Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 07-22-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Thank-you, Steven. Not only does this show that the name "Jesus" as the god of the Christians entailed the idea of savior, the giving of that name is tied to the role of being the savior. Flash back to the pre-incarnation phase of the faith. In the Philippians hymn the same connection is being presented. The "Son"--in this case of God, not of Mary--is given a name for the same reason, because he saved his people. The name that entails being a savior is not "Lord", it is "Jesus."

Not so. The word 'Jesus', or 'Joshua', was common enough. The significance came in the pre-figurement of the Joshua who led Israel from a desert into the Promised Land. Apart from this, and of course its literal meaning, there is no descriptive force in the name 'Jesus'. The first son of Joseph and Mary could have been given any name at all, that name being merely a 'handle'. In theory, Jesus of Nazareth could have been Pethuel of Bethlehem.

It is the word 'lord' that is contingent on the role of saviour. Lordship is won by gratitude for salvation, and not a moment before. God as creator is not lord, at least, not lord in the sense that Christians mean it.

So, 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God' means that a man who just happened to be called 'Jesus' was Messiah, therefore saviour and lord; and he could achieve salvation and lordship only by a) being perfect (ergo, deity); and b) manifesting himself to mankind (Immanuel), and being tempted as mankind is. Which brings us back to the hymn: 'but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant'.

"you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

Just exactly where, above, did you deal with this?

The name 'Jesus', or 'Joshua', was common enough, so it cannot be said to have some inherent essence to provide some sort of magical value. The name means 'Jehovah saves' or similar, so on one level, there is an obvious link with 'he will save his people'. But for Jews, the real significance of this name came in the pre-figurement of the Joshua who led Israel from a desert into the Promised Land. Apart from this, and of course its literal meaning, there is no descriptive force in the name 'Joshua'. Joe and Mary's first child could have been called James, Joseph, Simon or Judas, as his brothers were. Or even 'Earl'. Does that convince?

Sorry, no. You still haven't answered my question.

"you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

This line from Matthew shows that for Christians post-Gospels, the name Jesus DID have descriptive force. They saw the significance of the name to lie in it meaning the savior of people from their sins. I made the point that for Christians pre-Gospels, when the Son underwent sacrifice in the heavens, he could have been given the name "Jesus" for the same reason: on the basis of having undergone that redeeming sacrifice, which at that time did not involve being on earth.

I ask again: where have you dealt with this? All your "theobabble" (most of which I've snipped) is just that. It does nothing to address the issue here.

I now have no doubt that you are a theologian, even if a self-made one. If you can't be a little more incisive in your responses and deal with the actual issues instead of enveloping them in a lot of smoke and mirrors, I am not going to waste any more time with you.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 07-22-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

"Lord" was a designation given to Yahweh because of a prohibition on speaking the "name" Yahweh. It is a substitute term

It was not a simple “substitute term” for the author of Romans. The author of Romans exploited the shit out of the fact that the LXX read “the Lord.” Some passages in Romans depend on the Lord, and when you try to restore the name Yahweh many passages become incoherent.

Romans 10:9-13 (Joel 2:32 LXX) and Romans 14:8-11 (Isaiah 45:23 LXX) are good examples. As an exercise - try to restore Yahweh’s name in those passages and let us know what you come up with.

So even if you are correct – that "Lord" was originally a designation given to Yahweh because of a prohibition on speaking the "name", then it is obvious from Romans that Christians had exploited it and evolved it into something else.

So what? What does this have to do with the Philippians hymn issue under discussion?

I said that "Lord was a designation given to Yahweh" in response to some broader point that had been introduced.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 07-22-2012, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I believe that in my latest consideration of the hymn, this hymn is revealed to be a true smoking gun, demonstrating a virtually incontestible case for mythicism, at least for the epistolary side of things.

Btw - where have you been?

The idea that ‘Jesus’ was an honorary title bestowed by God has been around for years.

