Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 04-17-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Paul’s blunder is that the original Hebrew doesn’t say anything about a lord; it specifically asks followers to call on the name Yahweh.

Paul’s blunder makes perfect sense when you realize that his bible (the LXX) reads Lord.

Like I said - it was an honest mistake. But it shows that he was just making things up (or barrowing old ideas from others who made the same mistake).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You need to understand first what it is that he calls Lord Jesus Christ.

He probably saw all those nameless ‘Lords’ in the LXX and seized the opportunity to present them as little prophecies; to give them a face and a name, and to turn them into proof texts for Jesus’ divinity.

I thought the LXX translators deliberately substituted Kyrios (Lord) for the Sacred Name? Wasn't it considered irreligious to speak the Name out loud by this era? Didn't Jews use the Semitic Adonai when reading Hebrew texts out loud?

show_no_mercy · 04-17-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Paul’s blunder is that the original Hebrew doesn’t say anything about a lord; it specifically asks followers to call on the name Yahweh.

Paul’s blunder makes perfect sense when you realize that his bible (the LXX) reads Lord.

Like I said - it was an honest mistake. But it shows that he was just making things up (or barrowing old ideas from others who made the same mistake).

He probably saw all those nameless ‘Lords’ in the LXX and seized the opportunity to present them as little prophecies; to give them a face and a name, and to turn them into proof texts for Jesus’ divinity.

I thought the LXX translators deliberately substituted Kyrios (Lord) for the Sacred Name? Wasn't it considered irreligious to speak the Name out loud by this era? Didn't Jews use the Semitic Adonai when reading Hebrew texts out loud?

Yeah, but Paul couldn't read Hebrew so he didn't know that it was deliberate.

bacht · 04-17-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I thought the LXX translators deliberately substituted Kyrios (Lord) for the Sacred Name? Wasn't it considered irreligious to speak the Name out loud by this era? Didn't Jews use the Semitic Adonai when reading Hebrew texts out loud?

Yeah, but Paul couldn't read Hebrew so he didn't know that it was deliberate.

I thought Paul claimed to be a Pharisee? Didn't they study the scriptures in Hebrew as well as Greek?

show_no_mercy · 04-17-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Yeah, but Paul couldn't read Hebrew so he didn't know that it was deliberate.

I thought Paul claimed to be a Pharisee? Didn't they study the scriptures in Hebrew as well as Greek?

Either Paul was lying about being a Pharisee, or he deliberately pulled the wool over his [Hebrew illiterate] reader's eyes in omitting the actual name that saves (YHWH) and substituting it with Jesus to further promote his Christ cult.

Toto · 04-17-2009, 02:04 PM

Paul claimed to be all things to all men.

arnoldo · 04-17-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

In short, Paul does not make up 'a lie' when he calls Jesus a Lord.

He doesn’t just call Jesus a lord. He calls him the same Lord.

Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him.

Q: Same lord as what Lord?

A1: Same lord as the Lord in Joel 2:32. :bulb:

A2: Same lord who exercises a lordship over all who call on him. :bulb:

Paul’s blunder is that the original Hebrew doesn’t say anything about a lord; it specifically asks followers to call on the name Yahweh.

Paul’s blunder makes perfect sense when you realize that his bible (the LXX) reads Lord.

Like I said - it was an honest mistake. But it shows that he was just making things up (or barrowing old ideas from others who made the same mistake).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You need to understand first what it is that he calls [amazon=1592442331]Lord Jesus Christ[/Bamazon].

He probably saw all those nameless ‘Lords’ in the LXX and seized the opportunity to present them as little prophecies; to give them a face and a name, and to turn them into proof texts for Jesus’ divinity.

Claiming that the writers of the New Testament did not understand the Old Testament according to your interpretation seems rather hard to believe. A more likely scenario would be that your understanding of the New Testament writer's interpretation of the Old Testament is flawed. However, if you have any sources of biblical hermenuetical studies which supports your speculation it would be greatly appreciated. According to Vernard Eller, in his book entitled War and Peace from Genesis to Revelation, the New Testament writers understood perfectly the Old Testament Texts. The following is a short excerpt;

Quote:

. . . The primary and crucial move in the New Testmanet is the amalgamation of Deutero's Suffering Servant with Isaiah's Prince of Peace. . . Yet it is misleading to imply that the New Testmanet tradition performed the amalgamation as a deliberate and self-conscious bringing together of two separate stands of thought; rather, it simply was assumed that the Old Testament prophets had had in mind a Servant Messiah all along. . .In part, this must be attriuted to the fact that early Christian thinkers just did not make the sort of historical, developmental distinctions with which we have been dealing. They gave no thought to the difference between Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, or the third part of Isaiah. In fact the gave little or not thought to the difference between one prophetic book and another. A not at all uncommon occurrence in the New Testmanet is to find an author saying, "As it is written in the prophets," and giving a quotation that is constructed out of lines taken from a number of different prophets. However, the significant point is that, no matter how the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament, the passages to which they go almost invariably represent the Zion tradition.

