Petergdi

Your reading seems to be close to the historically normal orthodox reading, but I really don't think that it is what Paul is getting at here.

Although, I arrived at my understanding largely by myself. I have learned that I am not alone in seeing Adam parallels/contrasts in the first half. See Martin, Ralph P. Philippians: Tyndale New Testament Commentary Eerdmans/IVP 1987 pp102-104.

Although Wesley was rather interested in Adam/Christ comparisons in Paul, he doesn't seem to have noticed this was one of them. He also read a good deal more orthodox doctrine into the New Testament than I think was in the minds of its human authors at the time. I have no big quarrel with orthodoxy of the sort which tolerates dissent, I'm orthodox in many respects myself, but I'm interested here in what Paul intended at the time.

While Philippians 2:6-11 may well have had its origin in a very early hymn, we still have to look at the context to see how Paul understood it. And the context, far from stressing the uniqueness of Christ, says that God makes it possible for you to do it too. You can have the mind of Christ (in which the knowledge of good and evil is selfless) and that you can even be obedient to the point of death. Paul expects that his own execution may be coming up soon, and he even uses sacrificial imagery for his own execution (verse 17).

I am not saying that Paul downplays the uniqueness of Christ, since it is through believing into Christ that these things are made possible, but he is certainly stressing the "you can do it too" aspect.

Peter.

aa5874

You simply do not appear to understand that there is a vast difference between EVIDENCE and TRUST.

I do NOT have to TRUST HOMER, NOR do I have to TRUST his description of Achilles to tell you EXACTLY what HOMER wrote about ACHILLES.

Homer's Achilles was the offspring of a SEA-GODDESS, that is the EVIDENCE. This description, information or EVDENCE of Achilles from HOMER has nothing whatsoever to do with TRUST, the desciption is EVIDENCE that supports MYTHOLOGY.

Now, likewise, the author of gMatthew and gLuke wrote that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and that is EVIDENCE that supports MYTHOLOGY, NOT TRUST.

Again, you seem not to understand what is evidence. You seem to think that I must believe the information in the Pauline writings in order to use the writings as evidence.

The Pauline writings are evidence whether I believe them or not.

Now this is the evidence in the Pauline writings.

A Pauline writer wrote that he was an apostle, not of a man, but of Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead.

This evidence in the Pauline writings is consistent with LYING.

1.If Jesus Christ did exist he must have been a man or human.

2. Once Jesus was a man or human, he did not resurrect.

I have deduced from the EVIDENCE found in the Pauline writings that the Pauline writer was a LIAR.

By, the way, I only mentioned one case of LYING by a Pauline writer to save time.

Well, it is quite consistent with lying. Religous people have lied about visions.

There is no historical evidence of antiquity external of the Church writings that there was an entity referred to as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, Jesus the Messiah in Galilee who was raised from the dead before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

But, you have already written that you are NOT CONCERNED IF YOU ARE WRONG about the dating of the Pauline writings.

Absolute rubbish.

The theory that the earth was spherical was put forward before Columbus attempted to sail west to India in the East.

And there are thousands of documents about the offspring of the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ, there is no need to present all the thousands of documents.

All that is needed is SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for a theory.

There is [b]sufficient evidence from apologetic sources to SUPPORT the theory that Saul/Paul or the Pauline writers were LIARS.

ALL CONCLUSIONS ARE ACTUALLY PROVISIONAL. New Evidence, not speculation, can nullify any previous conclusion

It is for that precise fact that the verdict of jurors are overturned and that Galileo was able to put forward the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.

Conclusions are based on the present available evidence, not on the assumed lost or unknown evidence.

But, once you admit that LYING is a possible option, then you have nothing whatsoever to diminish my arguments.

Religous people are known to have LIED about visions. Please read about Joseph Smith and THEN the Pauline writer in Galatians.

So, are you claiming that the existence of Jesus is STRENGTHENED because a Pauline writer claimed Jesus talked to him from heaven?

We don't have any evidence that Jesus was a visionary being in the NT Canon.

The NT Canon does NOT SUPPORT DOCETISM.

The NT Canon SUPPORTS a GOD/MAN

The evidence in the Pauline writings show that the Pauline writer wrote that he recieved from Jesus how he was BETRAYED in the NIGHT after HE had SUPPED and was RAISED FROM the DEAD.

That is the evidence in the Canon and is supported by the CHURCH writings.


