spin

Wishful.

I'm sure you feel that if you repeat it enough, others might believe you.

Stop projecting.

That you stop to think before knee-jerk reacting.

Sadly wrong. Joel 2:32.

The hint is regarding the sabbath (14:5) which is in honor of god.

Straight out of Isaiah 45:23. Obviously god.

So you think you can guess when he is referring to the cheese and not the person. It's more difficult than you want to believe. Writers tend not to use terms in such an ambi-valent manner, as you want. They lose their readers, as apparently you were lost by assuming linguistic ambivalence. We have all been co-opted into accepting this ambivalence, as we have always been instructed to do so, so being sucked in is not difficult.

I would argue that there are only three places in Paul where kurios must be read Jesus and they are all in 1 Corinthians, including the long interpolation about the last supper into Paul's difficulties with the Corinthians' behavior during the "Lord's supper". You'll also find that the gospel of Mark doesn't use the absolute kurios to refer to Jesus. It's only later that we find references to Jesus as simply "the lord".


spin

gentleexit

Eusebius quotes Josephus on a certain country fellow called Jesus warning of demise ...

a certain Jesus, the son of Ananias, a common countryman, four years before the war, when the city was particularly prosperous and peaceful, came to the feast, at which it was customary for all to make tents at the temple to the honor of God, and suddenly began to cry out: A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against all the people. Day and night he went through all the alleys crying thus.

but they, the authorities, the distinguished, seized him …

But certain of the more distinguished citizens, vexed at the ominous cry, seized the man and beat him with many stripes. But without uttering a word in his own behalf, or saying anything in particular to those that were present, he continued to cry out in the same words as before.

and bring him to the Roman governor …

And the rulers, thinking, as was true, that the man was moved by a higher power, brought him before the Roman governor.

though scourged, he remained composed …

And then, though he was scourged to the bone, he neither made supplication nor shed tears, but, changing his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, he answered each stroke with the words, Woe, woe unto Jerusalem.

Oh that Jesus! Eusebius seems to have no sense of irony. I know this is tenuous (though as Roger seems to be saying, all the "evidence" here is), but I don't read him as a forger. He's a crude assembler of pieces (the few he has available) to tell a tale. Now as for how genuine those pieces are ...

Solo

You don't believe me ? Are you denying that 1 Th 5:2 applies the Isaiah's saying to parousia ? How about the unnamed lord in 1 Th 4:16. Is that dad coming down off his perch ?

Funnier still ! :devil1:

I said 'Paul shifts and extends the theophanic address'. Do you copy ?


You don't have to believe me when I tell you that Paul is consciously and programmatically shifting OT references of lord to Jesus. All you need to do is read Philippians 2:10:

....at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

But you see the problem is that you overlook (or can't imagine) who Paul is talking to. Paul's letters do not address does his congregations generally, but through individuals who know Jesus the way he knows him (the "saints", or those who would be that). So the magical gel that makes Paul's trickery work is the shared experience of the "spirit". To paraphrase Bobby Seale's dictum: 'He names the phenomena and makes them act in a desired manner'. Capisce ?

What was that the other guy told you the other day ? ...'I'll let you return to your ministry'..something like that.

go ahead, spin, argue !

On which we are agreed. That Paul knew nothing about a tradition of "Last Supper" is best attested by Paul himself in 1 Cr 10:14-22. In that passage, Paul alludes to the "cup" and bread as the communal "sharing in" the blood and body of Christ, as opposed to food "offered to idols". The problem with the Last Supper of course is that Jesus (in the flesh - of whom Paul swore never to speak, as he cannot testify about him before God) supposedly asks to eat "in remembrance of me". If Paul really wrote 1 Cr 11:23-28, he would have had to me make some distinctions between Jesus and idols in 1 Cr 10. Now, if I were a Paulinist and read Mark, the idea that Jesus was an idol to his chosen disciples on earth, would be painfully obvious.

For the reason just given. Mark has to navigate between Jesus as the idol in the flesh and the suffering servant of God. The way Mark handled it to clear Jesus of suspicion he encouraged the idolatry, was to make him teach the messianic secret: 'you guys think I am great and powerful but I have been sent as messiah only to suffer as the last man on earth.'

Jiri

aa5874

You have not provided any evidence or proof that the TF is NOT a forgery. Until you do so, you cannot contradict me, except with baseless specuation.

See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 and the all the writings of Josephus.

The TF, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are all forgeries.

spin

The only denial I see is you refusing to apply the Hebrew bible lord to god.

Those people who are into psych tend to over use it.

And do you think you've communicated anything with such pussyfooting? Naaaa.

So Philippians is one of the genuine ones, is it?

No.

Perhaps you might elaborate you thoughts.

There was a reason why I used "would". Oh and the third example is 1 Cor 6:14.

