Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 09-03-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't like relying on the possibility of an interpolation when there are no clues for such an alteration, so I'm left with two choices: either Paul does use kurios for two different referents or "the brothers of the lord" doesn't refer to Jesus. The first choice is so unpalatable that I opt for the second choice.

spin

The first choice is apparent.

Paul, very intentionally refers to Jesus in a way that forces you to understand that he equates Jesus with God. Every use of kurios referring to Jesus has a LXX counterpart that refers to God.

Compare
Jos 9:18 kurion ton theon - Lord God
Gal 1:3 kuriou ihson xriston – Lord Jesus Christ

Compare

I Kings 16:16 ton kurion theon – the Lord God
Rom 13:14 ton kurion ihsou xristou – the Lord Jesus Christ

it is also obviosu from context that he is referring to Jesus and the Lord in the same manner.

He quotes from the LXX in Rom 14:11 " As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God."

And clearly uses the same language here to refer to Jesus. (Php 2:10) so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow - in heaven and on earth and under the earth -

1 Cor 2:16. Quoting from LXX, For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ. The Lord is from LXX. Paul equates the mind of God with the mind of Christ.

of course, I would include Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 9 but it does not seem necessary. Jesus is referred to as the Lord in every possible way that the LXX refers to God.

I am sorry but you are stuck with the unpalatable option even if 'brothers of the Lord' did not refer to Jesus. there is no reason to be confused over whom he is referring to as The Lord, he refers to both interchangably.

Doug Shaver · 09-03-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(Rom 8:3) For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh

Not actual flesh? Just something that was, in some relevant respect, like flesh? Something similar to flesh? Something looking like flesh?

spin · 09-04-2009, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't like relying on the possibility of an interpolation when there are no clues for such an alteration, so I'm left with two choices: either Paul does use kurios for two different referents or "the brothers of the lord" doesn't refer to Jesus. The first choice is so unpalatable that I opt for the second choice.

The first choice is apparent.

Paul, very intentionally refers to Jesus in a way that forces you to understand that he equates Jesus with God. Every use of kurios referring to Jesus has a LXX counterpart that refers to God.

Compare
Jos 9:18 kurion ton theon - Lord God
Gal 1:3 kuriou ihson xriston – Lord Jesus Christ

Compare

I Kings 16:16 ton kurion theon – the Lord God
Rom 13:14 ton kurion ihsou xristou – the Lord Jesus Christ

What you fail to show is where Paul uses kurios as titular for god. As the LXX has no difficulty with (Ps 110:1):

o kurios tw kuriw mou kaQou...

you need to show where Paul did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

it is also obviosu from context that he is referring to Jesus and the Lord in the same manner.

He quotes from the LXX in Rom 14:11 " As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God."

And clearly uses the same language here to refer to Jesus. (Php 2:10) so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow - in heaven and on earth and under the earth -

Paul simply uses the same language for god and his messenger. Nothing strange. After all Jesus was in heaven the same form as god, though on earth on the form of a servant. (Note that "form" helps to understand that Jesus is differrent.) You show the same respect for the messenger as the sender. It's the standard for such embassies at least in ancient times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

1 Cor 2:16. Quoting from LXX, For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ. The Lord is from LXX. Paul equates the mind of God with the mind of Christ.

No, he doesn't. You didn't notice the "but", which separates the mind of god from that of Jesus. We have access to the mind of Jesus who has access to that of god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

of course, I would include Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 9 but it does not seem necessary. Jesus is referred to as the Lord in every possible way that the LXX refers to God.

I am sorry but you are stuck with the unpalatable option even if 'brothers of the Lord' did not refer to Jesus. there is no reason to be confused over whom he is referring to as The Lord, he refers to both interchangably.

You are still working a priori and misunderstanding the texts you cite.

spin

spin · 09-04-2009, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Interested parties will find a detailed discussion in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, by Larry W. Hurtado. I will quote one passage:

There is further indication of the routinized Christological use of “Lord” among Jewish Christian circles of the earliest years in Paul’s references to “ the brothers of the Lord” (1 Cor. 9:5, hoi adelphoi tou kyriou) and to James, “the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19, ton adelphon tou kyriou). In both cases Paul seems to be deliberately referring to these figures in formulaic expressions by which they were honorifically designated in their own circles.—p. 111, n. 77

That certainly is the apologetic understanding that we've come to know and appreciate for what it is.

spin

jakejonesiv · 09-04-2009, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

All we have are people turning "brothers of the lord" into "brothers of Jesus" based on material extraneous to Paul. He doesn't, as one would expect, call these brothers "brothers of Jesus (Christ)", the obvious transparent means available. I think you are guilty of anachronistic clouding of Paul's text.

Paul frequently uses "the Lord" for "(Jesus) Christ".

But the redacted Pauline material does use Lord exclusively for Christ. Quite often it is unambiguosly the OT Yahweh. I can list dozens of examples, including quotes from the Jewish scriptures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

So far we haven't found that Paul acknowledged the existence of these fleshly connections of Jesus, so of course you can't expect him to deny what apparently isn't there.

So, you deny that Christ had siblings? Do you also then affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary? Do you think of her as Theotokis?

Surely you should know by now that it is bad methodology to read the gospels back into the Pauline context. :down:

Jake

jakejonesiv · 09-04-2009, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(Rom 8:3) For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh

Not actual flesh? Just something that was, in some relevant respect, like flesh? Something similar to flesh? Something looking like flesh?

Exactly. This text supports a docetic Christology as does Phillipians 2:7-8.

sschlichter · 09-04-2009, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(Rom 8:3) For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh

Not actual flesh? Just something that was, in some relevant respect, like flesh? Something similar to flesh? Something looking like flesh?

1) Rom 3:25 refers to his death as public
2) the seed of David (whome we know to be flesh) is illogical otherwise
3) Rom 5:19 refers to him as a man

sschlichter · 09-04-2009, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Interested parties will find a detailed discussion in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, by Larry W. Hurtado. I will quote one passage:

There is further indication of the routinized Christological use of “Lord” among Jewish Christian circles of the earliest years in Paul’s references to “ the brothers of the Lord” (1 Cor. 9:5, hoi adelphoi tou kyriou) and to James, “the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19, ton adelphon tou kyriou). In both cases Paul seems to be deliberately referring to these figures in formulaic expressions by which they were honorifically designated in their own circles.—p. 111, n. 77

That certainly is the apologetic understanding that we've come to know and appreciate for what it is.

spin

this is a non reply. it is not relevant whom the argument might be advantageous to. You cannot dis-regard something because it is 'typical'. You have to refute it with some sort of evidence.

jakejonesiv · 09-04-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Not actual flesh? Just something that was, in some relevant respect, like flesh? Something similar to flesh? Something looking like flesh?

1) Rom 3:25 refers to his death as public

Does not. Check Rom. 3:25 for yourself. Only the NAS supports your assertion. Greek here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

2) the seed of David (whom we know to be flesh) is illogical otherwise

Post Pauline interpolation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

3) Rom 5:19 refers to him as a man

Does not. Check Romans 5:19 for yourself.

The reference to Jesus as a man is added in some translations.

Jake

spin · 09-04-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That certainly is the apologetic understanding that we've come to know and appreciate for what it is.

this is a non reply.

It certainly was a reply, but not what you wanted to hear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

it is not relevant whom the argument might be advantageous to. You cannot dis-regard something because it is 'typical'. You have to refute it with some sort of evidence.

There is nothing to refute. It's not based on evidence, but the same error you committed. You must start with Paul not projections onto him.

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.