Robert Kraft wrote the seminal paper back in 1961.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/oth...tianity/Joshua

And exactly how does this relate to the Philippians hymn debate? You know, I can't tell from this whether you even know yourself what Kraft's paper has to do with it. I suspect you don't.

What is standard procedure here in a case like this, is that you give your fellow-posters an idea of how the Kraft position supports your case and discredits mine. That way, you not only demonstrate that you have some understanding of it yourself, but you help us all cut to the chase so that we can actually consider how Kraft affects the issue. You actually contribute to the discussion yourself, rather than use a reference to something you may not even be familiar with simply to cast aspersions on me. Don't expect me to read through a lengthy paper and try to figure out what exactly you have in mind in it that is relevant, and how.

I know FRDB may sometimes be a circus, but that doesn't mean that painted cheeks and a polka-dot suit is all you need to take part, Bingo.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 07-22-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

It appears that it is believed that the thread is effectively concluded.

If it is, don't think that it's because you've dealt any lethal blow.

Earl Doherty

sotto voce · 07-22-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by ED

And how have you proven that Genesis was not meant as history?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV

It's to be proven that it is history. A talking snake is a powerful clue in the other direction, even for four-year-olds.

Well, there are a hell of a lot of Christians today who haven't reached the age of four, I guess.

Guess is correct.

Quote:

It's a powerful clue to you and to me

That's ok, then.

Quote:

What are we arguing about, then?

I don't know. "And who is arguing that BECAUSE there was no literal flood, neither can there by a literal incarnation, death and resurrection? Not me."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ED

BUT--your stated reason for not making that connection is hardly logical. An "actual incarnation, death and resurrection are essential to the Christian view" is only something that came into effect with the Gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV

No, no. The oral lore that went into the gospels was around from the (putative) resurrection, and much of it previous to that event. It was absolutely the cause of the church.

Quote:

This is a declaration that requires proof, in the form of evidence and argument.

Unless it's common sense. The events of Jesus' unique ministry, set at the conjunction of three continents, were observed by many thousands. People with wheels, sails and wagging tongues. They did not need to read any darn book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV

There was no reason to write a letter to people who were not expecting to be resurrected.

'If the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead.' 1 Co 15:16-20 NIV

Quote:

You can't seem to grasp my point. Paul speaking of "if Christ was not raised" is not saying ON EARTH.

Of course he is. Nobody would suppose that there was a heavenly afterlife if the causative agent of said experience did not show himself capable of providing it.

EarlDoherty · 07-22-2012, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Just a couple of observations, Earl.

1) I have noticed that you consistently fail to make use of opportunities for your theory, and instead of attacking head-on faith-based academic consensus which has no support in facts you accepts it and then try to argue away its import. This is the case with Q, and here with the so-called pre-Pauline Carmen Christi.

Groan. Please, Jiri, if all you can do to discredit Q is throw the accusation at it that it is "faith-based".... (Where's the smilie for tearing out one's hair?)

Quote:

There is no evidence that Phl 2:5-11 is a pre-existing hymn which Paul adopted. This is a church-supplied theory, the aim of which is to insist (if it cannot be proven) that Paul placed himself in the Jerusalem church traditions, and accepted a status of a minor apostle agreed-to by the leaders of that assembly. But the problem is that Paul's letters argue with such a notion vehemently and the few passages which support it have been long suspected as belated and mostly clumsy attempts to rein in Paul's ambitions for apostolic primacy.

For the life of me, I can't see anything in that paragraph which actually goes to disproving the case for pre-Pauline hymns, found with suspicious familiarity throughout the Pauline corpus. I guess I'm missing something.

Quote:

So, if 'God 'highly exalted Jesus' and it does not sound very Pauline (hyperypsoō is a hapax) but part of convergent Pauline and Nazarene traditions, then a critical-minded reader would at minimum admit the possibility that the hymn is post-Pauline.

