-2012, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

"Son of God" means nothing. It's not a special title and implies no divinity.

Well, then Galatians 1.19 means NOTHING.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 02:29 PM

why? Galatians 1:19 doesn't mention God.

aa5874 · 05-05-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

why? Galatians 1:19 doesn't mention God.

What??? Galatians 1.19 mentions the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God unless Galatians 1.19 means Nothing.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 03:32 PM

"Son of God" doesn't imply divinity, AA, not in the cultural/religious context from which Paul was speaking.

spin · 05-05-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Spin, you seem to be interpreting the term "brothers of the Lord" as meaning "God's special group of brothers within a religious community", instead of "God's brothers". Correct? Please clarify before I answer much further.

Just think of the modern terms "sister of mercy" or "brother of the cross" or ancient ones like "son of perdition" or "son of thunder". Thunder doesn't have children. Crosses don't have brothers. These ideas are qualifiers rather than simple genitives.

Good examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

As far as having a biological component to the spiritual use of 'brothers', I agree that one isn't necessary, but it would not at all be unusual, and I wonder how you might interpret the following?:

Quote:

Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

This seems to me to quite clearly show that Paul saw the obvious connection of sons of God being brothers to each other as well as to God's own firstborn Son BECAUSE God is the father! The biological metaphor seems to be validated in this verse.

Once the term brother has currency within the community to indicate members, how do you indicate members with prestige? We know that later in the organized religion you had bishops and deacons.

How about 'deacons' and 'bishops'?

That's what people with prestige in the community were called in the later times of the organized religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Geez.. You completely ignored the argument 'Brothers of the Lord' would be a very strange designation for Paul to not comment on because of the spiritual relationship he saw ALL believers having to God and to each other--they were brothers to each other not just because they were fellow believers, but because they were all adopted sons of their father God.

You're back to the metaphorical biology again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

In any case I will now re-examine your comments in light of just the simple idea of brothers as representing the idea of fellow members with something in common, such as my be used by a fraternity or a racial group. I don't think your comments will change much in my thinking because I find it difficult to interpret "brothers of the Lord" while ignoring the meaning of the word "OF" as you are doing. You are implying no relationship between the brothers and the Lord in doing so. How odd that would be! 'Brothers IN the Lord' works, but not OF the Lord.

The "fellow believers" would reference each other by saying "my brother", or "my brethren", or "our brother", etc.. as Paul does. How would the brothers of the Lord reference each other? "My fellow brother of the Lord?" "My Lord's brother"? How awkward is that?

Try "brother". If they have equal prestige they don't need qualifiers, do they?

They don't have equal prestige with all 'brothers'! That's your point. Try again.

Your question was "How would the brothers of the Lord reference each other?" and I answered that. Outside that situation, you saw how Paul handled it in Gal 1:19.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

And why would the phrase "brothers of the Lord" be chosen in the first place if it did not imply a relationship between those chosen and the Lord--as equals, as brothers are? What does it mean spin? It can't mean 'brothers belonging to the Lord' like "fraternity's brothers" might mean "brothers belonging to a fraternity" because ALL fellow believers belong to the Lord. It makes no sense at all.

You're not trying.

What does it mean spin? What is the prestige that excludes Cephas and the apostles?

In their case it was apparently a different role. You know, some people stay there and shepherd the sheep while others go out and gather more. You may recall I likened the brothers of the lord to bishops and deacons of organized religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Your Origen explanation would seem to fail--would Cephas and the apostles not be 'virtuous' enough to receive the title?

See above.

aa5874 · 05-05-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

"Son of God" doesn't imply divinity, AA, not in the cultural/religious context from which Paul was speaking.

Your statement is absurd.

Son of God implies Divinity in Galatians unless you don't know what Son of God means.

The Galatians writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being and that Jesus was the Son of God. See Galatians 1.1 and 4.4.

It is most astonishing that you will DENY that Galatians is about a Divine character when the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God's Son.

And again, Galatians 1.19 does NOT imply the truth or historical accuracy.

Galatians 1.19 MEANS NOTHING since it is NOT corroborated.

spin · 05-05-2012, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Kyrios was also a normal word for "master" or (small l) "lord," and , in point iof fact, Paul never says that Jesus is God, nor does he say anybody esle is a "brother" of God.

The non-titular κυριος, however, is not "master" et al., but god in the Jewish diaspora culture of the time of Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Paul's designation of James as "the brother of the Lord," is not a construction he uses for anyone else and is not a relationship he implies for anyone else and is not similar to his congregational use of the word.

His plural use in 1 Cor 9:5 contradicts this view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It is specious at best to claim that the congregational use is his "normal" use of the word (then what is his "normal" word to imply a literal brother?),...

By overlooking Paul's general use of the term throughout his letters you might come to such a conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...and that it should therefore be read that way in every instance,...

One works on common usage. Paul sets the common usage in his works. To argue against that common usage you need more than what appeals to you in a specific case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...even when a literal reading makes far more sense...

(...when you don't consider Paul's usage of the term...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...and (here's the thing) has no reason to be doubted unless one has an a priori disposition against the possibility that Paul thinks Jesus was a real person.

This is just conjecture given the lack of linguistic evidence provided thus far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Declaring that Gal. 1:19 must be non-literal...

The onus is on anyone who wants to argue that Paul doesn't mean what he normally means by αδελφος to show it. All you are doing is trying to shift your burden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...(contrary to how any normal Greek reader would have taken that) is simply circular, ad hoc wishful thinking without some better evidence than "Paul calls other congregants 'bretheren.'"

One gets the idea that for lack of argument one just inserts a grab bag of automated complaints.

People who Paul proselytized would have known what he meant by his terms, having accepted and learnt his religion from him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...he doesn't call anybody else the brother of the Lord,...

Again missing the plural in 1 Cor 9:5. Yes, Paul refers to other people as brothers of the lord. Subtract James from the reference and there is at least one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...the brother if Jesus or the brother of God. That's not a designation that Paul (who thought quite a lot of of his own importance) even gives to himself in any of his introductions. He calls himself an "apostle" and a "servant" of Christ, but never a "brother."

I'm not saying this means it should be therefore taken as a certainty that Paul thought James was a literal blood sibling of Jesus, but more work needs to be done than has been done to show that it's completely unreasonable or impossible. I'm sure as hell not convinced, and I have no dog in the fight.

This should mean that any arguments based on interpretations should have no impact on you. Yet you with certainly assert, "Paul's congregational uses of adelphos/adelphoi cannot be used to inform Gal. 1:19." It seems as though you hold two contradictory views.

Can the biological use of αδελφος, which doesn't reflect Paul's common usage, be used to inform Gal. 1:19?

thief of fire · 05-05-2012, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

One works on common usage. Paul sets the common usage in his works. To argue against that common usage you need more than what appeals to you in a specific case.

Words have meanings and we should respect that. These are not "works" of Paul's but letters.

outhouse · 05-05-2012, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

didnt he have a very sloppy form of greek anyway??

Not Paul. Mark did.

you might want to check your sources

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2012, 11:27 AM	#161
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	"Son of God" means nothing. It's not a special title and implies no divinity.

05-05-2012, 02:29 PM	#163
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	why? Galatians 1:19 doesn't mention God.

05-05-2012, 03:32 PM	#165
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	"Son of God" doesn't imply divinity, AA, not in the cultural/religious context from which Paul was speaking.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.