Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 07-24-2012, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

To be honest I don't know if Clement is saying the name was given after. Just that Jesus was a king. which is still odd because as a man he wasn't.

By his ability to sway willing subjects, not by holding an earthly title.

Vorkosigan
PS:

"Because it wasn't there.

Earl Doherty"

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Vorkosigan · 07-24-2012, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Very often that people end up saying or writing something else they intended say or write. You are correct in saying that the verse on the text level suggests that the name Jesus was bestowed posthumously. But we have an example of Paul saying elsewhere (1 Cr 2:2) that he will have among his congregation nothing but "Jesus and him crucified" which of course suggests that there was Jesus before crucifixion.

Best,
Jiri

No, Paul is simply emphasizing "not just Jesus, but the crucified Jesus". It's just a rhetorical structure that emphasizes the crucified Jesus, not two different statuses of Jesus.

1
When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God,* I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom.a
2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.b
3
I came to you in weakness* and fear and much trembling,
4
and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive (words of) wisdom,* but with a demonstration of spirit and power,c
5
so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-24-2012, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Even the common phrase “in the name of the Lord” is not making “Lord” itself a name, but refers to the act of calling upon God, referred to by one of his designations, whether Lord or Most High or Father, and so on.

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.

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"?

Nope. I am saying that there is no evidence to suggest that the authors of Romans 10 or Philippians 2 ever thought that ‘God’ (θεός) could be called ‘Lord’ (κύριος).

As far as those authors are concerned “Lord” never meant “God.”

As far as those authors are concerned “Lord” never referred to “God.”

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-24-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clown

Another thing you’ve failed to recognize is that the “every knee will bow to the lord” motif (originally from Isaiah 45:23 LXX) is also found in Romans 14:11. And that suggests that those passages are contemporaries.

As for defending the hymns as pre-Pauline, obviously you have done no reading on the subject. There are some half dozen 'hymns' sprinkled throughout the Pauline corpus (including the forgeries in Paul's name), and one in Hebrews. Their language and tone is very similar and suggests an established circle of common religious philosophy

First of all, there was no ‘Paul’. There was no ‘Q’. And if you were a clown you would know this shit.

The language and tone is exactly what I’m talking about. The language and tone of Philippians 2:6-11 is similar to the language and tone of Romans 10:9-13 and Romans 14:8-11. It suggests that they had more in common than just an allusion to Isaiah 45:23 LXX.

“He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death. As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father”

Compare ...

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

“For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living.”

See what I mean?

Isaiah 45:23 LXX doesn’t have a dying, going to the underworld, and then rising in order to become or to be called 'Lord' motif. But Philippians 2:6-11, 13 Romans 10:9-13, and Romans 14:8-11 all do. The commonality goes beyond the reference to Isaiah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

So Paul, in Romans, is quoting scripture. That means ... they both have to be by the same person?

No. I’m saying that the language and tone is very similar. And you yourself have admitted that that is important.

Now do you understand?

Please let me know if you have any additional trouble understanding me.

EarlDoherty · 07-24-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clown

Another thing you’ve failed to recognize is that the “every knee will bow to the lord” motif (originally from Isaiah 45:23 LXX) is also found in Romans 14:11. And that suggests that those passages are contemporaries.

As for defending the hymns as pre-Pauline, obviously you have done no reading on the subject. There are some half dozen 'hymns' sprinkled throughout the Pauline corpus (including the forgeries in Paul's name), and one in Hebrews. Their language and tone is very similar and suggests an established circle of common religious philosophy

First of all, there was no ‘Paul’. There was no ‘Q’. And if you were a clown you would know this shit.

The language and tone is exactly what I’m talking about. The language and tone of Philippians 2:6-11 is similar to the language and tone of Romans 10:9-13 and Romans 14:8-11. It suggests that they had more in common than just an allusion to Isaiah 45:23 LXX.

“He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death. As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father”

Compare ...

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

“For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living.”

See what I mean?

Isaiah 45:23 LXX doesn’t have a dying, going to the underworld, and then rising in order to become or to be called 'Lord' motif. But Philippians 2:6-11, 13 Romans 10:9-13, and Romans 14:8-11 all do. The commonality goes beyond the reference to Isaiah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

So Paul, in Romans, is quoting scripture. That means ... they both have to be by the same person?

No. I’m saying that the language and tone is very similar. And you yourself have admitted that that is important.

Now do you understand?

Please let me know if you have any additional trouble understanding me.

Well, of course the language and tone are similar. They're all talking about the basic beliefs of the sect. That doesn't mean they were all written by the same writer.

Are you for real?

Why is it that the more ignorance and irrationality displayed, the more cocky and juvenile the response?

Why does this forum attract these people like flies?

Earl Doherty

stephan huller · 07-24-2012, 04:35 PM

Freedom of speech. An American virture apparently.

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-25-2012, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Well, of course the language and tone are similar. They're all talking about the basic beliefs of the sect. That doesn't mean they were all written by the same writer.

I never claimed that the same writer wrote them. The point I’m making is that those passages are all on the same wavelength. Apparently at the time they were written it was fashionable to exploit Isaiah 45:23 LXX, Joel 2:32 LXX, and the vagueness of the title ‘Lord’.

Let me ask you this: When do you think the ‘pre-Pauline hymn’ was written?

Where did it come from?

Was it part of Q? :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Are you for real?

That’s a complicated question. I’ve never really thought about it. It’s not my area of interest. Maybe your question would be better answered by futurists like Raymond Kurzweil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Why is it that the more ignorance and irrationality displayed, the more cocky and juvenile the response?

You are reduced to name-calling. Is that because you are frustrated?

Please tell us more about this ‘pre-Pauline hymn’.

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-25-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The name here is definitely Jesus. But I am wondering how this argument helps either side. To be certain there wasn't a man called Jesus from birth being described here. But what does any of this mean? God empties himself before the crucifixion in the figure of a man and after the crucifixion the man who was really going to be crucified earns the right to the name Jesus. WTF does that really mean?

I am missing something here? The hymn never speaks of a man but only of a divinity taking on the form of a man.

And how about that crucifixion!

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The Philippians hymn when broken down into chiastic lines indicates that the phrase "even death on a cross" is an addition (very Pauline, by the way) which does not fit into the meter of that verse.

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-25-2012, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

An excellent book on the subject is J. T. Sanders' "The New Testament Christological Hymns" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971). No doubt you checked that out, or another like it, before donning your suit under the big tent. This is what Sanders has to say in summation:

"This examination of recent literature dealing with the problem of the historical religious background of the several NT Christological hymns...has shown that the background is in all probability to be sought in pre-Christian Judaism."

What does “pre-Christian” mean? Kraft argues that Jesus-worship can be traced all the way back to Deuteronomy 34:10.

The ‘pre-Pauline hymn’ must certainly post-date the Greek practice of replacing the name Yahweh with the title Lord. Emanuel Tov argues that the Greeks originally wrote the divine name as IAW. He cites 4QpapLXXLevb (which is dated to 1 BC) as an example of this. He says the use of ‘Lord’ represents a later stage in the development of the translation.

So when was your pre-Pauline/ pre-Christian hymn written?

Tell us!

stephan huller · 07-25-2012, 09:00 AM

Kraft overstates the influence of the Joshua cult especially with respect to the Samaritans. Talk to a Samaritan

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

07-24-2012, 04:35 PM	#146
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Freedom of speech. An American virture apparently.

07-25-2012, 09:00 AM	#150
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Kraft overstates the influence of the Joshua cult especially with respect to the Samaritans. Talk to a Samaritan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.