The emails you are receiving should have an unsubscribe or settings link at the bottom.

I clicked Fortigurn’s links. Interesting stuff I wasn’t aware of. But. When you read a couple of pages either side and in context there is much more than what is quoted here. Suprise, suprise. Another clown taking me for an idiot. Do these folk not realise that the readership here might have comprehension levels beyond kindergarden?

Is there any way you can remove people from that service?
Many thanks!

And as I am saying, your method doesn’t work. For the very reason I explained. Context, not frequency elsewhere, determines what words mean.

Richard,

Your analogy is not analogous.

My point was that in Galatians it’s clear that “Lord” refers to Jesus. If the reference to “brother” is meant to be biological then we should not expect to see similar phrasing very often in literature simply because the number of people to whom it could apply is so very, very small (1 Cor 9:5 being one of the other rare occurrences).

Please read what I wrote. You are misrepresenting me again. I never said I would say you thought THEY were irrational. I said I would ‘let them know you think THEIR ARGUMENTS are irrational’. I cited their arguments (and later quoted them directly), and you referred to THOSE ARGUMENTS as irrational. So it is entirely justifiable for me to inform them that you referred to THEIR ARGUMENTS as irrational.

“That’s why I am not going to answer you again and again. My comments upthread fully answer your every relevant question. So any reader who cares to can read the thread.”

Yes let’s. And what are they saying? Here’s a comment from an atheist and self-declared ‘Jesus agnostic’ (who does not believe there’s sufficient historical evidence to confirm Jesus existed), on the ‘Rational Skepticism’ forum, who followed our early discussion on this point, and still doesn’t believe that ‘James, the brother of the Lord’ refers to a biological brother.

archibald » May 08, 2012 10:18 am

“It does appear that Carrier’s comparitive lack of knowledge let him down in that exchange. He is clearly not as expert in the matter as the person he is discussing with. He also strikes me as slightly unwilling to admit that.”

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/what-can-we-reasonably-infer-about-the-historical-jesus-t219-24440.html#p1308786

He clearly wasn’t very impressed by you.

The fact is that you’ve avoided answering a number of relevant questions. But you have acknowledged at least that you are asserting a meaning for the phrase, without evidence. You have also indicated that you have not submitted your claims for peer review, neither have you followed standard lexicographical methodology. I would caution you of the danger of falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

This is not an uncommon tactic among Mytherists. Earl Doherty has asserted various meanings for Greek words or phrases, which he has acknowledged freely in correspondence with me have no lexical support whatsoever; in at least one case (the meaning of ‘according to the flesh), he cites you for support.

When Mytherists have to resort to making up meanings for Greek words, and phrases, it’s a clear indication that whatever they are doing it isn’t scholarly work.

Fortigurn, I think you are irrational. I have no opinion of anyone else you are channeling. So do not dare say I said they are irrational. I have only said you are. And you are.

That’s why I am not going to answer you again and again. My comments upthread fully answer your every relevant question. So any reader who cares to can read the thread.

Mike Gantt:

My simple question is this, how many examples of the phrase “brother of the Lord” (or “brothers of the Lord”) used in the biological sense do you expect to find when there is only one family in all of human history that would qualify for its use?

The stupidity here is so mind blowing I am really astonished I have to respond.

Take an analogy:

Suppose we read in a letter of the 1940’s that “James is a cool cat,” and I conclude the author means a person, not a feline, because in that letter “cat” is often a term for “man.” Even though only this one time is a cat called “cool,” the conclusion still follows. You then respond by saying “but most occasions when ‘x is a cat’ appears in other documents it means a feline, therefore obviously James is not a human but someone’s pet cat.” And I explain that that is irrelevant because it ignores context. You reply with the phenomenally stupid statement “how many examples of the phrase ‘x is a cool cat’ used in the feline-referring sense do you expect to find when there is only one family in all of human history that would use the phrase?”

Really?

(Is it just me, people?)

Remember this point?

* ‘Paul is communicating through his letters with other people who will understand the word IN WAYS EVIDENCED BY THEIR OWN WRITINGS’

I don’t know why you appeal to 2 Corinthians 2:13, as if the Galatians had read the letter and were familiar with the phrase Paul used there. You cannot treat this letter as evidence for how the Galatians would have understood Paul’s letter to them.

The original point you still need to address is simple; you are asserting a specific meaning for a Greek phrase (which you acknowledge may have an alternative meaning), but you have no evidence for the meaning you assert. However, evidence does exist for an alternative meaning, making it the more likely meaning.

* Meaning one: has evidence
* Meaning two: has no evidence

Meaning one is therefore more likely. These are the facts.

Richard,

I am neither as educated nor as intelligent as Fortigurn, nor do I have his patience. He’s been quite effective in calling you to task, and you have no rebuttal except to insult him.

My simple question is this, how many examples of the phrase “brother of the Lord” (or “brothers of the Lord”) used in the biological sense do you expect to find when there is only one family in all of human history that would qualify for its use?