spin

Still waiting for you to meaningfully address what you claim to have addressed.

The other bit was dealt with in the other thread, where I said you are responding to the evidence of the status quo regarding to the use of "the lord" with pure conjecture.

TedM

Phrases/descriptions that are repeated tend to move away from ambiguity and toward clarity. "brother of Jesus" would be more ambiguous than "brother of the Lord" in Christian circles because of the plethora of Jesus' walking around. I can't state this any more plainly.

aa5874

In the OP, spin claimed that Paul was not a binitarian (or trinitarian) because of a statement found in 1 Cor. 8.6.

Examine an excerpt from the OP.

Now examine 1 Cor. 8.6.

1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV Spin in his hopeless fallacious argument declares that Paul is not a binitarian or Trinitarian.

Well, let us examine an excerpt from the 325 and 381 Nicene Creed. It states that there is ONE GOD and ONE LORD Jesus. The very doctrine of the TRINITY used the very same phrases found in 1 Cor.8.6--One God the Father and ONE Lord Jesus.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

First Council of Nicea (325)
First Council of Constantinople (381) Trinitarians BELIEVE in ONE God and One Lord Jesus.

The Pauline writer was a TRINITARIAN and EQUATED the LORD Jesus with God.

The LORD Jesus and God are ONE.

The 325 AND 381 NICENE Creed has demolished spin's fallacies.

The Pauline writer MAY be the originator of the doctrine of the TRINITY.

andrewcriddle

Malachi 2:16 is extremely obscure. (see for example the Septuagint or Targum). I very much doubt that Paul is basing what he says on exegesis of Malachi.
2 Thessalonians chapter 2 certainly speaks of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and the day of Christ as the equivalent of the coming of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4. (I am aware that there are doubts about the authorship of 2 Thessalonians.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It is significant to note that the phrases 'God the Father' and 'the Lord Jesus' are found together in the same verse about 31 times in the Canon and 29 of those are found in the Pauline Corpus and once each in 1 Peter and 2 John.

The Nicene Creed and the Pauline Corpus do equate Jesus as God--Jesus and God are ONE.


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

First Council of Nicea (325)
First Council of Constantinople (381) 1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV Examine every letter in the Pauline Corpus.

Romans 1:7 KJV ----To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:3 KJV---Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father , and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:2 KJV---Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:3 KJV---Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Ephesians 1:2 KJV---Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:2 KJV---Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:2 KJV---To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:1 KJV---Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:1 KJV---Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

1 Timothy 1:2 KJV---- Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Timothy 1:2 KJV---To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Titus 1:4 KJV---To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Philemon 1:3 KJV---Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:3 KJV---Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

2 John 1:3 KJV---Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.


There is a connection between the Pauline Corpus and the NICENE Creed. The mere fact that the Pauline Corpus and the Later Epistles share the same phrases 'God the Father' and 'the Lord Jesus' with Nicene Creed of 325 and 381 is evidence that support a late Pauline Corpus whose authors were Trinitarians.

Duvduv

Isn't it strange metaphorically then that in contrast to "the Father" the other person is "Lord" and not simply "the Son"?? That would have been much more symmetrical. Or perhaps "the Son, our Lord......"

spin

In a religion centered around the figure of Jesus you're honestly arguing that there was a plethora of Jesuses. That's ridiculous. How many Jesuses were there in christianity that used the name, TedM? Rather that face the implication of a term used in lieu of the name Yahweh, you dig your heels in over such resolute nonsense as there being a plethora of Jesi for christians. At the same time not only has Paul shown that he doesn't use "brother" the way your conjecture points, but goes against conventional usage in physical relation terms, so that he adds "in the flesh" so that the reader knows that he is talking about a blood connection.

1. You have no evidence to support your claim;
2. Your claim of a plethora of Jesuses makes no sense in a christian context in which "brother of the lord" is preserved;
3. It goes against Paul's usage of "brother"; and
4. It goes against the usage of "the lord" of the era.

