Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-24-2011, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That is all well and fine, but it does not change the fact that, without further substantiating evidence, the OP is no more than a presumption. This is the point, has been the point and, barring any new fantastic discoveries, always will be the point.

That is a pointed comment.

Kindly keep in mind that I am an agnostic :huh: and not a HJer.

It has been noted that one can just say that there is not any credible evidence for a HJ and stop.

If one wants to continue the conversation beyond that, one has only the current crappy evidence to work with and 1:19 is part of that evidence.

The way I view it is like literary analysis to avoid being concerned with actual 'real' history. The question as I see it: Was Paul's literature silent about knowing of a historical Jesus. Apparently the answer is no.

A problem for a HJer is the question of what kind of Jesus did Paul know of? What is the relationship of that Jesus to Paul's Christ, the Christ of the Gospels and the Christ of the orthodox. To that the HJ existed and stop is not more informative that to say there is no credible evidence of a HJ and stop.

I think we can know many things about Paul's idea of Jesus. It is not as though all we know about Paul's Jesus is that Jesus was a human being. There is considerably more than that.

For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul predicted that Jesus would come back and take with him both "we who are alive" and "those who have died." This strongly corresponds with the synoptic gospel Jesus predicting the doomsday before "this generation" passes away (Mark 13:30) and before "some standing here" taste death (Mark 9:1).

(1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

If Paul believed that Jesus would very soon return to Earth and rapture all of the Christians, then he likely believed that Jesus himself made that same prophecy. If not, then it still says something about what Paul believed about Jesus. Paul talked about Jesus all of the time, mostly as a spiritual/divine being, but it seems unlikely that Paul would attribute descriptions of the spiritual/divine Jesus that he wouldn't also attribute to the human Jesus.

I compiled a list of the things that Paul explicitly believed about the human Jesus:

Paul believed that Jesus was born from a woman as the Son of God in a Jewish society - Galatians 4:4-5.
Paul believed that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" - Romans 1:3.
Paul believed that Jesus taught that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" - 1 Corinthians 9:14, see also Luke 10:7.
Paul believed that Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, broke it, said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me," took the cup, said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" - 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
Paul believed that Jesus was the sacrificed passover lamb - 1 Corinthians 5:7.
Paul believed that Jesus was crucified by rulers of this age who did not understand that Christians speak God's wisdom - 1 Corinthians 2:7-8.
Paul believed that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, appeared to Cephas, to the twelve disciples, to five hundred Christians (some of whom have since died), to James, to all of the apostles, and much later to Paul himself - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
Paul believed that Jesus commanded that a wife should not separate from her husband and a husband should not divorce his wife - 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, see also Mark 10:11-12.
And, of course, Paul believed that Jesus had a brother named James - Galatians 1:19.

Not that this is the limit of what Paul believed about Jesus. It is only what he explicitly attributed to the human Jesus. Since Paul regarded Jesus as an absolute religious authority, then it would be very likely that Paul would attribute to Jesus (both human and spiritual) just about anything that Paul himself preached.

aa5874 · 05-24-2011, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...I think we can know many things about Paul's idea of Jesus. It is not as though all we know about Paul's Jesus is that Jesus was a human being...

You are not really credible.

We have Galatians 1.1 where a Pauline write CLEARLY asserted that he was NOT the Apostle of a man.

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)...

We have Galatians 1.11-12 where a Pauline writer claimed he did NOT get his Gospel from man.

Galatians 1

Quote:

..11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Now how many times must you be told that the Pauline writings are part of the NT CANON and CANNOT contain the Heresy that Jesus was just a man with a human father.

You MUST know that an ordinary man is of NO use to the Pauline writers since they NEED a RESURRECTION.

If Jesus was just a KNOWN man then he could NOT RESURRECT.

1Co 15:17 -

Quote:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins.

It is CLEAR that the PAULINE Jesus was JUST A belief or ONLY requires BELIEF about a resurrected God Incarnate called Jesus.