Loomis · 04-17-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

He doesn’t just call Jesus a lord. He calls him the same Lord.

Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him.

Q: Same lord as what Lord?

A1: Same lord as the Lord in Joel 2:32. :bulb:

A2: Same lord who exercises a lordship over all who call on him. :bulb:

Paul’s blunder is that the original Hebrew doesn’t say anything about a lord; it specifically asks followers to call on the name Yahweh.

Paul’s blunder makes perfect sense when you realize that his bible (the LXX) reads Lord.

Like I said - it was an honest mistake. But it shows that he was just making things up (or barrowing old ideas from others who made the same mistake).

He probably saw all those nameless ‘Lords’ in the LXX and seized the opportunity to present them as little prophecies; to give them a face and a name, and to turn them into proof texts for Jesus’ divinity.

Claiming that the writers of the New Testament did not understand the Old Testament according to your interpretation seems rather hard to believe. A more likely scenario would be that your understanding of the New Testament writer's interpretation of the Old Testament is flawed. However, if you have any sources of biblical hermenuetical studies which supports your speculation it would be greatly appreciated. According to Vernard Eller, in his book entitled War and Peace from Genesis to Revelation, the New Testament writers understood perfectly the Old Testament Texts. The following is a short excerpt;

Quote:

. . . The primary and crucial move in the New Testmanet is the amalgamation of Deutero's Suffering Servant with Isaiah's Prince of Peace. . . Yet it is misleading to imply that the New Testmanet tradition performed the amalgamation as a deliberate and self-conscious bringing together of two separate stands of thought; rather, it simply was assumed that the Old Testament prophets had had in mind a Servant Messiah all along. . .In part, this must be attriuted to the fact that early Christian thinkers just did not make the sort of historical, developmental distinctions with which we have been dealing. They gave no thought to the difference between Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, or the third part of Isaiah. In fact the gave little or not thought to the difference between one prophetic book and another. A not at all uncommon occurrence in the New Testmanet is to find an author saying, "As it is written in the prophets," and giving a quotation that is constructed out of lines taken from a number of different prophets. However, the significant point is that, no matter how the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament, the passages to which they go almost invariably represent the Zion tradition.

What part of my post can you find fault with?

I’m all ears. Be specific.

Husker · 04-17-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

He doesn’t just call Jesus a lord. He calls him the same Lord.

Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him.

Q: Same lord as what Lord?

I've read this as meaning "they each have the same Lord as each other." Jew and gentile, that is. As if Paul is reminding everyone that they all pray to the same God.

Would that reading be supported by the original text at all?

DCHindley · 04-18-2009, 08:30 AM

This "lord" is likely "God" not "the Lord (Jesus)".

A super-literal translation of Rom 10:12-13 would be:

12a) Not for is distinction of-Jew and of-Greek, 12b) the for very Lord of-all-(ones), being-rich into all the-(ones) calling-upon him; 13) everyone for who likely might-call-upon the name of-lord will-be-saved.

In verse 13, the phrase "the name" (TO ONOMA) is in same grammatical case (accusative, which designates the direct object of a sentence), while "of-lord" (KURIOU) is a single word in the genitive case. My simple rule of thumb is that if a form of KURIOS (lord) does not have a definite article associated with it, the author is indicating the Jewish God. "Lord" then is a modifier that identifies the specific name that is the object of the sentence, that being "God."

That being said, verse 12b does refer to "the same lord" (hO ... AUTOS KURIOS), which by the reverse of my simple rule should refer to the "lord (Jesus)" as the definite article is present. I could attribute this clause as either a gloss by my hypothetical editor, but because vs 13 clearly seems to refer to "the God" (hO QEOS) of vs 9, it is more likely a pun on the common circumlocution of "Lord" for YHWH, used to emphasize how God is master (lord) of all peoples, not just the Jews.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Husker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

He doesn’t just call Jesus a lord. He calls him the same Lord.

Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him.

Q: Same lord as what Lord?

I've read this as meaning "they each have the same Lord as each other." Jew and gentile, that is. As if Paul is reminding everyone that they all pray to the same God.

Would that reading be supported by the original text at all?

Loomis · 04-18-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

vs 13 clearly seems to refer to "the God" (hO QEOS) of vs 9

No it doesn’t. The God in verse 9 is described as the God who raised the Lord in Joel 2:32 LXX from the dead. You can tell because Paul said that Jesus was the same Lord from the scripture (Joel 2:32 LXX). He said that followers should confess that that’s who Jesus is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

it is more likely a pun on the common circumlocution of "Lord" for YHWH, used to emphasize how God is master (lord) of all peoples, not just the Jews.

I’m unaware of any direct evidence to show that any author of the NT was ever exposed to the name YHWH. Their bible (the LXX) read ‘the Lord.’

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

04-17-2009, 02:04 PM	#125
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Paul claimed to be all things to all men.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.