judge

Its circular reasoning to use this to support Galatians 1:19 and then use Galatians 1:19 to support it though. Isn't it?


,

No , you are projecting here. I dont care who he is referring to.


Paul refers to Jesus as Lord elsewhere, so why not here? That's what you need to explain, rather than shifting the burden.
Its you who have your pet theory you keep trotting out here.

See above.

I'm not assuming that galatians 1:19 means anything. I dont care what it means. Im just pointing out the holes in your theory. Deal with it. (Yes I know there are lots around here who fall over them selves to agree with you, but why should I if your ideas dont stand up?)

No, if Paul is writing to communities of believers then we would expect him to use "brother" in the non literal sense quite a lot, when appropriate.

spin

There is no analysis here. Try again.

Chili

To me it is very simple that the missing middle in Mark is not there on purpose because the Perpetual Virgin is perpetual only so that each and every one of her 'children' go to heaven 'by force of nature', and since Matthew and Mark's Jesus went back to Galilee and not to heaven means that they were not conceived by the Immaculate Conception but instead by her sister from down 'below' and so was conceived in the conscious mind of Joseph in a dream to make this Joseph a dreamer like I wrote before, much like Macbeth who's lady hath no name but Lady Macbeth for the same reason, while Coriolanus had tree of them called Virgilia (virgin) Valeria (valor) and Volumnia (wisdom or Elizabeth in Luke) that may now be his trioka called..

So now we are talking about a different Joseph in Matthew and Luke because Matthew's Jesus goes to hell and Luke's Jesus goes to heaven, if you allow me to equate extended purgation in Galilee as equal to hell on earth as is shown in John 6:58, to say that manna from heaven is like second hand bible passages that will not sustain in the purification process wherefore then also Paul was absend for 3 years. To note here is that we know Purgatory well with 'lots' of saints in heaven and lots of mansions to show for in the arts and I have argued elsewhere that only Catholic water will do.

The purpose of Mark's spurious anthymeme* is to keep 'purgatory alive' since that is where the lamb of God is nourished by the wolf so that a formard movement is maintained towards Calvary where the final battle takes place and for which the Church (intuition) is needed and the Romans (reason) too, and I write this only to give cause for Matthew and Luke to be part of the four Gospels to provide both the material cause and efficient cause for the difference between heaven and hell on earth.

It is obvious then that this cannot be openly declared in its foreword nor in the manner of rebirth and to bypass the "Immaculate conception" pivilege in Matthew and Mark they used 'outside language' that relies on our 'faith in God' to 'hide' this truth wheren then Mark's Jesus was a brother of Jesus because he was conceived in the conscious mind long before it's own time and so was from his mother's womb untimely ripped.

*Spurious enthymeme is without its source of origination is probe-able (by seniors) and thus not fact or necessary signs, and thus equal to a lie now on purpose to hide the different Mary who here was the temple of Gen.3:15, where two serpents 'strike' of which one is "the woman" [of the TOL]' who will not get banned from Eden but is at enmity with '"the [lesser] serpent of the TOK who was banned from Eden and who strikes at our heel," and here now in particular 'whispered' the dream of Matthew to get born again by carnal desire as explained in Jn.1:13, simply because she does not know any better and the other Mary never received the genuine "Annunciation from Above" to do it herself. In evidence here is that when Jesus died 'it' remained dark in the absense of the other women who always were the source of Light for Joseph to start with.

Chili

Brothers of Jesus are Jesuits of Nazarites by nature an thus unlike Matthew's Jesus, and Jesus was Lord after resurrection as were many others like him, including Paul.

judge

If you go back and address post #6 here which you ignored I'll consider deeper analysis, if it seems worthwhile.
Post #41 too if you wish.

sschlichter

I think you are aware that I am referring to intellectual honesty and not a personal statement. People are usually unaware of their presuppostional baggage and I have found you to be no exception but as long as you pretend to have your feelings hurt, I will apologize.

There are 4 references in Mark to Mary.

1) Mary whose son is the carpenter
2) Mary the mother of James and Joseph
3) Mary Magdalene

the relationship between Jesus and James (adelphos) is direct and has no dependancies.

there is no justification for all your speculation. there is never a confusion or inconsistency as to how each Mary is referred to. The scope of adelphos is cleared up instantly by the author who refuses to allow any sensible person to see the mother of James and Joses as the mother of Jesus.

~Steve

spin

You confuse circular reasoning with philological analysis. Paul's use of the term "brother" is one you have already agreed on. There are no contextual clues in 1 Cor 9:5 or Gal 1:19 to go beyond that.

If this were true, you'd have nothing to say. But look at this:

Asked and answered. It's not my problem that you refuse to interact with my "pet theory".

You're a man of subtle self-irony.

And no, I don't think I need to explain it any further. It is sufficient for me to say that the common interpretation of the verse is not meaningfully supportable from the text. The question is aimed at helping those who want to shoehorn that meaning into the text to contemplate the linguistic issues of doing so.

It may be my pet theory, but you have no meaningful response other than to duck and weave and ignore its implications.

What have you said above that is relevant to the distinction made in the restatement of my "pet theory"?

Although I have failed to find an instance of you actively arguing for a reading of Jesus as the resolution to "lord" in Gal 1:19, it doesn't allow you to squirm out of the fact that you hold a view here that you try to hide.

I'm asking for a little glastnost and perestrojka from you, rather than your perennial trying to maintain the backdoor open.

For some reason you babble this bullshit about "lots around here who fall over themselves" from time to time. Please justify your repetition of it here.

So how can one derive the meaning of "James the brother/sibling of Jesus" from Gal 1:19 given Paul's common usage of brother and there is nothing to suggest a physical relationship implied from the context?

spin

Do you think that you have somehow justified your imputation of dishonesty here?

You are not responding to the argument presented to you. You have simply sidestepped the evidence and appealed to "any sensible person". Of course, no true Scotsman would fall for such sophistry.

spin

As I said, There is no analysis here. Try again.

There is not any whiff of light to show that you have considered the analysis based on the implications of "Mary, mother of James and Joses" in Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1.

Hopeful.

judge

So you have no evidence.

But you wont let that stop you believing it anyway.
I genuinely dont care. I might have once when I was a xtian, but now it is quite unimportant.
We all know that fundies will believe things about these texts without any evidence, and that they will defend these views, and insist they are right no matter what.
But isn't that what you do too?
Otherwise why not deal with my question in post #6?




One could derive it from looking to the rest of chapter 1 where Paul, 6 or 8 times, refers to god as theos.
But who knows, you may be right. Problem is when your evidence is so shakey, and you get so dogmatic and defensive you dont seem any different to fundies.