Once you admit that the MYTHOLOGICAL Jesus is an option then all your speculation about other options is of very little consequence.

I have presented the historical sources of antiquity that support my theory that JESUS was a MYTH. You must present your historical sources of antiquity to support the other options if you can find any.

First of all, may I remind you that you have admitted that you are NOT concerned if you are wrong about the dating of the Pauline writings, so why are you trying to claim or concerned that I MAY BE wrong?

And you have ALREADY claimed that "THEY WERE LYING and HYPED up their Origin but have great difficulty accepting my theory that the NT Canon is a pack of LIES.

Now, please notice that I used the words "MY THEORY" not "I KNOW".

Now, I KNOW where to find EVIDENCE that the Pauline writings are a pack of LIES with respect to Jesus, the apostles and Saul/Paul. I have already shown you Galatians 1

Show me the EVIDENCE from sources of antiquity of your teensy-weensy Jesus cult before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Again, you do not appear to understand what is evidence and you have confessed that you are [b]NOT CORCERNED if you are wrong about the dating of the Pauline writings. You seem to think that I must first believe the BIBLE or the Church writings are true or inerrant before I can present the information as evidence.

I have already given you EVIDENCE from apologetic sources which placed or tended to place Saul/Paul or the Pauline writers after the Fall of the Temple according to Chrysostom as late as the fourth century very few people knew that there was a book and the author of the book called Acts of the Apostles which was supposedly well-known by Irenaeus.

The writings of Justin Martyr SUPPORTS CHRYSOSTOM.

JUSTIN did not write ONE THING about the author or the book of Acts.

You really have no evidence. You have already said that YOU CANNOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE to show that the Pauline writings were earliest.

I think you said it was because you were NOT a friggen' scholar .

But, it is precisely my view that Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" and "First Apology" would have mentioned Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings if they were known by him.

Once again, you propagate mis-leading information or half-truths.

It is NOT "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

IT IS Absence of Evidence is NOT ALWAYS evidence of Absence.

Now, your teensy-weensy theory is based on SILENCE. The very source for the history of Pauline writer claimed there was at least 8000 JEWS who were Jesus believers in just two days even before the Pauline writer was converted by a bright light.

There were even Jesus believers in Damascus before Saul/Paul.

Your teensy-weensy Jesus cult is an invention from your imagination but you are not concerned if you are wrong right now.

spamandham

This to me, is the most interesting statement made in this thread so far. Is it true?

avi

Yes, I believe you are writing sincerely.

Oh.
Sorry.
You mean is it true that 'kurios' had not completely replaced 'yahweh' until mid second century.

Would that then be exlusively among the Greek speaking/writing Jews? Why would the Aramaic speaking Jews change? Weren't they reading, instead, the proto-Masoretic text, in Hebrew, comparable to what has been found in Qumran?

I think this qualifies as among the most significant points of this thread.

Thanks for this explanation, Andrew.

I apologize for writing so obscurely. I was simply attempting to inquire whether the Hellenized Jews who authored the gospels deliberately used 'kurios' rather than 'theos', to avoid any misunderstanding of their message, when spoken to those who, living in the Eastern Mediterranean region, (land conquered by Alexander,) had assimilated Greek language and culture.

So, is it correct then, that Philo, representing Hellenized, well educated Jews, in the first part of the first century, referred to 'God', as 'kurios'? When did the Christians first adopt 'kurios' as a title exclusively for Jesus, and NOT for 'God'? Since the gospel writers depended so heavily upon LXX, why did they change to 'theos', from 'kurios' in referring to 'God', but not Jesus?

avi

gurugeorge

No I don't.

Absolutely.

All this is also consistent with being mistaken, with having been fooled, with having visions, etc., etc.

In claiming a literal case of lying, you are claiming something that goes beyond the evidence.

See, you are judging a claim about a supernatural entity that's written in a text, and because (as I presume we both believe) there are no such things as supernatural entities, god-men, etc., etc., you are deducing that someone who says they are the emissary of such an entity is lying.

That is an illegitimate assumption, it's a leap that goes beyond the evidence.

What you CAN say with certainty in this case, is that they were WRONG.

To say that they were wrong and lying (rather than wrong and mistaken, wrong and fooled, wrong and visionaries, etc.) you need more and different kinds of evidence.