It's only 1 Cr 11:23-27, plus a later interpolation in v.29 (after the sense of Paul's thought had been messed up by the addition of the last supper, and someone thought they could clarify "body"). Verse 28 is part of the main thought. Paul's solution to the Corinthians' problem with the meal required them to examine themselves.

It's more probable that the absolute use of kurios had not at that time been applied to Jesus. I'd guess that the linguistic confusion caused by the later use of kurios for Jesus helped to stimulate first the binitarian and then the trinitarian lunacies.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
The Testimonium Flavium:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

Skeptical super sleuth, Neal Godfree, continues the siege against the TF here:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/

Neal's main points:

1) Evidence that the TF was created during Eusebius career. Note that Eusebius never refers to the TF in Adversus Hieroclem even though he would be expected to.

2) Specific and key words of the TF are noticeably similar to Adversus Hieroclem:

3) The key offending phrases of the TF:

1. a wise man (sophos aner)

2. if it be lawful to call him a man

3. a doer of wonderful works (paradoxon ergon poietes)

are consistent with Eusebius' vocabulary and not Josephus'.

Note than that regarding the language issue of the TF we have two separate observations:

1 - The language is not Josephan.

2 - The language is Eusebian.

4) The attitude of the TF is one way, all positive, suggesting that there is no original underneath that was neutral or even negative. This reminds one of the classic Adam Family episode where they decide to give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there is nothing left:

In summary we have the following categories of evidence that the TF is F'd:

1) Discovery

1 - No evidence for the TF before Eusebius

2 - Evidence that the TF was created during the career of Eusebius

2) Familiarity - Parallels to Eusebius' own Adversus Hieroclem.

3) Language - The key phrases are generally Eusebian and not Josephan.

4) Context - The context of the TF is contrary to Josephus.

In the big picture, IF the TF is forged (or interpolated), than not only is it not support for HJ, it is support for MJ as God knows what else OCD forged. Point Doherty! Score, Doherty 40, HJ Love (one another).



Joseph

Polemics - Doing unto others as you think they would do unto you.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Roger Pearse

This last post appears to be identical to a previous post; I indicated the chronic problems with the argument then.

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh you Christians, never can tell when something's been changed.



Joseph

DELUSION, n.
The father of a most respectable family, comprising Enthusiasm, Affection, Self-denial, Faith, Hope, Charity and many other goodly sons and daughters.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

mountainman

p.20

"What Josephus seems to have missed is that the Greeks had criteria by which to judge the relative merits of verious versions (of public records and documents) which the Jewish historians had not. The very existence of different versions of the same event is something which, as far as I can remember, is not noted as such by the biblical historians. The distinction between various versions in the Bible is a modern application of Greek methods to biblical studies. In Hebrew historiography the collective memory about past events could never be verified according to objective criteria. If priests forged records - and priests are noriously inclined to pious frauds in all centuries - the Hebrew historian did not possess the critical instrument to discover the forgery. In so far as modern historiography is a critical one, it is a Greek, not a Jewish product."

--- The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
--- Arnaldo Momigliano
--- Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62)
--- Volume Fifty-Four
--- University of California Press, 1990

--- Chapter 1 - Persian Historiography, Greek Historiography
--- and Jewish Historiography

Solo

spin, wake up !: we are talking Paul who did not read the Hebrew bible but LXX.

No, the reason I was doing a "lol" there was your injunction "do not project!". Let me enlighten you: everybody projects and everybody does that all the time. The cognitive psych teaches us that in individual heads "reality assessments" always come mixed with "projected" synthetic material. The only diff is in the degree that people align their phantasy projections with the analytical functions. That's how we define ourselves and are defined by forces beyond our control (that some assocate with God). We always make things up, whether we are aware of it or not; not because we want to but because that's how our brains cope with life's challenges.

Of course, I am projecting my mania into Paul and the early Christians ! What else can (!) I do ?! So, do you know your little "etwas jesuaehnliches" (Wrede) that you are projecting ? What's the method of your madness ?

Jesus as the obssessive-compulsive ME who does not exist ?

Jury's out. I am using it where I feel it's warranted.


Could be. I would say 29 is part of the original. 28 mentions "the cup" which relates to 1 Cr 10:16, but which with 11:25 acquires a completely new meaning. The cognitive problem here is that the 1 Cr 10 passage refering to the LS is a proposition (judge for yourselves), whereas the interpolated 1 Cr 11 the image serves as a normative injunction. But I am open to discussion on that one.

The problem is that I still don't know what you mean by "absolute use". I think it's clear that Paul adopted kyrios to refer to Jesus in a subordinate role to God, but nonetheless as titular manifestation of sovereign divine power. I don't believe Jesus was apprehended that way in the Palestinian proto-Christian movement early on (before the war of 66-70). However, the evidence is scant and indirect.

Jiri