sotto voce

'Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.' Ac 5:42 NIV

'As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said.' Ac 17:2-3 NIV

Steven Carr

So you quote Acts, after I cited Paul.

That means you wasted your time posting.

sotto voce

Paul is mentioned in Acts, you see. Cunning, eh.

Steven Carr

Still wasting your time ,quoting Acts when I mentioned Paul.

sotto voce

:lalala:

hjalti

I think the best argument for the name being "Jesus" is that "to bow the knee to the name of X" seems to be parallel to "to confess that X is lord", so to me at least it looks like that "lord" is a title: bowing the knee to someone seems to my amaterur eyes to be the same as saying that he iss your lord.

But, like some people have pointed out, Kyrios was a quasi-name, so I don't think it's a "smoking gun".

A funny factoid: I once heard James White, a fundie calvinist, saying in a debate with a JW that he thought that the name in this hymn was Jesus! I don't think he realises the implications that view has :grin:

Bingo the Clown-O

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.”

Bingo the Clown-O

It makes sense in 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.”

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.

aa5874

Again, when did those things happen??? When were those things written??? It MUST first be established when the Pauline letters were composed if we are attempting to understand them.

Surely, if Philippians 2 was composed in the 2nd century or later it may have some other meaning.

Please, examine the very first verse of Philippians--the Church of Philippi was ALREADY well-established with BISHOPS and DEACONS.

Based on 2nd century writers Lucian of Samosata and Justin Martyr the Jesus cult had PRESIDENTS--NOT Bishops.

An understanding of Philippians 2 must be derived when it is first established when it was composed.

Using Acts of the Apostles as the history of Pauline letters is no longer acceptable. The author of Acts did NOT even claim Paul wrote letters to churches.

What would Philippians 2 mean if it is established when it was really composed???