Also, while it might be possible to say they were lying about the god-man claim (provided you found some evidence to distinguish a case of lying from a case of being mistaken, being fooled, believing in one's own visions, etc.), that claim of lying would only extend to the god-man claim itself. Any claim about lying elsewhere in the texts (e.g. in historical claims OTHER THAN the claim of a god-man) would require fresh investigation.

But you haven't actually answered my question - your claim goes beyond merely Paul lying, right? It extends to the whole NT Canon and (IIRC from another thread) the apologetic writings outside the canon.

So if it extends to the whole Canon, to all the Christian writings, then why is this late apologetic claim about Paul and GLuke suddenly a truth? Why does a truth pop up at just this point, when everything else is a "pack of lies"?

Of course it's only like this because it supports a theory that you favour (late "Paul"). It's cherry-picking.

Yes and they've also not lied about visions. Or don't you believe that? Do you believe that EVERY claim of a person to having had a vision of a spiritual entity is a lie?

No, once again, there is not: you have failed to distinguish lying from any number of other possibilities, where you have a situation that people claim the existence of something but are (objectively, from our point of view) wrong about it.

You are, as we say in English, "jumping the gun" about lying.

Once again: all you can certainly say is that they were WRONG. That they were LYING requires more of an argument than simply pointing out the fact that god-men can't exist in reality.

There's a difference between:-

1) lying wrt a god-man
2) being mistaken about a god-man
3) being fooled about a god-man
4) making up a story about a god-man for entertainment (that then gets believed to be real - that could tie in with 3) above)
5) having visions of a god-man

Joseph Smith isn't the only person in the world who's ever claimed to have visions of deities, spirits, gods, etc., etc. Why should I take his case to be typical?

And besides, it looks to me like he was a kid who did have visions, but it all got hyped up out of proportion by his family, and then at some point people started lying (e.g. re the golden tablets). It looks to me like Smith himself wasn't the culprit in all that, his dad (was it his dad or some other guardian figure? can't remember) was.

Avi mentions that English is not your first language? If so, you do write English very well, but perhaps you should consider that sometimes you miss nuances, and perhaps you should consider it might be wise not to shoot off at the mouth about things until you're absolutely sure you've understood what you're responding to.

In this case, how anyone could think, after numerous exchanges between us, that I think the existence of Jesus is strengthened because of Paul's visions, is completely baffling.

In case you've been labouring under a misapprehension all the time we've been talking: I THINK THERE WAS NO JESUS CHRIST, NEITHER GOD-MAN NOR MAN, HE IS A MYTH, MYTH ALL THE WAY DOWN. I think that Paul's visions (going on the standard dating) STRENGTHEN the case that the Christ he's talking about is and always was a MYTH.

I think I've explained this to you before, but here it is again: what I'm calling visionary experience is a capacity of the brain, under certain conditions, including but not limited to cases of insanity, to produce very real-seeming visions - hallucinations - of entities that don't exist.

If you want to test this for yourself, you can try lucid dreaming experiments, or conversely "astral travel" experiments.

In this capacity of the brain, we have a ready source of experience whereby people can having seemingly strong visions of entities that don't actually exist, can report those seeings enthusiastically to others (so enthusiastically that others are convinced), etc., etc., etc.

IOW, in this capacity of the brain, we have a ready source of RELIGION.

No rational person would ever have POSITED gods, spirits, etc., etc., as causal factors in the world. The only reason why the terms "god", "spirit", "demon", etc., etc., exist in human languages, is because of this capacity of the brain to produce visions of entities that don't exist.

I think the "Paul" writings show that the Christian case is typical of this kind of religious start-up in visionary experiences.

Now, it may be the case that you deny what I'm saying here about this capacity of the brain, and that you think that any time anybody claims to have had a vision of an entity (an entity that can't exist in reality) that they must be lying.

In which case I would ask you why you think this is so, when the capacity already exists to have such visions without any lies involved?

Whoa! Back up there. Let's backtrack a minute:

You are saying that the NT Canon is lies on the basis that the type of entity they claim can't possibly exist. I've criticized you on the "lying" aspect (because "lying" is a specific thing about which we have no proof here - as I said, they might just have been mistaken, or have been fooled, or had visions, or some other explanation - lying is a strong claim that needs stronger evidence than simply the fact that they were WRONG in their claim about an entity). But the aspect of your argument that judges an ancient claim according to the standards of modern rational thought - that bit's fine.

You can certainly say that if people claim a god-man exists they are wrong because such an entity cannot exist.