A human Jesus is IRRELEVANT to the Pauline writings.

You KNOW that GOD in the FLESH, God Incarnate, is NOT the same as human yet you continue with your propaganda.

Only MYTH JESUS can save mankind from Sin in the Pauline writings. Only MYTH Jesus can resurrect.

jgoodguy · 05-24-2011, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

If one wants to continue the conversation beyond that, one has only the current crappy evidence to work with and 1:19 is part of that evidence.

I take it then that you make the ideological commitment that Paul uses the word "lord" in Gal 1:19 to refer to Jesus.

There are two uses of the word, one as a title, "the lord Jesus" or "my lord", and as a substitute for a name, as it is usually used in the LXX (think of modern examples such as "the Bard" or "the Governator", or an ancient one "haShem"). The difference can be seen in LXX Ps.110:1, "The lord says to my lord", both instances of "lord" in the Greek are the same word, but context makes it clear which is which: the first refers to god, the second to a person of importance. You can see the difference through the different usage. It's a difference maintained at the time of the production of the gospel of Mark in which one finds "lord" used 17 times and the distinction is maintained throughout. Here we see that Paul's use of "lord" was still in use when Mark was compiled.

The historical problem comes when we leave the Jewish context as christianity spreads through through the Mediterranean and the usage of "lord" comes into contact with other religious tendencies, where the "lord" reflected the one who is the "savior". (That's when a few interpolations such as 1 Cor 6:14 come into the text.)

Paul cites several passages from the LXX with the catch phrase "says the lord", which can only refer to god (Paul was not a trinitarian: he believed in one god, the father, and one lord, Jesus). He obviously uses "lord" as found in the LXX and the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora. Otherwise, he would be using one word with two distinct meanings (god and Jesus), but with no way in most cases for the reader to distinguish which is which. This of course is preposterous. The writer's aim is to communicate with the reader, not to confuse them (even assuming readers who "know"). And a term the reader cannot fathom at any one instance will only confuse. 1 Cor 7 uses "lord" without contextual clues, so that if the term could be either Jesus or god, how could the reader know the reference at any one time? They can't and it is a case of doublethink that modern readers can be so lax when reading this material.

The "lord" in Gal 1:19 is not a title, a fact which rules out a Pauline reference to Jesus. We have two possibilities: it's an interpolation as dog-on has suggested or it is Paul once again referring to god. I have suggested that we are dealing with the existence of people who referred to themselves or were known as "brothers of the lord" (1 Cor 9:5), who were separate from the apostles but were perhaps as important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

The way I view it is like literary analysis to avoid being concerned with actual 'real' history. The question as I see it: Was Paul's literature silent about knowing of a historical Jesus. Apparently the answer is no.

I see no evidence to suggest that Paul's savior was based on a historical figure. Can you outline from your reading of Paul what necessitates a historical core, when Paul makes clear that his gospel doesn't come to him from other people, but from god (Gal 1:11-12, 15-16)? As I see the evidence, there may have been a historical Jesus, but Paul provides no help in deciding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

A problem for a HJer is the question of what kind of Jesus did Paul know of? What is the relationship of that Jesus to Paul's Christ, the Christ of the Gospels and the Christ of the orthodox. To that the HJ existed and stop is not more informative that to say there is no credible evidence of a HJ and stop.

ideological????

I am an agnostic :huh:, we don't have ideologies. :constern01:

In the literature of Paul, he apparently refers to Lord as Jesus Christ in most if not all cases. So a reading of 1:19 appears to say that James was the brother of Jesus Christ. So do I read that James was the brother of the Cosmic Christ or a earthly Jesus in his prior physical form? I see no reason to read it as brother of a Cosmic Christ.