TedM

What you are missing is that Christians would have referred to the brothers of Jesus not only within their group which would have included many people named Jesus, but with others who are not Christians. IF they said we are meeting with "the brothers of Jesus" to a non-Christian this would be potentially confusing. This problem of communication cannot be denied. A simple solution is to use a term that everyone would know refers to the Jesus of Christianity. The need to avoid ambiguity in language is kind of a basic concept, and I would have thought that in all of your linguistic learning you would have run across it.

As for the idea that it 'goes against Paul's usage of brother', I'm a bit puzzled. If James was indeed a biological brother of Jesus, are you suggesting that Paul would say "brother of Jesus in the flesh" so that 'the reader knows that he is talking about a blood connection"? I think that would have been totally unnecessary for his readers -- they KNEW what the relationship was--that the whole purpose of using the phrase was to distinguish James from other people named James in a way that his readers understood. Unless you want to claim that James was known to be both a biological brother of Jesus and a member of the special mystery-group 'brothers of God' there simply would have been no need for such a distinction.

I suppose that Paul might have preferred to tack on 'in the flesh' anyway, but it again goes against the concept of convenience of the existing phrase used for the group of brothers. Assuming by Paul's day there was a phrase that referenced the group of brothers, it would almost certainly would not have included "in the flesh" by the time Paul was writing, simply as a matter of convenience. So, they use "the Lord" instead of Jesus for clarity, and they drop "in the flesh" if it ever existed, for convenience.

spin

The christian context contradicts you.

And you honestly think "the brothers of the lord (= god)" is going to be more communicative??

It is a problem of you own imagination.

A solution to no problem. You are churning it out, TedM. All you need is evidence and an argument.

There would be no ambiguity in a term found only in christian literature. You are assuming a meaning that you want from the term "brothers of the lord" a priori and then making things up.

The brother in the flesh of Jesus.

As I said in the McGrath thread:

[T2]when Paul wants to indicate physical relations he generally adds the phrase "in the flesh", as in the following:

Romans 1:3
the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David in the flesh

Romans 4:1
What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor in the flesh?

Romans 9:3
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own brothers, my kindred in the flesh.

Paul is related to the Jews according to the flesh and to Abraham according to the flesh. He stresses the physical nature of the relationship here.[/T2]
Are you puzzled over the Pauline usage still?

Your convenience.

Again,

1. You have no evidence to support your claim;
2. Your claim of a plethora of Jesuses makes no sense in a christian context in which "brother of the lord" is preserved;
3. It goes against Paul's usage of "brother"; and
4. It goes against the usage of "the lord" of the era.

You have no response.

TedM

Yes. Their non-believer friends knew who their Lord was.


The term would have originated before it was written down, in every day life.


Ok, but he would have no need to change a pre-existing phrase that didn't have "in the flesh". This could be a non-biological group or a biological group.

Who is in this group and why?

We know this about the "brothers of the Lord" from our 2 references:

1. at least one (James) was an apostle
2. some were not apostles
3. some were married
4. they traveled with wives, like apostles did, so there probably weren't many of them
5. Peter most likely wasn't one
6. there probably was only one James who was both an apostle and the Lord's brother.

Who were these people that were special but excluded Peter and other apostles, but weren't just fellow believers either? I'd like to hear a speculation -- who do YOU think they were? Surely it occurs to you that a very good explanation is the traditional one: the biological brothers of Jesus.




Linguistically, true, as it pertains to Paul.

Disagree strongly. Otherwise any reference in every day life to the "brothers" had to always include clarification that they weren't talking about some other Jesus' brothers.

"brothers of God" would invoke the need for more commentary from Paul than a biological reference would invoke the need for clarification. My opinion.

that goes hand in hand with #1, assuming your claim of interpolation for the 2 cases is right, along with several interpretations that suggest otherwise also..