Well, what I'm doing here has a similar logical structure to that: I'm using modern science (neuroscience) to take an OBJECTIVE look at what's going on in the NT Canon (standing outside the writings, looking on at them from a modern rational point of view), and saying that, yes, while a god-man can't possibly exist, VISIONS OF A GOD-MAN CAN.

And such visions are sufficient to establish strong belief in something - something about which the believers can be wrong, but not lying.

But of course there are other options too: they might have been mistaken (for example, the initial "Mark" story might have been a literary product that poeple came to believe the truth of - no lying involved, just error, superstition, etc.).

Now, here's the source of a fair bit of confusion around this area: just because something is mythological in OUR terms, doesn't mean it's mythological to people in those days.

Say, with Docetism, that's a particular theological interpretation of the structure of the purported god-man entity. It's quite feasible that someone could have had a visionary experience of a god-man without having to believe that the god-man, while on earth, had an illusory body.

TO US, any vision of a god-man has to be (as we would say) of a phantom, of something that doesn't exist, etc.

But that doesn't mean that TO THEM, to those having the visions at the time, they thought of him as a phantom, or something that didn't have a physical body, etc. In fact, to the contrary, it looks like Paul is having visions of a god-man whom he believes existed physically on earth at some time in the past (incarnate in flesh), but who is now communicating with him directly as a spiritual being. Other Christians may have had other ideas (e.g. that the god-man never had flesh, but only appeared to, etc., etc.) That's all secondary (secondary to us, of course - to them, these questions might have had great importance).

Solo

Geza Vermes states (in Jesus the Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk)) that while in the 3rd and 2nd century BCE 'Lord' (kyrios) was not known as a divine title (except in locutions like the Danielic 'Lord of heaven'), it became quite common after it had been frequently deployed in the Wisdom of Solomon, in 1.c BCE. Both Philo and Josephus use it commonly as a title of God. The acceptance of the practice probably had to do with the custom of rending the tetragram as 'Adonai' (Lord) in Hebrew when reading the scripture in public, as it was forbidden to utter the sacred name of YHWH aloud. The reference and address of God as 'Lord' in Aramaic (Marah) occurs frequently in the Qumran texts.

Vermes believes that the usage and address of God as 'Lord' bespeaks of the apocalyptic mindset.

Jiri

aa5874

You absolutely do because that is exactly what you have stated. You consistently and constantly asked my why I trust the Canon when I have told you that I do not have to TRUST the Canon to show the EVIDENCE in the Canon.

The NT Canon and Church writings are EVIDENCE of MYTHOLOGY and LIES, and the MYTHOLOGY and LIES are internally and externally corroborated.

YOU have ALREADY claimed, OF, COURSE, THEY WERE LYING..... why are you upset because I have INCLUDED Saul/Paul?

Saul/Paul IS ONE OF THE LIARS who HYPED UP his own origin.

You have used ABSENCE of Evidence to claim THEY WERE LYING yet CONTINUE to try and DERAIL me when I include the Pauline writer as one of them who LIED and HYPED UP his own origin.

Why do you think that only you can make claims of those who are LIARS in the Canon and Church writings?

Well, please desist from asking me about TRUST. I have used the Pauline writings as EVIDENCE to show the Pauline writers were LIARS. They made FALSE claims and you have ALREADY acknowledged, " they were lying and hyped up their origins."

The Pauline writers were lying and hyped up their origins.

Absolute rubbish. It is evidence from the Pauline writings that I have used. Did I not refer to Galatians 1. The evidence in Galatians 1 and numerous other passages in the Pauline writings and external sources are consistent with LYING.

You have already claimed "....THEY WERE LYING AND HYPED UP THEIR ORIGINS... and that there was a TEENSY-WEENSY Jesus cult so you must have GONE beyond the EVIDENCE based on your own words.

You are attempting to mis-represent my position and arguments. My arguments are not about theology but history.

All the information in the Pauline writings where they made claims that he MET apostles of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, are LIES or non-historical.

The apostles of Jesus were fictitious characters in fabricated fiction stories.

All the claims in the Pauline writings where Pauline writers claimed Jesus told them of events while Jesus himself was on earth are LIES or non-historical.

The betrayal, the Last Supper, the crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension of the entity called Jesus are part of fiction stories written when the Church claimed the PAULINE writers were already dead.