Would you like to supply evidence that certain terminology in the christological hymns is "Nazarene"? I presume by the latter term, you mean a group which subscribed to an historical Jesus, so in addition, you would have to demonstrate how the c. hymns entail application to an HJ.

Quote:

And the reason is that Paul's Messianism is so novel and unprecedented in its proposition that Messiah has come already, was resurrected (not merely ascended to God), that his "kingdom" is spiritual (i.e. not the restored old kingdom), and that salvation lies in one's "faith" in him, that it would require solid proof that in fact such notions were supplied to Paul by the Jamesian organization. We don't have such proof; on the contrary, the earliest gospel, Mark, vehemently argues that the gospel (a word that Paul adopted for his purposes) does not originate with Jesus' disciples.

You know, I must be losing my own ability to follow an argument, but I can't make head or tail out of this. Who is saying that everything in Paul has been derived from James & Co.? I am quite sure Paul took a lot and ran with it in his own innovative directions, though we don't know how much. And what does this have to do with the hymns being "post-Pauline"?

Quote:

2) Too much is made of the 'bestowing' of the name Jesus. IMO, the simplest way to read the idea contained in the verses 2:8-11, is that "the humbleness and obedience" of Jesus was rewarded by exalting his name, i.e. "Jesus" above every name (by the titular "Christ") posthumously. It does not look like the intention of the writer to claim that Jesus was called something else during his lifetime.

It certainly doesn't, because the hymnist(s) throughout the hymns never give us a "lifetime." And where do you get "exalting his name"? The hymn clearly states that he was given the name, whatever it was, something he didn't have before.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 07-22-2012, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

For a believer there is no such a thing as god’s proper name.

It is surely silly to try to provide one, clownish to even argue that there might be one. In the biblical context, no real attempt is made to provide one. There are reckoned to be several names of deity, but they all, bar one, refer to some particular attribute, such as might be ascribed to a human. The exception is 'I am', that expresses non-created self-existence. But it is still not actually a name.

In ancient times, the word 'name' meant 'reputation' or 'character', and it is the latter meaning that is the constant focus of the Bible. One can see this use in the allegory of Babel, in which humanity sought itself a 'name' or reputation. This was illustrative of pride going before a fall. Again, the people before the flood were men of 'reputation', and were destroyed; but also, are being destroyed, will be destroyed, because these are all timeless allegories of unchanging human nature.

The nature of deity is also said to be immutable. The very point of the Bible is to provide clue and context for a person reckoned to represent deity in a way that mortal man can comprehend. So in respect of deity, 'name' in the OT means glory, power, holiness, love, perfect judgment, mercy, righteous anger, patience, willingness to forgive. But the OT is predicated on something more; the readiness of deity to personally intervene, to take on the sins of all creation. This prediction is found in the first creation account, the second creation account, the fall, the murder of Abel, the flood story, the justification of Abram, the small and seemingly insignificant details of the Levitical code, and much more. This is the provision of name as character of deity, summated in the suffering servant theme of Isaiah.

All that the gospels tell us is, 'Job done'. The disciples should have seen it coming, all of it. There should have been no surprise when the long-promised divine manifestation, as Jews believed to exist, echoed the answer given to Moses, "Before Abraham was, I am."

What might have made all this theobabble worth reading would have been a tie-in to the OP and the subject of the thread, in regard to the Philippians hymn interpretation. Otherwise it is just flapping one's chaps as a theologian, which we already know sotto voce is.

Earl Doherty

sotto voce · 07-22-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Thank-you, Steven. Not only does this show that the name "Jesus" as the god of the Christians entailed the idea of savior, the giving of that name is tied to the role of being the savior. Flash back to the pre-incarnation phase of the faith. In the Philippians hymn the same connection is being presented. The "Son"--in this case of God, not of Mary--is given a name for the same reason, because he saved his people. The name that entails being a savior is not "Lord", it is "Jesus."

