Bingo the Clown-O

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

Bingo the Clown-O

Other good reading:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...oshuaCult1.php

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13461451/The-Cult-of-Joshua

sotto voce

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

Iskander

For a believer there is no such a thing as god’s proper name. The various names given to the many gods are only identifiers of what can only be very vaguely perceived, if at all.

The tetragramon is not the proper name of the god of Judaism, but one identifier used in a very reverential manner: in the manner that identify this word with the supreme chief of all, as in king, lord, pope, president... Identifiers are used in this fashion by committed followers and supporters.
Once the identifier is used men and women can pretend to know much about their talking, walking, messaging, law making ... fully known god.

A new religion cannot be invented without agreement on a new name for god .Without an identifier for god there is no revelation or whatever else may be needed to justify a new religion.

Grog

Perhaps, but why do you think so?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Best,
Jiri

sotto voce

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."

EarlDoherty

Well, there are a hell of a lot of Christians today who haven't reached the age of four, I guess. It's a powerful clue to you and to me, but you haven't done squat in proving that those who wrote the Genesis myth several centuries before our era did not look upon it as history.

Well, thanks. As with the usual genre of allegory, the characters and events in the Gospels you accept as not representing history? What are we arguing about, then?

This is a declaration that requires proof, in the form of evidence and argument. I don't see any of that.

You can't seem to grasp my point. Paul speaking of "if Christ was not raised" is not saying ON EARTH. A death and rising in a mythical setting was sufficient to guarantee human resurrection. The former point is never raised.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

What does this have to do with my point? Surely you don't think I am saying that Jesus is the only one with the title "Lord"?

I don't know why I bother.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

So what? We are talking about the sequence of naming and the logic of given interpretations of verses 9 and 10. Are you saying that God was not given the title of "Lord" but only Jesus? Do you even know what it is you are saying?

Earl Doherty