As to the magical interpolation, just because you gotta have for your purposes, is not evidence one exists. Once the interpolation games starts where to they end. Did Marcion write the literature ascribed to Paul much like Marlowe wrote the literature ascribed to Shakespeare? Interpolation and Ideologies go hand in hand, once the contemplation of a interpolation exists, then what that interpolation consists of is colored by ideology. I have this fantastic dream of discovering a cache of sealed clay jars containing 1st century Pauline epistles and demolishing the HJers, JMers and orthodox theories. :devil1: I fear the jars would be empty.

spin · 05-24-2011, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think we can know many things about Paul's idea of Jesus. It is not as though all we know about Paul's Jesus is that Jesus was a human being. There is considerably more than that.

For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul predicted that Jesus would come back and take with him both "we who are alive" and "those who have died." This strongly corresponds with the synoptic gospel Jesus predicting the doomsday before "this generation" passes away (Mark 13:30) and before "some standing here" taste death (Mark 9:1).

(1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

If Paul believed that Jesus would very soon return to Earth and rapture all of the Christians, then he likely believed that Jesus himself made that same prophecy. If not, then it still says something about what Paul believed about Jesus. Paul talked about Jesus all of the time, mostly as a spiritual/divine being, but it seems unlikely that Paul would attribute descriptions of the spiritual/divine Jesus that he wouldn't also attribute to the human Jesus.

I compiled a list of the things that Paul explicitly believed about the human Jesus:

Paul believed that Jesus was born from a woman as the Son of God in a Jewish society - Galatians 4:4-5.
Paul believed that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" - Romans 1:3.
Paul believed that Jesus taught that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" - 1 Corinthians 9:14, see also Luke 10:7.
Paul believed that Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, broke it, said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me," took the cup, said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" - 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.

A skeptic would see that 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is based on the Lucan last supper and thus a later development from the form in the gospel of Mark. Plainly this is an interpolation, with a payload that has nothing to do with Paul's argument concerning the Corinthians' misuse of the meal Paul instituted there. This is a perfect example of the use of the non-titular "lord" for Jesus, another indication that it is an interpolation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus was the sacrificed passover lamb - 1 Corinthians 5:7.
Paul believed that Jesus was crucified by rulers of this age who did not understand that Christians speak God's wisdom - 1 Corinthians 2:7-8.
Paul believed that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, appeared to Cephas, to the twelve disciples, to five hundred Christians (some of whom have since died), to James, to all of the apostles, and much later to Paul himself - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

Another interpolation. Had all these sightings been made, the whole of Paul's argument in 1 Cor 15:12-19 would not have been necessary. Paul asks, "how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?" but doesn't refer to those sightings, but to his own reasoning. Had there been so much testimony to the resurrection, then Paul didn't need to try to convince his Corinthians.

And we wait for howls of protest from people who want to believe that the claim of interpolation is ad hoc, despite the fact that there is textual evidence for interpolation, that scripture was corrupted for orthodox purposes and with a christian cultural hegemony in operation for well over a thousand years there is no reason to doubt systemic manipulation of texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus commanded that a wife should not separate from her husband and a husband should not divorce his wife - 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, see also Mark 10:11-12.

This is a little lame to be listed here. So something Paul wrote in 1 Cor made it into a gospel. That's really worthy of note, isn't it??

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And, of course, Paul believed that Jesus had a brother named James - Galatians 1:19.

ApostateAbe will try to sell this piece of apologetic till the cows come home. Paul simply does not say anything of the sort. This does not come from the text. It is christian apologetic which ApostateAbe slavishly follows. He can't read what's actually written because he has committed himself to a view he cannot sustain otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Not that this is the limit of what Paul believed about Jesus. It is only what he explicitly attributed to the human Jesus. Since Paul regarded Jesus as an absolute religious authority, then it would be very likely that Paul would attribute to Jesus (both human and spiritual) just about anything that Paul himself preached.

As I have pointed out numerous times, in Paul's theology, Jesus had to be human in order to be a suitable substitute sacrifice to bring salvation. If he weren't human, how could he be liable to the same temptations as humans? how could he take the sins of humanity upon himself? This means that he had to be born of a woman. That he was a sacrificial lamb is purely theological, underlying the task of substitute sacrifice. Dying for our sins was the theology. It is all a logical consequence of Paul's theology.

