Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 06-05-2010, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Really ? What about Rom 14:6 ? : He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God;

What about 2 Cr 8:5 ? ...and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God.

What about them, when I've already said, "Paul has no problem using both θεος and the non-titular κυριος for god."? The religio-cultural milieu saw no problem in using the two together, as in Ex 3:4, 4:27, 8:19, Num 22:22, 23:8, Deut 9:10, "And the lord delivered to me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God", two separate entities?

There is a long heritage of using both terms to refer to the god of Israel and Paul would have been part of that milieu. We need to overcome the later christian encrustations when reading Paul in his context.

Is there a problem with 1 Cor 7:22 where someone is a servant in the lord, and likewise is servant of christ? Are they (the lord and christ) the same reference?

Precious spin, you are arguing my case. You and I had this conversation before. Paul (the genuine one) purposely re-referenced 'the lord God' to 'the lord Jesus' and used the non-titular form to denote the revealed risen son. I agreed that in some cases Paul still references God by the non-titular descriptor (e.g. when he quotes the LXX) but I wager you would not make headway among scholars by claiming that (the genuine) Paul did that exclusively, and did not know the non-titular 'lord' in reference to JC. That theory is a non-starter.

But I am not arguing here for the sake of arguing. I believe, like you do, that the designation "brother(s) of the lord" in Paul refers to a church function where "the lord" refers to god and not Jesus. It's just that I think one can make a better argument for it than the one that you are making.

The crucial point here is the difference in Paul's conception of Jesus as a spiritual entity, a separate but wholly 'co-incident' with God, a form of God's communicating with humanity. There is no evidence contemporary to Paul for this idea being current in his time, au contraire, from the later gnostic uses of Paul it looks very probable that Jesus as a category of 'wisdom' reedemer, pointed to by ecstatic transformations of one's own self, was largely Paul's own creation.

It is for this reason that the ecstatic "lord" which Paul slaps on Jesus post-mortem glory that comes to visit him, would not be the lingua franca of a temple-worshipping community in Jerusalem. I believe James' church was also animated by ecstatics - and it is by that token I explain how the memorial cult of Jesus within the Nazarene church was established. But the recognition of Jesus as martyr of the last days and intercessor for the messiah, would not earn him the apotheosis that Paul accorded him. For that reason the non-titular "lord" in the designation "brother(s) of the lord" would not be reference to kinship to Jesus.

Jiri

ApostateAbe · 06-05-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It hardly matters if each piece of evidence has their speculated faults and uncertainties. If they seem to work together toward a single conclusion, then we should accept that conclusion. To the skeptics and Jesus-agnostics, consilience either doesn't matter because it may have been something like a big conspiracy, and/or it is putting blind trust in Christian texts.

I beg your pardon. Some of us ahistoricists believe (rightly or wrongly) that consilience is on our side. I for one have no use for any conspiracy theory, and anyone who thinks that a great many Christian texts have been doctored by redactors and interpolators is hardly putting any blind trust in them.

Then I am sorry about accusing you of not taking consilience so seriously. I am glad to have at least that much common ground.

I meant to say that the mythicists believe that the rest of us are putting blind trust in Christian texts--I was responsible for a little confusion that came from a misplaced comma.

spin · 06-05-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What about them, when I've already said, "Paul has no problem using both θεος and the non-titular κυριος for god."? The religio-cultural milieu saw no problem in using the two together, as in Ex 3:4, 4:27, 8:19, Num 22:22, 23:8, Deut 9:10, "And the lord delivered to me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God", two separate entities?

There is a long heritage of using both terms to refer to the god of Israel and Paul would have been part of that milieu. We need to overcome the later christian encrustations when reading Paul in his context.

Is there a problem with 1 Cor 7:22 where someone is a servant in the lord, and likewise is servant of christ? Are they (the lord and christ) the same reference?

Precious spin, you are arguing my case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You and I had this conversation before.

Uh-huh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul (the genuine one) purposely re-referenced 'the lord God' to 'the lord Jesus' and used the non-titular form to denote the revealed risen son.

But only definitely in disturbed circumstances in 1 Corinthians...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I agreed that in some cases Paul still references God by the non-titular descriptor (e.g. when he quotes the LXX) but I wager you would not make headway among scholars by claiming that (the genuine) Paul did that exclusively, and did not know the non-titular 'lord' in reference to JC. That theory is a non-starter.

Boldly unsupported assertion. You are still mute over the fact that Paul clearly uses the non-titular κυριος for god, even if as you claim only in LXX citations which you seem to assume that the reader would be able to recognize, and if he uses it for Jesus elsewhere, how does the reader distinguish when Paul refers to god and when he refers to Jesus. You have nothing to say, I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

But I am not arguing here for the sake of arguing. I believe, like you do, that the designation "brother(s) of the lord" in Paul refers to a church function where "the lord" refers to god and not Jesus.

