Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 07-21-2012, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo

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?

Now why would you think Emmanuel would be used as a title? And who is being given the name "Emmanuel"? Is it Jesus? So a baby is born already bearing the name Jesus, but he is to be given the name Emmanuel? Does this make sense? Are you trying to apply this to your interpretation of the Philippians hymn? Anyway, alotting the unmentioned name "Jesus" to the Son before his descent is begging the question.

There isn't a NT scholar alive or dead who has been able to make sense of Matthew 1:23 from an orthodox point of view. But Matthew has merely quoted from Isaiah 7:14, thinking that it is a prophecy of the birth of Jesus, even though the child is given a completely different name. (Of course, it wasn't a messianic prophecy, its use had no connection to a child allegedly born several centuries later.) That the evangelist could simply breeze past the contradiction demonstrates the innate incapacity for logic in early Christian writers. Are you deliberately following in their footsteps?

If I call upon the name of Bingo the Clown, is "Clown" a name?

If I say, "those who confess that Bingo is a Clown will be saved," does that make "Clown" a name? Or is it a descriptive designation? A category term? If you like, a title.

And a statement of fact?

Earl Doherty

sotto voce · 07-21-2012, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

There isn't a NT scholar alive or dead who has been able to make sense of Matthew 1:23 from an orthodox point of view.

Nonsense. If you can't be bothered to read my posts, yours are not worth reading.

EarlDoherty · 07-21-2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sottovoce

Its perfect, neat logic, that has given rise to systematic theology, has helped to convince many that it may well be historically true— not crafted, humanity not being noted for rationality in matters of morality. Proving historicity, or craftsmanship, is of course not a practical option. For many who may not be academic, a practical, everyday relation to reality constitutes 'proof', a fact that academia might do well to bear in mind.

They might, if they could understand what you are saying. I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

Quote:

Everything from Gen 1:1 to 11:? can be reasonably taken as allegory, the chronicle emerging somewhere before the end of that latter chapter. These story myths are not intended as chronicle, and should not be taken as such.

And how have you proven that Genesis was not meant as history?

Quote:

The gospels, along with the likes of Exodus, Joshua and Judges are intended as chronology. They may be invention, but the clear intention is that they are intended to be believed as record.

And how have you proven that the Gospels were not meant as allegory?

Quote:

There are clear literary criteria for making this distinction.

Oh? And what are those criteria? And would you like to argue them in application to the Gospels?

Quote:

So it is not legitimate to suppose that, because there was no certainly literal ancient global deluge, there can have been no incarnation, death and resurrection. A non-literal deluge has no consequence, whereas actual incarnation, death and resurrection are essential to the Christian view.

And who is arguing that BECAUSE there was no literal flood, neither can there by a literal incarnation, death and resurrection? Not me. I'd criticize anybody who made such an argument. BUT--your stated reason for not making that connection is hardly logical. An "actual incarnation, death and resurrection are essential to the Christian view" is only something that came into effect with the Gospels. Despite it being regularly read into the epistles, you cannot demonstrate where such a principle is put forward. It isn't there. The first to make that argument is Ignatius, or whoever wrote in his name.

Nor can you logically say that just because a certain belief is "essential" to the thinking of a group, that makes it necessarily true or historically actual. Is that the kind of logic they taught you in school?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 07-21-2012, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Thank-you, Steven. Not only does this show that the name "Jesus" as the god of the Christians entailed the idea of savior, the giving of that name is tied to the role of being the savior. Flash back to the pre-incarnation phase of the faith. In the Philippians hymn the same connection is being presented. The "Son"--in this case of God, not of Mary--is given a name for the same reason, because he saved his people. The name that entails being a savior is not "Lord", it is "Jesus."

Not so. The word 'Jesus', or 'Joshua', was common enough. The significance came in the pre-figurement of the Joshua who led Israel from a desert into the Promised Land. Apart from this, and of course its literal meaning, there is no descriptive force in the name 'Jesus'. The first son of Joseph and Mary could have been given any name at all, that name being merely a 'handle'. In theory, Jesus of Nazareth could have been Pethuel of Bethlehem.

It is the word 'lord' that is contingent on the role of saviour. Lordship is won by gratitude for salvation, and not a moment before. God as creator is not lord, at least, not lord in the sense that Christians mean it.

