Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-05-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

C. F. D. Moule, “Further Reflections on Philippians 2:5-1 (pdf)

Thanks for that I didn't realise it was online.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 07-05-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

...
Perhaps even more to the point, the exact analogy given was more than an argument from silence:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty, emphasis mine

Let me rework an analogy I provided in The Jesus Puzzle. Let’s say we have a man who is honest and devoted to his family. After his death, an acquaintance tells his widow that the man had once won a million dollar lottery. The widow refuses to believe this because she was unaware of such a thing, and everyone knows that he was always anxious to provide for his family, and on his deathbed he had apologized to her for not having done a better job at that, and his bankbooks showed no entry for such a winning, and so on.

Here we are evaluating testimony, not the lack of testimony. If this man on his deathbed apologized for his poverty (and if he did not claim his winnings in his tax returns), then to claim that he was really rich is to call him a liar. And perhaps he is; perhaps he was leading a double life or such. But, whatever the case, we are evaluating the truth of two positive statements, that of the man himself and that of the acquaintance.

Furthermore, bankbooks strive to be exhaustive. Therefore, we may take the missing entry in them as good evidence against such a deposit having ever been made, at least in those particular banks. Again, the man may have been leading a double life, keeping a secret bank account on the side, but once again, and for the same reason, the argument from silence here is completely overshadowed by our own evaluation of his character (as a witness to his own affairs) against the post-mortem allegations.

Finally, the acquaintance in this case needs to provide positive evidence of his own contention. While the widow herself is going to have a close emotional attachment to the truth or falsity of this claim, those involved in the situation but with less personal attachment to it should be able to say: Okay, you have made your claim, and we admit that your claim is possible (since people have been known to lead double lives before; argument from analogy). Now, support your claim. We are not obliged to do anything about your claim, or even believe it, without evidence in its favor.

This is how I see the analogy above. How does this analogy fit in with arguments from Pauline silence?

Ben.

I think that Earl was clearly constructing an extreme example in which an argument from silence is valid, not making an exact analogy with the silence in the Pauline epistles. I suspect that he will read this as further evidence of your being too tone-deaf to understand his arguments.

Loomis · 07-05-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Does this mean that a figure called Jesus was given the title Lord at the exaltation? Or does it mean that a figure, whose original name is not mentioned, was given the name Jesus at the exaltation?

I admit that at very first blush the latter makes more sense of the passage as it stands.

I agree. :thumbs: A figure, whose original name is not mentioned, was given the name Jesus.

The ‘figure’ was Yahweh - but they didn’t know it. The alusion to Isaiah 45:23 (the stuff about the knee) is a dead giveaway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Yahweh” in Isaiah 45:23~24

I am God, and I have no peer.

I solemnly make this oath

what I say is true and reliable:

‘Surely every knee will bow to me,

every tongue will solemnly affirm;

they will say about me,

“Yes, Yahweh is a powerful deliverer.

All who are angry at him will cower before him.

All the descendants of Israel will be vindicated by Yahweh and will boast in him.”

Deutero-Isaiah was a staunch monotheist. He was making the claim that the Canaanite god named “El” is a fictitious god, and that the only god who is real is Yahweh. The confusion began when they translated the Hebrew into Greek. - Because they removed Yahweh’s name.

The author of Philippians 2.9-11 didn’t understand what Deutero-Isaiah was trying to say. The author of Philippians 2.9-11 thought that ‘the LORD’ and ‘God’ were two different characters.

You should read my posts. They actually make a lot of sense.

Perhaps your trouble is that you believe that Yahweh is a real god, and so you can’t fathom the possibility that Yahweh’s attributes can evolve and get smeared across multiple characters like this.

Clivedurdle · 07-05-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Yahweh” in Isaiah 45:23~24

I am God, and I have no peer.

I solemnly make this oath

what I say is true and reliable:

‘Surely every knee will bow to me,

every tongue will solemnly affirm;

they will say about me,

“Yes, Yahweh is a powerful deliverer.

All who are angry at him will cower before him.

All the descendants of Israel will be vindicated by Yahweh and will boast in him.”

Week after week, year after year I was brought up on preachers who continuously referred back to stuff in the Hebrew Bible when preaching on something like this. I was expected, as was the congregation, to be able to slip back and forth between the various texts the preacher was using as he said them - this was normally reasonably easy as they would spend time on each verse.

The Hebrew Bible was used as proof texts of the reality of the gospel - it prophecied the new testament!

But maybe we are looking at the thing upside down.....

Loomis · 07-05-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

in the name of Jesus every knee should bend

See?

It’s not that difficult understand.

The author of the hymn in Philippians 2.9-11 was claiming that he could identify the ‘lord’ in Isaiah 45.

The author of the hymn in Philippians 2.9-11 was claiming that the ‘lord’ in Isaiah 45 was named Jesus.

The author of the hymn in Philippians 2.9-11 was either just guessing or making shit up. Because the ‘lord’ in Isaiah 45 was originally named Yahweh.

renassault · 07-05-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

One thing is for certain and that is Christianity was anything but a coherent religion in the beginning.

You'd have to give me some sources for that, not that I doubt it's too far off the mark. The Pauline epistles weren't collected into one until 100 CE so if a church had any Scripture in writing, in my opinion they were lucky. Books, articles, anything is welcome.

Loomis · 07-05-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Jesus Christ is Lord

See?

Jesus Christ is Lord.
Jesus Christ is the Lord to which every knee should bend.
Jesus Christ is the Lord to which every knee should bend in Isaiah 45.

This was important to them because up to that point they didn’t know what the Lord’s name was.

That’s because the name is missing in the LXX.

The guys who invented Jesus never heard of Yahweh.

All they saw were these little artifacts that were left behind from when Yahweh/Baal (aka 'the LORD') was worshipped as a son of El.

Loomis · 07-05-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

All they saw were these little artifacts that were left behind from when Yahweh/Baal (aka 'the LORD') was worshipped as a son of El.

... And so they invented 'Jesus Christ' to bring meaning to them.

Jehanne · 07-05-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

One thing is for certain and that is Christianity was anything but a coherent religion in the beginning.

You'd have to give me some sources for that, not that I doubt it's too far off the mark. The Pauline epistles weren't collected into one until 100 CE so if a church had any Scripture in writing, in my opinion they were lucky. Books, articles, anything is welcome.

Anything by Bart Ehrman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Chris Weimer · 07-05-2007, 05:51 PM

Seeing that this has become another boring tit-for-tat HJ v. MJ thread, I'd like to go back to the original post. Ben, surely you've read enough Latin and Greek to realize that name can also mean title, or rather has meaning beyond the actual name? Do I even have to cite Res Gestae 1?

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

07-05-2007, 05:51 PM	#70
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Seeing that this has become another boring tit-for-tat HJ v. MJ thread, I'd like to go back to the original post. Ben, surely you've read enough Latin and Greek to realize that name can also mean title, or rather has meaning beyond the actual name? Do I even have to cite Res Gestae 1?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.