But what criterion do you have to say that it refers to god if you believe that Paul also uses the non-titular κυριος for Jesus? Don't you see your dilemma?? Here you divine it's for Jesus and there for god. I guess we just have to believe you.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It's just that I think one can make a better argument for it than the one that you are making.

The crucial point here is the difference in Paul's conception of Jesus as a spiritual entity, a separate but wholly 'co-incident' with God, a form of God's communicating with humanity. There is no evidence contemporary to Paul for this idea being current in his time, au contraire, from the later gnostic uses of Paul it looks very probable that Jesus as a category of 'wisdom' reedemer, pointed to by ecstatic transformations of one's own self, was largely Paul's own creation.

Don't retroject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It is for this reason that the ecstatic "lord" which Paul slaps on Jesus post-mortem glory that comes to visit him, would not be the lingua franca of a temple-worshipping community in Jerusalem. I believe James' church was also animated by ecstatics - and it is by that token I explain how the memorial cult of Jesus within the Nazarene church was established. But the recognition of Jesus as martyr of the last days and intercessor for the messiah, would not earn him the apotheosis that Paul accorded him. For that reason the non-titular "lord" in the designation "brother(s) of the lord" would not be reference to kinship to Jesus.

Solo · 06-05-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Really ? What about Rom 14:6 ? : He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God;

What about 2 Cr 8:5 ? ...and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God.

There is also a number of other passages outside of 1 Cor where the non-titular Lord is securely deployed as clear reference to JC (e.g. Paul's co-workers who are ἐν κυρίῳ in Rom 16, 1 Th 4:16-17) etc.

Jiri

Lordy lordy!

Connections may be assumed to be there because of later theological beliefs - but assuming lord=jesus is dangerous.

There are an awful lot of assumptions - like Jesus in a mosaic with Roman gods in the 350's.

Clive, can I ask you for a favour ? I don't expect you to remember my position on the different issues under discussion here, but if you want to comment about my ideas, do a quick search to make sure I am saying what you think I am saying. I do not assume lord=jesus and there are number of my posts to prove it. Here is one.

Jiri

DCHindley · 06-05-2010, 09:14 AM

Spin,

Perhaps what we need here is a table listing all cases of the use of kurios in all of the Pauline letters. Other columns could indicate whether each incidence listed in the first column is meant to refer to Jesus or the God of the Jews, or is ambiguous. I seem to remember there are cases where there are blessings which are in traditional form for God but seem to be directed to Jesus/Christ. This kind of blurring (I'd call it redirection) between Jesus Christ and God also occurs in the Apocalypse of John.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The non-titular κυριος for Jesus is only securely used in 1 Corinthians. We know for sure that at least one instance of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus is an interpolation in 1 Cor because of the manuscript tradition.

Paul has no problem using both θεος and the non-titular κυριος for god. One expects that he does it. The problem arises when the non-titular κυριος is used for Jesus in 1 Cor because if it were original to Paul there would be no way of knowing when Paul refers to Jesus or to god when he uses it.

...

When are people going to admit that the non-titular use of κυριος for Jesus is a later development in the christian tradition? It is not found in the post-Pauline Mark or Matthew. This would suggest that if it was used in Paul, it disappeared in these two gospels before returning to use in select parts of Luke and John. It would be a case of on-off-on terminology.

It is far simpler to see that it is a later development retrojected into Paul's text and we have a simple example of such an interpolation in 1 Cor 11:29, when someone added του κυριου to the end of the verse, showing an inadequacy perceived in the state of the text, which I've argued elsewhere is because of a previous interpolation disrupting the text (the inclusion of the last supper with another non-titular use of κυριος for Jesus in the middle of Paul's discussion of the Corinthians' behavior in his religious meal).

spin · 06-05-2010, 10:07 AM

Here's a short list of definite non-titular κυριος for Jesus (all disturbing context):

1 Cor 2:8b (intrusion into discussion about the stupidity of the rulers of this age, anomalous, "the lord of glory")
1 Cor 6:14 (intrusion in a discussion of bodies)
1 Cor 11:23-27 (last supper insertion + later compensatory insertion in v.29)

If anyone can, feel free to add other definite non-titular κυριος for Jesus. I don't think there are any.

spin

Solo · 06-05-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are still mute over the fact that Paul clearly uses the non-titular κυριος for god, even if as you claim only in LXX citations which you seem to assume that the reader would be able to recognize, and if he uses it for Jesus elsewhere, how does the reader distinguish when Paul refers to god and when he refers to Jesus. You have nothing to say, I know.