At the same time Paul states categorically that his gospel comes from god, not from human beings (Gal 1:11-12, 15-16). He admits here that he cannot be a source of factual data regarding Jesus. It is vain to try to get a historical Jesus out of Paul, when he himself says that he got his knowledge from god through a revelation. If one wants to call Paul a liar on this subject, then how can one use him for history elsewhere without having strong criteria for doing so? One can't.

spin · 05-24-2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I take it then that you make the ideological commitment that Paul uses the word "lord" in Gal 1:19 to refer to Jesus.

There are two uses of the word, one as a title, "the lord Jesus" or "my lord", and as a substitute for a name, as it is usually used in the LXX (think of modern examples such as "the Bard" or "the Governator", or an ancient one "haShem"). The difference can be seen in LXX Ps.110:1, "The lord says to my lord", both instances of "lord" in the Greek are the same word, but context makes it clear which is which: the first refers to god, the second to a person of importance. You can see the difference through the different usage. It's a difference maintained at the time of the production of the gospel of Mark in which one finds "lord" used 17 times and the distinction is maintained throughout. Here we see that Paul's use of "lord" was still in use when Mark was compiled.

The historical problem comes when we leave the Jewish context as christianity spreads through through the Mediterranean and the usage of "lord" comes into contact with other religious tendencies, where the "lord" reflected the one who is the "savior". (That's when a few interpolations such as 1 Cor 6:14 come into the text.)

Paul cites several passages from the LXX with the catch phrase "says the lord", which can only refer to god (Paul was not a trinitarian: he believed in one god, the father, and one lord, Jesus). He obviously uses "lord" as found in the LXX and the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora. Otherwise, he would be using one word with two distinct meanings (god and Jesus), but with no way in most cases for the reader to distinguish which is which. This of course is preposterous. The writer's aim is to communicate with the reader, not to confuse them (even assuming readers who "know"). And a term the reader cannot fathom at any one instance will only confuse. 1 Cor 7 uses "lord" without contextual clues, so that if the term could be either Jesus or god, how could the reader know the reference at any one time? They can't and it is a case of doublethink that modern readers can be so lax when reading this material.

The "lord" in Gal 1:19 is not a title, a fact which rules out a Pauline reference to Jesus. We have two possibilities: it's an interpolation as dog-on has suggested or it is Paul once again referring to god. I have suggested that we are dealing with the existence of people who referred to themselves or were known as "brothers of the lord" (1 Cor 9:5), who were separate from the apostles but were perhaps as important.

I see no evidence to suggest that Paul's savior was based on a historical figure. Can you outline from your reading of Paul what necessitates a historical core, when Paul makes clear that his gospel doesn't come to him from other people, but from god (Gal 1:11-12, 15-16)? As I see the evidence, there may have been a historical Jesus, but Paul provides no help in deciding.

ideological????

I am an agnostic :huh:, we don't have ideologies. :constern01:

Don't be silly. One can easily have ideological views while being an agnostic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

In the literature of Paul, he apparently refers to Lord as Jesus Christ in most if not all cases.

Please read exactly what I said. Had you done so, you would have understood that Paul uses "lord" as a titular with Jesus. This means, when you state the following, you don't understand the issue at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

So a reading of 1:19 appears to say that James was the brother of Jesus Christ. So do I read that James was the brother of the Cosmic Christ or a earthly Jesus in his prior physical form? I see no reason to read it as brother of a Cosmic Christ.

With logic like this I wonder what you'd do with "brother of the cross" or "sister of mercy". In fact, "children of god" must be difficult for you as well... children of the great pie in the sky? You need to zone out of your modern prejudices and try to understand the text for what it says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

As to the magical interpolation, just because you gotta have for your purposes, is not evidence one exists. Once the interpolation games starts where to they end.

