dogsgod

The confusion comes from what is stated in bold. When read in context, a literal blood relation applied to brother of the Lord contradicts what Paul states about receiving his information directly from Jesus Christ. If James was a literal brother of Jesus, one would expect Paul to press James for information. When brother of the Lord is pulled from Galatians and quoted out of context, confusion arises.



1 Galatians 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[a] 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[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

spin

Someone did interpolate του κυριου into 1 Cor 11:29, didn't they? Did that show that the interpolator understood the passage??

I appreciate your feigned neutrality and have paid due lip-service to it.

It's been good fun to watch you try to squirm out of what you know you can't do (and that is deal with the linguistic issue I have challenged you over a few times now).

It's also fun watching you try to force a position onto me from "As things stand the only reason that "James the brother of the lord" is believed to be the brother of Jesus is that writers and interpreters have confused the usage of the non-titular "lord" shifting it onto Jesus." Just out of curiosity, what position do you want me to hold over the meaning of the phrase "James the brother of the lord" derived from the statement of mine you have quoted??

Do you play the flute as well?

I know, I know, you "couldn't care which is true."


spin

judge

Please stop the sleight of hand. ;-)
We are looking at Galatians 1:19. Galatians 1:19 is the verse you referred to in the OP. Galatians 1:19 is what I am calling you on.
It is Galatians 1:19 where you claimed someone got confused.
Please deal with it.


I dont care which one you hold. All I am interested in is whether you have evidence to support your assertion regarding Galatians 1:19.





Yes I dont care. You do care, meaning you have an emotional attatchment to it all. Isnt that true? You have an obsession about whether or not we can know that Jesus was an historical person.
And you are making claims about galatians 1:19 which you cant support, in order to show that religious fundamentalists have misused it.
Again, all you can say is that maybe they did.

spin

Lovely irony.

No, I don't have to deal with it. It is sufficient that the interpretation I've commented on is not demonstrable from the verse. (You've made it clear you're not interested in how this interpretation seems to have happened. This clarity comes from your avoidance of dealing with the material I presented to you.)

No, you're not.

Why did you say anything at all if you don't care? Oh, you do care, but you don't want to deal with it. You just try this half-assed buck passing:
Now did that feel cathartic?

What claims do you claim am I making about Gal 1:19 itself that I can't support?

As people like ApostateAbe have made commitments to the verse that are not based on evidence, they are obviously misusing it, because they cannot derive the meaning they want from it.

Your issue is elsewhere.


spin

judge

As things stand the only reason that "James the brother of the lord" is believed to be the brother of Jesus is that writers and interpreters have confused the usage of the non-titular "lord" shifting it onto Jesus

spin

?

What claims do you claim am I making about Gal 1:19 itself that I can't support?


spin

judge

The only argument you have made is that reading Galatians 1:19 as being about Jesus is not demonstrable from the verse.

What you cant demonstrate is the there is only one reason that "James the brother of the Lord" is believed to be Jesus.
And so here we are at post #146 and you are still avoiding demonstrating your claim.
You want to divert the discussion to Josephus to Corinthians, to anything but your own claim.
All you can end up saying is that..."Lord can be ambiguous, maybe , perhaps, paul meant something other than 'brother of Jesus'"
But as it stands you yourself are even willing to propose a clear alternate reading!

All we have so far is something like the following.

Spin: Maybe Paul didnt mean Jesus. this word can be ambiguous.

Person2: Ok what did he mean to write?

Spin: Um...I dont know.

As it is possible that Paul did mean Jesus, and as you arent able to provide a clear alternative (that you will argue for), we are still left with just one option (which may or may not be right).
Er..unless..maybe..perhaps...you are willing to provide an alternate reading...?

spin

Good, we have cleared that up. We are not talking about the verse itself directly, but certain readers' approach to the verse and what it means.

Would you agree that one cannot derive Jesus from the particular verse on the value of the text itself? If you agree, how does one go about reading Jesus in this verse? If not, why not?

Here we are trying to get you to clarify your actual gripe.

I didn't introduce Josephus into the discussion. And I'm sorry you can't see the relevance of the evidence from 1 Corinthians. Our task is to understand the early readers' reaction to the particular term used in Gal 1:19 and to do so one has to look at the way the term was being used around the time of the early reading of the Gal, for which 1 Cor should be indicative. Hence the task I posed to you about discernment of the significance of non-titular κυριος in 1 Cor 7 as an indication of the problem of deciding what the term meant in any given context.

But how does Jesus enter into the interpretation of the verse?

You are overtly misrepresenting me. I don't say that Paul didn't mean Jesus. I say that there is no reason to think he did. Paul wrote what he wrote. You are confusing the act of reading with the act of writing. The way one reads a text doesn't necessarily reflect the intentions of the writer.

Why do you start with this Jesus interpretation in the first place?? The text says ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. We know for example that Paul uses the non-titular κυριος to refer to god in Rom 4:8, 10:13, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor 2:16, 2 Cor 6:18, 2 Cor 10:17. Why is Gal 1:19 any different?


spin

Chili

He was not an apostle and in fact is the ani-christ by being an imposter of christ as self proclaimed Christian. He'd be a living forgery and preacher of "the other gospel."

judge

You are avoiding Galatians here which is much more relevant, and no help to you if you want to argue for "god" being the correct translation here. In the greek of just the first chapter of Galatians Paul refers to god probably half a dozen times and never uses κυριος.
Which is why you have to avoid looking to galatians to explain galatians.

If you had Paul referring to god as κυριος in the immediate context ,ie galatians, you might have some sort of case. As it stands you have the slimmest of threads.

Which is why you wont actually come out and say you think Galatians 1:19 is "brother of god". You dont actually believe it.