sschlichter

perhaps you gave me the wrong verses.

Rom 4:8 is an allusion to Psalms 32:2. the use of kurios is A) not ambiguous and B) the exact same as the Septuagint where you said you had no problems.

Rom 9:28 does not appear to reference Jesus at all. the Lord is referring to same Lord that is referenced in 29. the only ambiguity possible is if you mistaken assume the 'logon' is referring to jesus. It is not.

I Cor 9:5. this is clearly talking about Jesus and again their is no ambiguity. In 9:1, ton kurion is clearly talking about Jesus. the use in 9:5 is genitive and is talking about 'our Lord's brothers' which precludes a religious group (IMO). the use of brothers is likely to mean 'brothers' but if I understand correctly the same word may be broader and could include cousins.

i see no hint of interpolation, grammatical oddity, ripples, etc. I do not even see the ambiguity in greek, nor can I find a translator that saw ambiguity.

You are going to have to help me with what you are getting at.

~Steve

show_no_mercy

The problem is that the Hebrew doesn't say "lord" (kurios). It says YHWH, which out of respect for The Name is given either the vowel points which instruct the reader to pronounce HaShem as "adonai" (lord) or "elohim" (god). The Name is actually never pronounced. This confusion/ambiguity between the word "lord" and The Name YHWH runs all throughout Paul's letters.

So is Paul talking about YHWH, or about Jesus?

avi

Folks, we have gotten sidetracked.
The question is, why do atheists consider the documents of the New Testament/Quran to be inadequate to establish "truth", however that concept is defined.

When a tree falls in a forest, with no humans present, does it make a sound?

yes. That is the truth. How do we know it is the truth? Not because someone wrote it down on a holey piece of parchment.

It is the truth, because of physics--> when objects of great mass fall a significant distance, the interaction with the planet creates a vibration which can be detected and recorded, even if no human is present to detect that vibration==sound.

Now with such a simple minded definition of truth, can we proceed to address the topic of this thread? i.e. why is it that the documents which form the New Testament/Quran are insufficient as evidence of any event in history, comparable in the quality of "truthfulness" to that of the tree which fell last week in Vancouver, BC?

Kapyong

Gday,

Rubbish.

Mithras was NOT born on 25th Dec.
Mithras was NOT born of a virgin.
Mithras had no shepherds.
Mithras did no water into wine.
Mithras did not die for 3 days.
etc.

It's mostly complete crap.
Check your sources better next time.


K.

Chaucer

I've been at the receiving end of this crap and at one time swallowed (some of) it -- at first. Then further reading of original translated poetry and other texts of original traditions showed me that it was utter crap. Boy, was I pissed! The question now occurs to one: what was the motivation to make up such crap entirely out of whole cloth? Frankly, it now reads to me like a deliberate lie, not a stupidity or "careless" distortion. So what was the conscious motivation for such deliberate lying?

Chaucer

spin

No. You read what I said. You are just willing on one occasion to accept apologetics.

Right. I said you could answer that one. But you're working from a footnoted bible.

Again, as I said, "It's easy because of 9:29."

Given the way Paul uses adelfoi for sharers of the same religious views, there's nothing in that word that would suggest anything. You are simply swayed by your rationalization regarding the use of tou kuriou as a qualifier of adelfoi. What does the Hebrew theophoric name Ahijah mean?

You cannot assume that kurios must mean Jesus here. We may easily be dealing with a group with a specific reference, adelfoi tou kuriou, which is more in keeping with the context.

But, as I hinted, it would be difficult for you.

Here's a difficult one: 1 Cor 4:4 which does kurios refer to? You may think that 1 Cor 4:5 helps you because it talks about the lord coming, but what do you understand of that idea only from the Hebrew bible?? 1 Cor 4:19? 1 Cor 7:10? How do you figure out the reference for each of these if you have to work on the possibility that Paul can use the term kurios at random to mean either god or Jesus??


spin

angelo

[/quote=chaucer] So you are saying that Freke and Gandy wrote and researched the wrong gods?
Their work has received acclaim by various scholars and other authors.
So they wrote complete crap according to you. I read such books and try to read between the lines, I find their work quite plausible. It's no different to any of the 27 books of the N/T.

sschlichter

what is with the condescension? my footnoted bible said it was a quote. I decided that was not true.

How about instead of worrying about my footnotes you answer the question of how the referrent is ambiguous in Rom 4:8 when the exact same usage occurs in the Septuagint in Psl 32:2 and you have stated it is not ambiguous????

I do not assume it must mean Jesus here. I am reasonably confident that it does though. it is a grammatical possibility that it is referrring to a group called the 'brothers of the Lord', it is extremenly unlikely. kurios is used in verse 1 'Jesus our Lord' and verse 2. it is evident that it is referring to jesus.

it is also evident that he is talking about jesus from the context. I do not think it is likely that Paul is suggested that all the members of the religious group 'brothers of the Lord' are an example for marriage. He is clearly pointing to the example of leaders. The lack of specificity would be strange and the actual brothers of the Lord are known to be leaders in the church.

their are other references to Jesus' brothers but their is no other reference to a religious group called 'brothers of the Lord' that I am aware of. If there was I would say 'so what'. What is the point? How does it reflect interpolation since jesus is clearly and unambiguously referenced as the Lord in the same passage twice outside of this verse. if you were right, it would only reflect bad translation. You have to clarify how this in anyway helps your argument that the use of kurios is ambiguous in Pauls epistles.


I am not interested in a difficult one until we finish the ones on the table. I have questions about both that I would appreciate an answer to. In your answer, it would be better if you just spare me the part about how I am trapped in my apologetics and get right to it. I flunked the last greek class I took, so it takes me a lot of time to look through this stuff. please do not waste it.

sschlichter

Neither was Jesus

Chaucer

Oh, for crying out loud. Even some mythicists today know their claims of a gazillion and one parallels are sheer crap. Wake up and upchuck that Koolaid.

Chaucer