Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 07-21-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... the knees bow at the name of Jesus, because he was been declared "Lord".

That makes sense to me. And it brings meaning to Romans 10.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Do you have an Earl Doherty alert or something that lets you know when ED is posting? Two weeks between posts and suddenly Bingo pops in on an ED thread. That's interesting. 134 total posts and I'd bet a vast majority in threads with ED or ED threads.

Is this a way of saying that the content of Bingo's posts is incontestable, and suspicion of motive is the best that can be mustered?

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-21-2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

The word “name” in both verses is the same: “onoma.”
...
It is sometimes claimed that the word “onoma” can encompass a title.

What are your thoughts on Matthew 1:23?

“… and they will call his name Emmanuel …”

Was Jesus named Emmanuel?

Was Emmanuel used as a title?

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-21-2012, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Lord is not a name. It is an official title. Titles are not names. Not even for Jesus. Lord is a title like Imperator/Emperor or King or Dictator.
...
But what the hymn is telling us is that even Jesus is an honorific -- that is, a name not bestowed at birth but (like all honorifics) bestowed upon a ruler or general as a reward for victory or to acknowledge assumption to power (e.g. Africanus, Maccabee, Soter/Saviour, Epiphanes, Augustus).

“… you will call his name Jesus…”

“… and they will call his name Emmanuel …”

So in Matthew 1:21 and 1:23 Jesus gets two honorifics – but no proper name.

Grog · 07-21-2012, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Do you have an Earl Doherty alert or something that lets you know when ED is posting? Two weeks between posts and suddenly Bingo pops in on an ED thread. That's interesting. 134 total posts and I'd bet a vast majority in threads with ED or ED threads.

Is this a way of saying that the content of Bingo's posts is incontestable, and suspicion of motive is the best that can be mustered?

Not at all. Actually, I am suspecting that Bingo is sock puppet for someone regularly on the board who wants to create an echo chamber against ED. I found Bingo's sudden appearance here suspicious and so I researched past threads. The last significant thread Bingo participated in was also an ED thread. How does Bingo know when to suddenly pop into an ED thread?

I could be wrong, of course. I found it suspicious.

Frankly, I didn't think Bingo's contribution very significant in itself.

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-21-2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

How does Bingo know when to suddenly pop into an ED thread?

Bingo visits the forum every morning. If Bingo sees something worth replying to – and if Bingo thinks he can contribute, then Bingo does so.

Get over it.

sotto voce · 07-21-2012, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Do you have an Earl Doherty alert or something that lets you know when ED is posting? Two weeks between posts and suddenly Bingo pops in on an ED thread. That's interesting. 134 total posts and I'd bet a vast majority in threads with ED or ED threads.

Is this a way of saying that the content of Bingo's posts is incontestable, and suspicion of motive is the best that can be mustered?

Not at all. Actually, I am suspecting that Bingo is sock puppet for someone regularly on the board who wants to create an echo chamber against ED. I found Bingo's sudden appearance here suspicious and so I researched past threads. The last significant thread Bingo participated in was also an ED thread. How does Bingo know when to suddenly pop into an ED thread?

I could be wrong, of course. I found it suspicious.

You said it was suspicious, anyway. If one poster's motives are suspicious, why should the motives of another not be suspicious?

Quote:

Frankly, I didn't think Bingo's contribution very significant in itself.

It may be supposed far more significant than some others.

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-21-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One issue is that "Lord" KURIOS seems to have become in Jewish Greek something like a name of God corresponding to the Hebrew name of God Yahweh.

I know what you mean. But not in Romans 10:9.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

God raised the Lord from the dead.

Grog · 07-21-2012, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Not at all. Actually, I am suspecting that Bingo is sock puppet for someone regularly on the board who wants to create an echo chamber against ED. I found Bingo's sudden appearance here suspicious and so I researched past threads. The last significant thread Bingo participated in was also an ED thread. How does Bingo know when to suddenly pop into an ED thread?

I could be wrong, of course. I found it suspicious.

You said it was suspicious, anyway. If one poster's motives are suspicious, why should the motives of another not be suspicious?

Quote:

Frankly, I didn't think Bingo's contribution very significant in itself.

It may be supposed far more significant than some others.

Thanks for the input.

sotto voce · 07-21-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Not at all. Actually, I am suspecting that Bingo is sock puppet for someone regularly on the board who wants to create an echo chamber against ED. I found Bingo's sudden appearance here suspicious and so I researched past threads. The last significant thread Bingo participated in was also an ED thread. How does Bingo know when to suddenly pop into an ED thread?

I could be wrong, of course. I found it suspicious.

You said it was suspicious, anyway. If one poster's motives are suspicious, why should the motives of another not be suspicious?

Quote:

Frankly, I didn't think Bingo's contribution very significant in itself.

It may be supposed far more significant than some others.

Thanks for the input.

EarlDoherty · 07-21-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

For Chrissakes, Don. I asked the question as a means of demonstrating the problems that would be involved given such a claim. You are a piece of work! Do you think this means you don't have to address any of the surrounding arguments I am making?

I've made it clear from the start: I'm assuming that the "name that is above all names" is "Lord", as per your OP, when you asked "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?". According to your original point, if this “name” is “Lord” then "[t]here is a contradiction here which cannot be resolved." But you are wrong. There is no contradiction. It makes sense, just as your 'President' example makes sense. But if the "name" is not "Lord", then my point is moot.

All right, let's rephrase my sentence to make it clear to you what you should have realized I meant. By "what if the 'name' were 'Lord'?" I obviously meant: "What if one were to claim that the 'name' was 'Lord'? then these would be the problems involved in that claim.

If I am considering the relative value of alternate claims, and I put forward the one I don't subscribe to as an option and see what happens, does this mean that you or anyone else can simply beg that question ("assume" it, as you put it) and refuse to address the problems which I point out accompany that option? If I place that option on the table and then argue for why it does not work, why there are factors which override your claim that it could make sense, then it is encumbent upon you to address those arguments and factors. That is what you have refused to do. I think you really don't recognize the niceties of logic involved here. You have too much single-minded devotion to your own beliefs.

Later today I may try to come up with one of my patented analogies to demonstrate what I mean. Right now I have to go out.

Earl Doherty

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.