Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 08-28-2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Even if I were convinced that there are no descriptions of Jesus as having earthly existence in these epistles, I would not find that at all strange. (That is, I would not find that at all strange under the hypothesis that they accepted an earthly existence for Jesus.)
kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Who is they?
What about Christians who held that God was too pure to mix with the corruptible flesh?
What about Christians who maintained that the son was not begotten but was in God's heart?

Vinnie · 08-28-2005, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Bingo! This is the nub of the matter. This is what's so strange. It's natural for Christians, even modern educated people generally, to try and read the early Christian stuff with the Gospel "Jesus" in mind, but if you don't do that, there doesn't seem to be anything in the material that plainly speaks of that "Jesus" at all!

Why shouldn't they do that?

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman · 08-28-2005, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Why shouldn't they do that?

Vinnie

1. Because the Pauline epistles were written independent of and before the gospels.
2. Because Paul did not have a gospel background either.

TedM · 08-29-2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Not necessarily. You are jumping to a convenient conclusion.
For Paul there is only God, angels and men but also evil spirits, devils and what not. Read Revelations chanpter 12.

I will have to get you a Paul reference.

I"m not jumping to a convenient conclusion. I'm responding to the obvious context in 1 Cor 1 and 2, where Paul is clearly talking about the wisdom and folly of men--Greeks and Jews alike. Instead of talking about Paul's generic theology and Revelations 12, why don't you talk about 1 Cor 1 &2, the original passage you referenced?

ted

TedM · 08-29-2005, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Naaa, Ted. You're accepting this text 2:8b as if it were genuine, but you know that generic "rulers of this age" didn't crucify Jesus. The verse doesn't fit the discourse it's in, separating the HB citations from the bridge that allows Paul to use them -- and naturally those citations have nothing to do with the bit about crucifixion. I've already given you an independent reason to question this text, yet here you are milking it.

spin

I am suspiciouis of interpolation claims, so require much more than what you have said to really take it seriously. NOGO asked me for an interpretation of a passage. I gave it to him. He didn't ask me to ignore part of the passage because some say that it doesn't belong there.

First, how do I know if 'generic "rulers of this age" didn't crucify Jesus, if there is no pre-Paul record of who crucified Jesus? Second, the verse seems to fit the discourse just fine--the ignorance of mankind. You will need to explain more completely your reasons for me to see exactly what it is you are saying.

ted

spin · 08-29-2005, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I am suspiciouis of interpolation claims, so require much more than what you have said to really take it seriously. NOGO asked me for an interpretation of a passage. I gave it to him. He didn't ask me to ignore part of the passage because some say that it doesn't belong there.

First, how do I know if 'generic "rulers of this age" didn't crucify Jesus, if there is no pre-Paul record of who crucified Jesus? Second, the verse seems to fit the discourse just fine--the ignorance of mankind. You will need to explain more completely your reasons for me to see exactly what it is you are saying.

My original analysis was a simple linguistic problem: why would Paul use a key term, kyrios, equivocally? a term which in the absolute, at least when found in HB citations, must necessarily relate to god. I listed three cases in 1 Corinthians where one must accept that the reference is Jesus, one case in Galatians where christian interpretation dictates that the reference is to Jesus (ie the "brother of the lord", but what does it really signify? but then what does "Ahijah" signify?), and all the rest requiring no reference to Jesus at all.

How do you explain the apparently equivocal usage of kyrios? Precocious trinitarian?

spin

andrewcriddle · 08-29-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

My original analysis was a simple linguistic problem: why would Paul use a key term, kyrios, equivocally? a term which in the absolute, at least when found in HB citations, must necessarily relate to god. I listed three cases in 1 Corinthians where one must accept that the reference is Jesus, one case in Galatians where christian interpretation dictates that the reference is to Jesus (ie the "brother of the lord", but what does it really signify? but then what does "Ahijah" signify?), and all the rest requiring no reference to Jesus at all.

How do you explain the apparently equivocal usage of kyrios? Precocious trinitarian?

spin

FWIW in the core Pauline epistles. ignoring quotations from the HB. all or almost all uses of kyrios are plausibly referring to Christ.

I don't myself regard it as problematic that Paul in his own composition used kyrios, when referring to Christ and theos, when referring to God but quoted from the Septuagint passages where kyrios refers to God. (In some of those quotes Paul may be treating the use of kyrios in the Septuagint as a reference to Christ.)

Andrew Criddle

TedM · 08-29-2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

My original analysis was a simple linguistic problem: why would Paul use a key term, kyrios, equivocally? a term which in the absolute, at least when found in HB citations, must necessarily relate to god. I listed three cases in 1 Corinthians where one must accept that the reference is Jesus, one case in Galatians where christian interpretation dictates that the reference is to Jesus (ie the "brother of the lord", but what does it really signify? but then what does "Ahijah" signify?), and all the rest requiring no reference to Jesus at all.

How do you explain the apparently equivocal usage of kyrios? Precocious trinitarian?

spin

Oh, I remember now your post about this on another thread. I haven't had the chance to look into it yet.

ted

spin · 08-29-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW in the core Pauline epistles. ignoring quotations from the HB. all or almost all uses of kyrios are plausibly referring to Christ.

I don't myself regard it as problematic that Paul in his own composition used kyrios, when referring to Christ and theos, when referring to God but quoted from the Septuagint passages where kyrios refers to God. (In some of those quotes Paul may be treating the use of kyrios in the Septuagint as a reference to Christ.)

Assume you are correct for a moment. How did the reader know when Paul was using kyrios to mean god and when not?

Whose mind is it in 1 Cor 2:16?
Whose day is it in 1 Cor 5:5?
To whom is jealousy the predicate in 1 Cor 10:22?
Who did Paul receive information from in 1 Cor 11:23?
Of whom is the fear in 2 Cor 5:11?

How could those readers have chosen Jesus as the reference?

Why overlook the LXX citations regarding the Lord? How would the reader have made the distinction you can with 1900 years of christian exegesis behind your reading?

spin

Vinnie · 08-29-2005, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

1. Because the Pauline epistles were written independent of and before the gospels.
2. Because Paul did not have a gospel background either.

Neither one of those statements is relevant to reading Paul with the backdrop of an HJ. For the second, I would simply drop "gospel background",. There is no such thing. The gospel portraits are mutually exclusive (e.g. synoptics vs John) and its like saying the "round-square Jesus".

Vinnie

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.