JonA

The Philippians hymn is little more than religiously-charged theobabble. Trying to find some logic in it is like trying to find a corner on an egg.

We can read it as a belief statement—a record of what a group of people believed in a given time and place.

But that is it. We cannot try to deconstruct the belief using logic as there is no indication that logic was ever involved in the creation of the belief to begin with.

To do so is to analyze the belief statement beyond what is reasonable.

Jon

maryhelena

:thumbs:

stephan huller

<edit>

stephan huller

This stuff is stupid. Its from 2000 years ago. Chill.

My birthday homily

EarlDoherty

I disagree entirely. It bears no relation to reality, but it is a well-crafted piece detailing an emanation of God who changes form and descends, undergoes death, is raised and exalted, with an end result stated as a consequence of what he underwent. It's perfectly logical.

The story of the tower of Babel and the formation of the world's languages is perfectly logical. It's just that it's ridiculous and didn't happen that way.

One could detail the course of a pink elephant's life with perfectly acceptable logic. It just wouldn't prove the reality of a pink elephant.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

"Lord" was a designation given to Yahweh because of a prohibition on speaking the "name" Yahweh. It is a substitute term, a euphemism, if you like. That does not make it a name. In fact, if Jews were not allowed to speak the name of God, and they gave God another "name," why was there not a new prohibition to speak that new "name"? If "Lord" becomes a name, then your substitution has not solved the problem, has it? You're still stuck with having to speak the "name" of God.

There is nothing in Isaiah about bestowing a name, so any parallel with the Philippians hymn is not there. Besides, what we have in the latter is a new entity being given a new name. What sense does it make to give it the same "name" as the one already applied to God? The whole point of the exaltation is to give a reward to the one who underwent death. "What, you're going to give me a name that's already in use since time immemorial? What's the matter--I'm not good enough to have a new name of my own? Thanks a lot!...And how are all the angels here supposed to know who's being referred to by 'Lord'?"

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Thank-you, Steven. Not only does this show that the name "Jesus" as the god of the Christians entailed the idea of savior, the giving of that name is tied to the role of being the savior. Flash back to the pre-incarnation phase of the faith. In the Philippians hymn the same connection is being presented. The "Son"--in this case of God, not of Mary--is given a name for the same reason, because he saved his people. The name that entails being a savior is not "Lord", it is "Jesus." And he would hardly have borne that name BEFORE performing the saving acts.

This is why none of the christological hymns give the Son a name. Because the roles as creator and sustainer of the universe and being the 'image' of God came into effect before his acts as savior, so until the latter took place, the name "Jesus" would have been inapplicable.

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

Its perfect, neat logic, that has given rise to systematic theology, has helped to convince many that it may well be historically true— not crafted, humanity not being noted for rationality in matters of morality. Proving historicity, or craftsmanship, is of course not a practical option. For many who may not be academic, a practical, everyday relation to reality constitutes 'proof', a fact that academia might do well to bear in mind.

Everything from Gen 1:1 to 11:? can be reasonably taken as allegory, the chronicle emerging somewhere before the end of that latter chapter. These story myths are not intended as chronicle, and should not be taken as such. The gospels, along with the likes of Exodus, Joshua and Judges are intended as chronology. They may be invention, but the clear intention is that they are intended to be believed as record. There are clear literary criteria for making this distinction. So it is not legitimate to suppose that, because there was no certainly literal ancient global deluge, there can have been no incarnation, death and resurrection. A non-literal deluge has no consequence, whereas actual incarnation, death and resurrection are essential to the Christian view.

EarlDoherty

Only if the hymnist had actually put it that way. You can't substitute your own interpretion of the text FOR the actual text, and then claim that "the text" makes sense. Is that the kind of logic they taught in clown school?

Paul is speaking from a vantage point long after the conferring of the name. Confessing that "Jesus is Lord" tells us nothing about which name he was given at his exaltation.

What is "the name of the President"? Is it "President"?

What is "the name of the Lord"? It is "Jesus". If it is "Lord" how is one to know which Lord is meant?

Scene in heaven:

God: "Look, Jacob down there is calling on the name of the Lord. I think he means you."

Jesus: "No, I think he means you. I've handled three of them this morning already. It's your turn. Besides, anybody who can't make it clear which Lord he is calling on doesn't deserve to be helped!"

God: "Look, why do you think I gave you the name "Jesus" meaning Savior? So people who are calling to be saved know it's you that has the responsibility. I'm still tired from all the help I had to give those stubborn Hebrews before you came along. This is your job!"

Jesus: (stalking off) "Hummph!"

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

Not so. The word 'Jesus', or 'Joshua', was common enough. The significance came in the pre-figurement of the Joshua who led Israel from a desert into the Promised Land. Apart from this, and of course its literal meaning, there is no descriptive force in the name 'Jesus'. The first son of Joseph and Mary could have been given any name at all, that name being merely a 'handle'. In theory, Jesus of Nazareth could have been Pethuel of Bethlehem.

It is the word 'lord' that is contingent on the role of saviour. Lordship is won by gratitude for salvation, and not a moment before. God as creator is not lord, at least, not lord in the sense that Christians mean it.

So, 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God' means that a man who just happened to be called 'Jesus' was Messiah, therefore saviour and lord; and he could achieve salvation and lordship only by a) being perfect (ergo, deity); and b) manifesting himself to mankind (Immanuel), and being tempted as mankind is. Which brings us back to the hymn: 'but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant'.