Wrong again ! (Insert "hysterical" smilie here.)

Paul talks to ecstatics like himself. They understand that Paul refers to the experiences of glory and supernatural grandeur with which they themselves have been engulfed. They would have had no issue with sorting out the contexts of Paul's remarks. You sound like a stone-age philosopher trying to figure out why his hair raises when he polishes a piece of amber. Kindly educate yourself about the neuro-physiological basis of religious behaviours such as the one exhibited in Paul's letters.

Consider the following escerpts from the essay vis-a-vis some of Paul's verses which articulate their theistic content:

Quote:

Persinger: The temporal lobe of the human brain is an optimal locus for the creation of religious experiences. Cortical and deep structures (primarily the amygdaloid and hippocampal complexes) are associated with the sense of "self" in relationship to time and space, the memory-dependent conception of their limits primary affective components of anticipation, especially of nociceptive events.

Paul: But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me, Gal 1:15-16

Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. Gal 6:17

Quote:

Persinger: The amygdala contains representations of motivational states and their affective (pleasure or reward versus pain or punishment) dimensions.
Whereas crude (and wide spread) stimulation [of the amygdala]evokes fear (Weingarten, Cherlow, & Holmgren, 1977) and general anxiety (anticipation of negative stimuli), more subtle stimulation evokes intense meaningfulness and peak experiences; the latter are often in conjunction with altered body perceptions, such as out-of-body experiences (Jasper & Rasmussen, 1958) or convictions of cosmic communion.

Paul: articulation of max. pleasure and intense meaningfulness -> I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 2 Cor 12:2-4

articulation of max. debilitating depression and anxiety ->
For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself. 2 Cor 1:8

Quote:

Persinger: Considering the direct connections to the dorsomedial portions of the thalamus and orbital frontal lobes, time distortions (e.g., viewing eternity in a split second) would not be unexpected. Sudden amygdaloid stimulation and alteration of the sense of self in space-time could momentarily alter hippocampal function and change memory reference. The alteration may range from institution of memories that appear to be "old and real" to the conviction that something meaningful and intensely personal has happened (although the details are vague). A significant portion of them would be characterized by a long latency between the time of the experience and its report.

Paul: But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. 1 Cr 2:7

Quote:

Persinger: Although the content of TLT experiences would reflect the person's learning history (referencing Allah versus Jehovah), the general pattern of themes would be consistent across every human culture due to the similarities of temporal lobe function. Persistent patterns of reported experience would be due to electrical coherence (Brazier, 1972) through which structures, typically not coordinated, display brief interaction. Systematic access to (1) infantile
memories of parental images (perhaps even perinatal representations proprioception), and (2) images from before four to five years of age and memories for which there are no retrieval formats, could occur. Both would be attributed to extrinsic ("ego-alien") sources (Mahl, Rothenberg, Delgado, & Hamfin, 1964), and be incorporated within experiences that share similar neuroelectrical patterns. (emphasis added) The former would be a universal source of God (parent surrogate) images while the latter would foster conclusions of "previous lives" or "other memories."

Note ed.: This is an extremely important issue projecting into the NT creativity. The best attestation for the "regressive states" comes from Mark 10:14 ("Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.") and Matthew 18:3 ("unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.")
Paul was not fond of the "children of God" lore which apparently existed in the Jesus-professing communities already and which led to his memorable sayings: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways." 1 Cor 13:11 and "Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature. " 1 Cor 14:20

Quote:

Persinger: Given the profound capacity to evoke pleasurable and meaningful experiences, reduce existential anxiety and generate the security of old parental experiences (the origin of god images), TLTs are potent modifiers of human behavior. A singular episode, in the appropriate context, can be followed by long-term behavioral changes. The threat of removal of these experiences or the challenge of their construct validity, is an obvious source of anxiety. (emphasis added)

Paul "Oh, foolish Galatians, (3:1)"

"I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is." Gal 5:10

So, if you accept that the models of religiosity are built around specific perceptual and cognitive issues and hyperactivity in some parts of our brain (not necessarily physically pathogenic in origin), then you will have no problem accepting that terms and concepts which have no meaningful "trace" in your life, would resonate with some folks who have had some familiarity with the phenomena Paul belabored.

Quote:

But what criterion do you have to say that it refers to god if you believe that Paul also uses the non-titular κυριος for Jesus? Don't you see your dilemma?? Here you divine it's for Jesus and there for god. I guess we just have to believe you.

spin

Actually, you don't have to believe me. But is there anyone you know amont the accessible NT scholars who believe what you believe about Paul's use of the non-titular kyrios ?

