Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 07-20-2012, 09:56 PM

For Chrissakes, Don. I asked the question as a means of demonstrating the problems that would be involved given such a claim. You are a piece of work! Do you think this means you don't have to address any of the surrounding arguments I am making?

Still up to your old tricks! And I've been sucked in again! Well, since you have nothing more to offer, I'll consider our 'debate' over. If no one else chimes in, or offers anything substantial, I guess that'll be the end of it.

The gun is still smoking.

Earl Doherty

neilgodfrey · 07-20-2012, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Therefore also God highly exalted him,
and gave to him the name that is above every name.
That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow...
And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

Compare with the following, replacing Jesus with "Augustus":

Quote:

Therefore the Senate highly exalted him (Octavian)
and gave to him the name that is above every name.
That at the name of Augustus, every knee should bow
And every tongue should confess that Augustus is Emperor

Lord is not a name. It is an official title. Titles are not names. Not even for Jesus. Lord is a title like Imperator/Emperor or King or Dictator.

Augustus is a neither a title nor a name, but it is closer to a name than a title -- and can be used as an identifier of a ruler or general in the same way his personal name can. (In support of this note that the alternative to the choice of Augustus as the "name" to be bestowed upon Octavian was for a time Romulus.) It is an honorific.

But what the hymn is telling us is that even Jesus is an honorific -- that is, a name not bestowed at birth but (like all honorifics) bestowed upon a ruler or general as a reward for victory or to acknowledge assumption to power (e.g. Africanus, Maccabee, Soter/Saviour, Epiphanes, Augustus).

If the Philippian hymn is our first record of the name Jesus for the uniquely Christian divinity then it appears as an honorific. And just as honorifics tend to do, they become used as if they are proper names of the ruler.

(With thanks to the arguments of Matthew Novenson who would be squirming in pain if he knew his work is being picked up to further a mythicist case.)

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 11:13 PM

The name here is definitely Jesus. But I am wondering how this argument helps either side. To be certain there wasn't a man called Jesus from birth being described here. But what does any of this mean? God empties himself before the crucifixion in the figure of a man and after the crucifixion the man who was really going to be crucified earns the right to the name Jesus. WTF does that really mean?

I am pretty sure Gregory Thaumaturgus (to Theopompus) says God was emptying his impassability on the guy that was about to suffer passion. But I can't figure out the logical sense of the passage here.

Even if Jesus is a mythical figure or being, why is the name given as a reward only after the crucifixion and to whom?

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 11:21 PM

Here is Clement's use of the passage:

Quote:

He is a king, then, who governs according to the laws, and possesses the skill to sway willing subjects. Such is the Lord, who receives all who believe in Him and by Him. For the Father has delivered and subjected all to Christ our King, that at the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10-11 Now, generalship involves three ideas: caution, enterprise, and the union of the two. And each of these consists of three things, acting as they do either by word, or by deeds, or by both together. And all this can be accomplished either by persuasion, or by compulsion, or by inflicting harm in the way of taking vengeance on those who ought to be punished; and this either by doing what is right, or by telling what is untrue, or by telling what is true, or by adopting any of these means conjointly at the same time.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 11:26 PM

A lot of Church Fathers relate the passage to the LXX's idea that Joshua used to be called Auses before receiving the name Jesus (a detail not found in the SP - all passages read 'Joshua' in the Samaritan text).

neilgodfrey · 07-20-2012, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The name here is definitely Jesus. But I am wondering how this argument helps either side. To be certain there wasn't a man called Jesus from birth being described here. But what does any of this mean? God empties himself before the crucifixion in the figure of a man and after the crucifixion the man who was really going to be crucified earns the right to the name Jesus. WTF does that really mean?

I am missing something here? The hymn never speaks of a man but only of a divinity taking on the form of a man.

Quote:

I am pretty sure Gregory Thaumaturgus (to Theopompus) says God was emptying his impassability on the guy that was about to suffer passion. But I can't figure out the logical sense of the passage here.

Even if Jesus is a mythical figure or being, why is the name given as a reward only after the crucifixion and to whom?

Again I wonder if I must be missing your point. If the name Jesus means Saviour then the crucified one is only qualified for that name after that crucifixion. It is the blood/death that is the means by which he saves, just as some Jews of the time saw Isaac's blood (some interpreted the passage as him being slain and then resurrected) as atoning for all Jews, or the blood of martyrs doing the same.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 11:28 PM

I think the early Christians associated the name 'Jesus' with the king, even a messianic name - but why? The Samaritans do not take a messianic interest in the name Joshua. Irenaeus again reinforces the association of 'Jesus' with the king:

Quote:

and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess"

GakuseiDon · 07-20-2012, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

For Chrissakes, Don. I asked the question as a means of demonstrating the problems that would be involved given such a claim. You are a piece of work! Do you think this means you don't have to address any of the surrounding arguments I am making?

I've made it clear from the start: I'm assuming that the "name that is above all names" is "Lord", as per your OP, when you asked "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?". According to your original point, if this “name” is “Lord” then "[t]here is a contradiction here which cannot be resolved." But you are wrong. There is no contradiction. It makes sense, just as your 'President' example makes sense. But if the "name" is not "Lord", then my point is moot.

GakuseiDon · 07-20-2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Lord is not a name. It is an official title.

Right. But I am working from the premise that Earl gave: "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?" My point is that if the name is "Lord", then (contra Earl) the passage makes sense. If it isn't "Lord", then my point is still correct, but it is moot.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 11:33 PM

Quote:

διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα Phil 2:9

The connecting term διὸ implies that what appears in 2:8 leads to 2:10, 11. In other words the heavenly man comes down:

Quote:

And being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross Phil 2:8

But the next line connects the giving of the name Jesus after the heavenly man has already come down:

Quote:

Therefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name etc. Phil 2:8

You wouldn't use διὸ in 2:9 if the name Jesus was already given before the coming down. The coming down precedes the giving.

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

07-20-2012, 09:56 PM	#21
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	For Chrissakes, Don. I asked the question as a means of demonstrating the problems that would be involved given such a claim. You are a piece of work! Do you think this means you don't have to address any of the surrounding arguments I am making? Still up to your old tricks! And I've been sucked in again! Well, since you have nothing more to offer, I'll consider our 'debate' over. If no one else chimes in, or offers anything substantial, I guess that'll be the end of it. The gun is still smoking. Earl Doherty

07-20-2012, 11:13 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The name here is definitely Jesus. But I am wondering how this argument helps either side. To be certain there wasn't a man called Jesus from birth being described here. But what does any of this mean? God empties himself before the crucifixion in the figure of a man and after the crucifixion the man who was really going to be crucified earns the right to the name Jesus. WTF does that really mean? I am pretty sure Gregory Thaumaturgus (to Theopompus) says God was emptying his impassability on the guy that was about to suffer passion. But I can't figure out the logical sense of the passage here. Even if Jesus is a mythical figure or being, why is the name given as a reward only after the crucifixion and to whom?

07-20-2012, 11:26 PM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	A lot of Church Fathers relate the passage to the LXX's idea that Joshua used to be called Auses before receiving the name Jesus (a detail not found in the SP - all passages read 'Joshua' in the Samaritan text).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.