Not so. The word 'Jesus', or 'Joshua', was common enough. The significance came in the pre-figurement of the Joshua who led Israel from a desert into the Promised Land. Apart from this, and of course its literal meaning, there is no descriptive force in the name 'Jesus'. The first son of Joseph and Mary could have been given any name at all, that name being merely a 'handle'. In theory, Jesus of Nazareth could have been Pethuel of Bethlehem.

It is the word 'lord' that is contingent on the role of saviour. Lordship is won by gratitude for salvation, and not a moment before. God as creator is not lord, at least, not lord in the sense that Christians mean it.

So, 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God' means that a man who just happened to be called 'Jesus' was Messiah, therefore saviour and lord; and he could achieve salvation and lordship only by a) being perfect (ergo, deity); and b) manifesting himself to mankind (Immanuel), and being tempted as mankind is. Which brings us back to the hymn: 'but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant'.

"you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

Just exactly where, above, did you deal with this?

The name 'Jesus', or 'Joshua', was common enough, so it cannot be said to have some inherent essence to provide some sort of magical value. The name means 'Jehovah saves' or similar, so on one level, there is an obvious link with 'he will save his people'. But for Jews, the real significance of this name came in the pre-figurement of the Joshua who led Israel from a desert into the Promised Land. Apart from this, and of course its literal meaning, there is no descriptive force in the name 'Joshua'. Joe and Mary's first child could have been called James, Joseph, Simon or Judas, as his brothers were. Or even 'Earl'. Does that convince?

Sorry, no. You still haven't answered my question.

Or you're not used to dealing with someone who actually knows what he's talking about? These things do tend to get confused.

Quote:

"you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

Quote:

This line from Matthew shows that for Christians post-Gospels, the name Jesus DID have descriptive force.

That's reading into it more than it says.

Quote:

They saw the significance of the name to lie in it meaning the savior of people from their sins.

Not so, because the first Joshua, along with many others of the same name, did not save from sins. How many times do you have to be told? Is talking to you a form of torture?

What the Pharisees observed was that here was this man claiming to forgive sins who had been named 'Joshua' by his parents. Apparently, by angelic command. And then, the idiots went and hanged him on a tree.

The soteriological value of Jesus was seen in fulfilment of prophecy, miracles, teaching, death and resurrection, according to prophecy. Ergo, the word 'Christ' was agreed for him. So 'Jesus, the Christ' differentiated him from many others, each of them 'Jesus, the sinner'.

Quote:

I made the point that for Christians pre-Gospels, when the Son underwent sacrifice in the heavens

Amateur imagination.

EarlDoherty · 07-22-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV
No, no. The oral lore that went into the gospels was around from the (putative) resurrection, and much of it previous to that event. It was absolutely the cause of the church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ED

This is a declaration that requires proof, in the form of evidence and argument.

Unless it's common sense. The events of Jesus' unique ministry, set at the conjunction of three continents, were observed by many thousands. People with wheels, sails and wagging tongues. They did not need to read any darn book.

And:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by ED

You can't seem to grasp my point. Paul speaking of "if Christ was not raised" is not saying ON EARTH.

Of course he is. Nobody would suppose that there was a heavenly afterlife if the causative agent of said experience did not show himself capable of providing it.

Omigod!!! This is the extent of your argument and methodology for proving that there was an historical Jesus and that Paul believed in him???

I take it back. Even real theologians would cringe at this.

You’re right, SV. As far as you are concerned, I'm happy to say that this thread is over! Thanks for saving me more wasted time.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 07-22-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV

Quote:

Originally Posted by ED

They saw the significance of the name to lie in it meaning the savior of people from their sins.

Not so, because the first Joshua, along with many others of the same name, did not save from sins. How many times do you have to be told? Is talking to you a form of torture?

And how many times do you need to be told that the quote from Matthew states that the child was given the name because of its meaning that it entails the meaning of savior, which Matthew has applied to the saving of sins? This plain meaning of the Matthew verse has nothing to do with all your babble about Joshua.

But this will be the last time for me.

Earl Doherty

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.