It must be NOTED that one of the Pauline writers implied that he was a contemporary of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, that is a LIE. Jesus was a fictitious MYTHOLOGICAL character in fabricated fictitious stories written after the Church claimed the Pauline writers was dead.

But, although already dead before the Fall of the Temple, it was claimed the Pauline writers were aware of gLuke.

[quote=gurugeorge] "OF course, they lied and hyped up their origins...

I have evidence that support your theory. It would appear the Pauline origings are after gLuke and after the writings of Justin Martyr.

But, you have exposed the reason for your DYSPEPSIA. You have no difficulty in making claims that [u]"OF COURSE, THEY WERE LYING" but become terribly upset when I include Saul/Paul.

Why is not your claim that "they were lying and hyped up their origins" an illegitimate assumption?

Why don't you provide the evidence for your teensy-weensy Jesus cult since you may be promoting fiction?

You have confessed that you are interested if your theory about the dating of the Pauline writings is wrong right now.


How far does your own statement extend? I prefer to deal with FACTS and NOT speculation.

Please name one single VISION in the NT CANON about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, that was NOT a LIE.

I eagerly await your response.

You must know of a true VISION from JESUS to your TEENSY-WEENSY Jesus cult.

But, what kind of gun did you jump when you said this in ENGLISH?


Well, just name your TYPICAL person and we will be able to examine his visions and revelations and verify whether or not he was a typical person who have LIED about Visions FROM entities that do not even exist in the FIRST PLACE.

You have amnesia, now.

There you go again. "They were LYING and HYPED up Joseph Smith".

You can't remember who copied the words of the Gods from the Golden Plates?

It was not Joseph Smith's father if I can recall. And "THEY" did not.

It must have been Joseph Smith.

You don't remember who it was? Is that you final answer?


But, I can just look in a dictionary and find out the meaning of "visions".

You have just simply FAILED to produce any corroborative source that any Pauline writers had VISIONS and the actual contents of the VISIONS before the Fall of the Temple.

In the Canon, a writer called John had revelations and visions from Jesus in heaven and they are not compatible with the revelations and visions from the supposedly same Jesus of the Pauline writers.

One or both are lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge I think the "Paul" writings show that the Christian case is typical of this kind of religious start-up in visionary experiences.

The very Canon does not support you. The NT Canon, including the Pauline writings have a chronology for the Pauline writers.

You should refrain from making stuff up. Because you do not like what is in the Pauline writings give you no right to fabricate other events of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

But, maybe you have imagined some kind of vision that you believe is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874 We don't have any evidence that Jesus was a visionary being in the NT Canon. The NT Canon does NOT SUPPORT DOCETISM. The NT Canon SUPPORTS a GOD/MAN

[quote=gurugeorgeWhoa! Back up there. Let's backtrack a minute:

You are saying that the NT Canon is lies on the basis that the type of entity they claim can't possibly exist. I've criticized you on the "lying" aspect (because "lying" is a specific thing about which we have no proof here - as I said, they might just have been mistaken, or have been fooled, or had visions, or some other explanation - lying is a strong claim that needs stronger evidence than simply the fact that they were WRONG in their claim about an entity). But the aspect of your argument that judges an ancient claim according to the standards of modern rational thought - that bit's fine.[/quote]

Whoa. Whoa. I will have you backed-up all the time, NOT just a minute.

You have attempted to criticize me about the "lying" aspect while you have already claimed "OF COURSE. They were LYING and have hyped their origins."

Your DYSPEPSIA is backing up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge Well, what I'm doing here has a similar logical structure to that: I'm using modern science (neuroscience) to take an OBJECTIVE look at what's going on in the NT Canon (standing outside the writings, looking on at them from a modern rational point of view), and saying that, yes, while a god-man can't possibly exist, VISIONS OF A GOD-MAN CAN...

I thought you claimed that you were not a "friggen' biblical scholar," and that you could only speculate now you are into neuroscience.

Well, let's hear some "science".