Jiri

spin · 06-05-2010, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are still mute over the fact that Paul clearly uses the non-titular κυριος for god, even if as you claim only in LXX citations which you seem to assume that the reader would be able to recognize, and if he uses it for Jesus elsewhere, how does the reader distinguish when Paul refers to god and when he refers to Jesus. You have nothing to say, I know.

Wrong again ! (Insert "hysterical" smilie here.)

Paul talks to ecstatics like himself. They understand that Paul refers to the experiences of glory and supernatural grandeur with which they themselves have been engulfed. They would have had no issue with sorting out the contexts of Paul's remarks. You sound like a stone-age philosopher trying to figure out why his hair raises when he polishes a piece of amber. Kindly educate yourself about the neuro-physiological basis of religious behaviours such as the one exhibited in Paul's letters.

Consider the following escerpts from the essay vis-a-vis some of Paul's verses which articulate their theistic content:

[Flood of stuff from Persinger handily omitted by the software.]

So, if you accept that the models of religiosity are built around specific perceptual and cognitive issues and hyperactivity in some parts of our brain (not necessarily physically pathogenic in origin), then you will have no problem accepting that terms and concepts which have no meaningful "trace" in your life, would resonate with some folks who have had some familiarity with the phenomena Paul belabored.

This doesn't deal with the linguistic issue that was put before you. Don't change the subject. Try to understand what was said to you. Basic subject: two referents for the same reference, how does the person being communicated with distinguish referents in the communication?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

But what criterion do you have to say that it refers to god if you believe that Paul also uses the non-titular κυριος for Jesus? Don't you see your dilemma?? Here you divine it's for Jesus and there for god. I guess we just have to believe you.

Actually, you don't have to believe me.

So true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

But is there anyone you know amont the accessible NT scholars who believe what you believe about Paul's use of the non-titular kyrios ?

I usually argue positions that I have worked out myself, working on the notion that any errors I make will be mine not those of who I read, so obviously I can't answer your question. Perhaps you could cite a few NT scholars who actually go down this avenue.

spin

aa5874 · 06-05-2010, 12:53 PM

Eusebius in "Church History" claimed that some Clement wrote that there were two persons called JAMES and that one was beheaded.

"Church History" 2.1

Quote:

3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.

But there were two Jameses:

one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded."

Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, "Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."..

In the Gospels there were TWO characters called James who were apostles.

Mark 3.14

Quote:

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James, and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot..

In Acts one James the brother of John is executed so only James the SON of ALPHAEUS remained.

JAMES the son of ALPHEUS was the apostle called James the Just the bishop of Jerusalem, and the LORD'S brother.

Acts 12:1-2 -

Quote:

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

So Papias, an apologetic source, in his fragments claimed James the Just was the Son of Alphaeus and was not the son of the supposed mother of Jesus.

"Fragments of Papias" X

Quote:

...(2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle..

Clement, an apologetic source, also claimed there were two persons called James, one the brother of John who was executed and James the Just as found in Galatians 1.19.

The author of gMark, an apologetic source, also claimed there were two apostles called James, one the brother of John and the other of the son of ALPHAEUS.

The author of Acts of the Apostles, an apologetic source claimed one of the Jameses was executed.

Only James the Son of ALPHAEUS is left.

Jerome, an apologetic source, claimed James the so-called brother of the Lord was NOT the son of the supposed mother of Jesus.

"De Viris Illustribus"

Quote:

James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle...

So based on the ABUNDANCE of EVIDENCE from APOLOGETIC sources the apostle James called the Just, the supposed bishop of Jerusalem, was NOT actual brother of LORD Jesus.

APOLOGETIC sources appear to agree, for centuries, in a story where JAMES the apostle in Galatians 1.19 was the Son of ALPHAEUS and the SISTER of the supposed mother of Mary.

judge · 06-05-2010, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Have you read my analyses in order to make this bogus claim? No. Talk about handwaving.

In this thread, up to my post you had done absolutely nothing but handwave them aside.
Now lets face it you have been working on this theory (including your wish to see one interpolation in a relevant place) for years now. Years!
Have you ever set down this rather important part of the idea, or do you just plan to handwave it aside forever?
you have just stated (to Solo) that you are only relying on your own work here. Well,where is it?

06-05-2010, 10:07 AM	#136
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Here's a short list of definite non-titular κυριος for Jesus (all disturbing context): 1 Cor 2:8b (intrusion into discussion about the stupidity of the rulers of this age, anomalous, "the lord of glory") 1 Cor 6:14 (intrusion in a discussion of bodies) 1 Cor 11:23-27 (last supper insertion + later compensatory insertion in v.29) If anyone can, feel free to add other definite non-titular κυριος for Jesus. I don't think there are any. spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.