aa5874

So, you agree that Joshua was not the LORD.

What argument are you talking about?

Loomis

The argument that says that since Joshua was not the LORD in the OT, that Jesus couldn’t be the LORD in the NT. And the related argument that says that since Jesus was not the LORD in one section of the NT, that Jesus couldn’t be the LORD in another section of the NT.

Romans 10:9-13 clearly states that Jesus was the LORD that Joel 2:32 and Isaiah 28:16 was talking about. The author was going out of his way to emphasize that Jesus had the Lord’s name. The author of that passage either didn’t know or didn’t care that his central figure was named after Joshua. The author of that passage either didn’t know or didn’t care that the Lord in Joel 2:32 or Isaiah 28:16 was originally named Yahweh.

And by contrast Hebrews 4:14 portrays Jesus as Joshua the High Priest from Zechariah 3:1 LXX.

These ideas are completely incompatible from a theological or historical perspective, but they make perfect sense if you think of the authors as being contestants in a creative writing exercise - where the goal is to create an amusing messiah story based on characters, events, and motifs in the OT.

darstec

Joshua/Jesus was the second greatest Hebrew after Moses. So in that regard I guess it might be considered a step up.

Hosea/Hoshea (osee in Greek) meant Salvation of/is the lord. Joshua (iesous in Greek) meant Yahweh is salvation. But in Deuteronomy Joshua is called Hoshea/Hosea. To add to the confusion the English differentiates between the king Hoshea and the prophet Hosea.

The best we can say is "round and round we go, where she stops nobody knows."

Personally I think those giving names do not have the foggiest idea what any of them really mean and are just making up the meanings from their imagination.

Loomis

Get a load of John 15:21. It could be taken as proof that the author’s readers were unfamiliar with Yahweh and that the author exploited it. This passage could be an inside joke:

Loomis

The author of Sirach 46 professed to know what the name Jesus meant.

aa5874

Well that is not really my argument.

My point is that a Pauline writer claimed the LORD Jesus the Messiah was given a name ABOVE every other name BEFORE the Fall of the Temple but according to history it was in the 4th century that the NAME OF JESUS was ABOVE every other name in the Roman Empire to which Name all Roman citizens should BOW when Constantine made JESUS the NEW GOD of the Roman Empire.

Up to the 3rd century people who used the name of Jesus were hated and abused based on "Against Celsus".

The Pauline writings do not reflect the 1st century but of some later time.

It has ALREADY been shown that Joshua was NOT the LORD.

Joel 2.32 and Isaiah 28.16 have nothing whatsoever to do with a man called Jesus of Nazareth.

No man can be the LORD GOD OF THE JEWS.


Joshua was not the LORD in the OT. "In the name of" means 'on behalf of" or "under the authority". When some does anything in the name of an authority there are simply acting on the behalf of that authority.

It was customary do carry out orders in the "NAME of the KING." The person carrying out the order was not given the name of the King.

Loomis

I’m fine with all of that. But the burning issue is if Constantine pulled all this stuff out of his ass anew, or if the “bowing” and the “giving of the name” motifs existed in earlier literature. That’s where it looks like we disagree, and I think it’s because you don’t understand my point about “Jesus is the Lord.”

Fyi the bowing motif is also found in Romans 14:8-11 and it depends on Isaiah 45:23 LXX.
Read it carefully. It says that Christ died and returned to life so that he might become the Lord – the Lord that is found in Isaiah 45:23.

Now compare …
Notice that the text allows 'the Lord' and 'God' to be two separate deities.

It’s a promise. It’s a prophecy. The Lord is speaking; He is talking about something that will happen in the future.

The author of Romans 14:8-11 is saying that Jesus is 'the Lord' and the Father is 'God.'

The author is saying that the Lord fulfilled his prophecy by becoming the Lord of the dead and the living.

Romans 14:8-11 only makes sense if it is understood that Jesus is the Lord who made the promise in Isaiah 45:23-24.

Loomis

The author of Romans wanted his readers to think that Jesus was the LORD in the OT.

At least in 10:9-13 and 14:8-11.

aa5874

But, whatever you think "Paul" was trying to do it was not likely to happen in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

There is no non-apologetic source that mentioned a Jewish Messiah named Jesus, a resurrected dead, the Creator, equal to God, who was given a name above EVERY name on earth in Italy, Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Asia, Ephesus, Laodecia, Macedonia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Colosse, Judea, Galilee, Jerusalem or anywhere in the Roman Empire before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.


Now, please tell me who read a Pauline Epistle in any century before Constantine made Jesus the NEW GOD of the Roman Empire?

It was NOT Justin Martyr and all the people in the country and cities when Justin was alive.

The people in the churches read the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

"First Apology" LXVII"Paul" had an audience? When?


It was the "Memoirs" in the 2nd century.

Clivedurdle

I would take a very different position on this. From link in OP

Instead of debating alleged historicity of synoptics versus theology of John I would definitely study demonology and attitudes to witchcraft.

This is a critical fault line, and in fact puts John in the modern world apart from the superstitio of the synoptics.

John is also where we find the idea of the logos.

Are we looking at completely separate world views?