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge And such visions are sufficient to establish strong belief in something - something about which the believers can be wrong, but not lying. But of course there are other options too: they might have been mistaken (for example, the initial "Mark" story might have been a literary product that poeple came to believe the truth of - no lying involved, just error, superstition, etc.). Now, here's the source of a fair bit of confusion around this area: just because something is mythological in OUR terms, doesn't mean it's mythological to people in those days. Say, with Docetism, that's a particular theological interpretation of the structure of the purported god-man entity. It's quite feasible that someone could have had a visionary experience of a god-man without having to believe that the god-man, while on earth, had an illusory body. TO US, any vision of a god-man has to be (as we would say) of a phantom, of something that doesn't exist, etc. But that doesn't mean that TO THEM, to those having the visions at the time, they thought of him as a phantom, or something that didn't have a physical body, etc. In fact, to the contrary, it looks like Paul is having visions of a god-man whom he believes existed physically on earth at some time in the past (incarnate in flesh), but who is now communicating with him directly as a spiritual being. Other Christians may have had other ideas (e.g. that the god-man never had flesh, but only appeared to, etc., etc.) That's all secondary (secondary to us, of course - to them, these questions might have had great importance).

This all speculation about belief in non-entities. I have failed to notice any science. Just forget about the "science" and produce some historical DATA of antiquity to back up your TEENSY-WEENSY theory

I am not a "friggen scientist" but I have been a juror and the NT Canon and Church writings have sufficient EVIDENCE to support LYING.

Your theory is good and substantiated, "They LIED and HYPED up their origins". Apologetic sources, internal sources, the authors of the Gospels, the very Church writers, Justin Martyr, Eusebius and Chrysostom HAVE given evidence.

I too concur."They LIED and Hyped up their origins."

Saul/Paul was not mad, just LAST and a LIAR.

gurugeorge

"Derail" you? Please get off your high horse.

You need to deal with the following:-

A. Just because someone is caught lying in one respect, doesn't mean everything s/he says is a lie.

B. The fact that someone is wrong about something doesn't necessarily mean they are lying. "Liar!", in English, is a strong accusation of intent that requires more specific evidence than just the fact that the person is factually wrong (sc., factually wrong in claiming that a human or man-god Jesus existed).

Please broaden your horizons wrt the range of linguistic responses human beings are capable of. There are, no doubt, some lies in the NT Canon (obviously I think the membership numbers would be one) - there are also, no doubt, some errors, mistakes, superstitions, etc., etc. (among which may be either superstitions or errors or mistakes about a real human being somewhere along the line, or superstitions or errors or mistakes relating to visions people have had, or superstitions or errors or mistakes relating to theologies, philosophies, etc., etc.).

People are capable of more than merely lying to spread untruths. Untruths can be spread any number of ways that don't involve the specific act of lying.

andrewcriddle

Philo when quoting the Greek Septuagint in passages where God in the Hebrew is Yahweh renders this as Kurios. In passages where God in the Hebrew is Elohim/El Philo has Theos.

The Christians did not adopt Kurios as a title exclusively for Jesus. In the NT Kurios sometimes clearly means God. However they did regard the Elohim/Yahweh distinction represented in the LXX as Theos/Kurios as being relevant to the distinction they were making between God and Jesus the Son of God.

Andrew Criddle

avi

Wow. Thanks Jiri. Very interesting. Well, then, were 1st century Jews from Alexandria permitted to enunciate 'kyrios' in public? How about 'theos'? Is there something particularly holy about the sequence of phonemes: Yahweh, which renders this sequence "sacred", but the comparable word in some other language, not sacred? In traditional Jewish culture is a person suffering congenital deafness also denied an opportunity to utter 'yahweh', without risk of persecution as a blasphemer?

What a fascinating cultural impediment to rationality. Forbidden to utter the sounds 'yahweh'. Wow.

Such a rule, of course, ensures class distinctions, since in that scenario, only the literate could communicate religious concepts--ordinary people having been forbidden to utter the name of the entity under discussion. What an elitist society! No wonder the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans conquered them so effortlessly.

Spectacular. Terrific post, thanks Andrew. Fascinating.

So, the Jews of the first century common era, regarded the more ancient 'elohim' as an old fashioned 'theos', reserving the more eloquent, more grandiose title, 'kyrios' for 'yahweh' exclusively. That would seem to support the contention that Jesus, who is similarly called 'kyrios', not 'theos', represents the same level of seniority, in Jewish thinking, as god himself, i.e. that the two are one and the same.

So the Jews, including Paul, presumably, (in either the first or second century, depending on one's perspective, absent evidence of an authentic date of authorship), regarded the dichotomy between Jesus/God as both distinctive from, and smaller in scope than, the estrangement of Elohim/Yahweh? Thanks for your input, Andrew and Jiri, very interesting.

avi