So, 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God' means that a man who just happened to be called 'Jesus' was Messiah, therefore saviour and lord; and he could achieve salvation and lordship only by a) being perfect (ergo, deity); and b) manifesting himself to mankind (Immanuel), and being tempted as mankind is. Which brings us back to the hymn: 'but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant'.

"you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins"

Just exactly where, above, did you deal with this?

The above, by the way, would do any theologian proud.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 07-21-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

There isn't a NT scholar alive or dead who has been able to make sense of Matthew 1:23 from an orthodox point of view.

Nonsense. If you can't be bothered to read my posts, yours are not worth reading.

What, you've solved this dilemma? You're a NT scholar alive or dead?

Earl Doherty

sotto voce · 07-21-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by sottovoce

Its perfect, neat logic, that has given rise to systematic theology, has helped to convince many that it may well be historically true— not crafted, humanity not being noted for rationality in matters of morality. Proving historicity, or craftsmanship, is of course not a practical option. For many who may not be academic, a practical, everyday relation to reality constitutes 'proof', a fact that academia might do well to bear in mind.

They might, if they could understand what you are saying.

They can, believe me.

Quote:

Everything from Gen 1:1 to 11:? can be reasonably taken as allegory, the chronicle emerging somewhere before the end of that latter chapter. These story myths are not intended as chronicle, and should not be taken as such.

Quote:

And how have you proven that Genesis was not meant as history?

It's to be proven that it is history. A talking snake is a powerful clue in the other direction, even for four-year-olds.

Quote:

The gospels, along with the likes of Exodus, Joshua and Judges are intended as chronology. They may be invention, but the clear intention is that they are intended to be believed as record.

Quote:

And how have you proven that the Gospels were not meant as allegory?

They can be taken as allegory. Feel free.

Quote:

There are clear literary criteria for making this distinction.

Quote:

Oh? And what are those criteria?

Standard literary criteria that are taught in secondary education.

Quote:

And would you like to argue them in application to the Gospels?

If there is sufficient reason to do so.

Quote:

So it is not legitimate to suppose that, because there was no certainly literal ancient global deluge, there can have been no incarnation, death and resurrection. A non-literal deluge has no consequence, whereas actual incarnation, death and resurrection are essential to the Christian view.

Quote:

And who is arguing that BECAUSE there was no literal flood, neither can there by a literal incarnation, death and resurrection? Not me.

I see. I got quite the wrong impression.

Quote:

BUT--your stated reason for not making that connection is hardly logical. An "actual incarnation, death and resurrection are essential to the Christian view" is only something that came into effect with the Gospels.

No, no. The oral lore that went into the gospels was around from the (putative) resurrection, and much of it previous to that event. It was absolutely the cause of the church.

Quote:

Despite it being regularly read into the epistles

There was no reason to write a letter to people who were not expecting to be resurrected.

'If the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead.' 1 Co 15:16-20 NIV

Quote:

Nor can you logically say that just because a certain belief is "essential" to the thinking of a group, that makes it necessarily true or historically actual.

True. That's why I wrote 'They may be invention'.

Quote:

Is that the kind of logic they taught you in school?

I was taught to read carefully. Sometimes, I do.

sotto voce · 07-21-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

There isn't a NT scholar alive or dead who has been able to make sense of Matthew 1:23 from an orthodox point of view.

Nonsense. If you can't be bothered to read my posts, yours are not worth reading.

What, you've solved this dilemma? You're a NT scholar alive or dead?

Sometimes, I'm unsure.

But if you read my explanation of onoma, you will hopefully understand emmanouel.

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-21-2012, 09:40 PM

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.

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-21-2012, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

And what happens if the “name” given in verse 9 is not “Jesus” but some other term? It would be like saying, “He was given the name George, so that at the name of Robert every knee should bow.”

Not necessarily. Consider Leviticus 24:16 LXX.

“And he that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death: let all the congregation of Israel stone him with stones; whether he be a stranger or a native, let him die for naming the name of the Lord.”

Maybe the author was saying, “He was given the unspeakable name from Leviticus 24:16, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.”

Bingo the Clown-O · 07-21-2012, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

But what if the “name” were “Lord”? Is that “a name above every name”? Since it is a title of God himself it certainly would be, presuming we could take “name” as encompassing a title.

Not necessarily a "title of God himself."

“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.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.