Arguments regarding interpolation are based on evidence, evidence which has been discussed often enough here. Either you process the evidence or you ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Did Marcion write the literature ascribed to Paul much like Marlowe wrote the literature ascribed to Shakespeare? Interpolation and Ideologies go hand in hand, once the contemplation of a interpolation exists, then what that interpolation consists of is colored by ideology. I have this fantastic dream of discovering a cache of sealed clay jars containing 1st century Pauline epistles and demolishing the HJers, JMers and orthodox theories. :devil1: I fear the jars would be empty.

ApostateAbe · 05-24-2011, 11:46 PM

As usual, I won't argue with you, spin. I'll just correct a misunderstanding: my last post wasn't about trying to get a historical Jesus out of Paul. It was strictly a discussion with jgoodguy about what Paul believed about the historical Jesus.

spin · 05-24-2011, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

As usual, I won't argue with you, spin. I'll just correct a misunderstanding: my last post wasn't about trying to get a historical Jesus out of Paul. It was strictly a discussion with jgoodguy about what Paul believed about the historical Jesus.

And Mother Teresa went to India strictly to help the heathen. Overdetermination.

jgoodguy · 05-25-2011, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I take it then that you make the ideological commitment that Paul uses the word "lord" in Gal 1:19 to refer to Jesus.

There are two uses of the word, one as a title, "the lord Jesus" or "my lord", and as a substitute for a name, as it is usually used in the LXX (think of modern examples such as "the Bard" or "the Governator", or an ancient one "haShem"). The difference can be seen in LXX Ps.110:1, "The lord says to my lord", both instances of "lord" in the Greek are the same word, but context makes it clear which is which: the first refers to god, the second to a person of importance. You can see the difference through the different usage. It's a difference maintained at the time of the production of the gospel of Mark in which one finds "lord" used 17 times and the distinction is maintained throughout. Here we see that Paul's use of "lord" was still in use when Mark was compiled.

The historical problem comes when we leave the Jewish context as christianity spreads through through the Mediterranean and the usage of "lord" comes into contact with other religious tendencies, where the "lord" reflected the one who is the "savior". (That's when a few interpolations such as 1 Cor 6:14 come into the text.)

Paul cites several passages from the LXX with the catch phrase "says the lord", which can only refer to god (Paul was not a trinitarian: he believed in one god, the father, and one lord, Jesus). He obviously uses "lord" as found in the LXX and the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora. Otherwise, he would be using one word with two distinct meanings (god and Jesus), but with no way in most cases for the reader to distinguish which is which. This of course is preposterous. The writer's aim is to communicate with the reader, not to confuse them (even assuming readers who "know"). And a term the reader cannot fathom at any one instance will only confuse. 1 Cor 7 uses "lord" without contextual clues, so that if the term could be either Jesus or god, how could the reader know the reference at any one time? They can't and it is a case of doublethink that modern readers can be so lax when reading this material.

The "lord" in Gal 1:19 is not a title, a fact which rules out a Pauline reference to Jesus. We have two possibilities: it's an interpolation as dog-on has suggested or it is Paul once again referring to god. I have suggested that we are dealing with the existence of people who referred to themselves or were known as "brothers of the lord" (1 Cor 9:5), who were separate from the apostles but were perhaps as important.

I see no evidence to suggest that Paul's savior was based on a historical figure. Can you outline from your reading of Paul what necessitates a historical core, when Paul makes clear that his gospel doesn't come to him from other people, but from god (Gal 1:11-12, 15-16)? As I see the evidence, there may have been a historical Jesus, but Paul provides no help in deciding.

ideological????

I am an agnostic :huh:, we don't have ideologies. :constern01:

Don't be silly. One can easily have ideological views while being an agnostic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

In the literature of Paul, he apparently refers to Lord as Jesus Christ in most if not all cases.

Please read exactly what I said. Had you done so, you would have understood that Paul uses "lord" as a titular with Jesus. This means, when you state the following, you don't understand the issue at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

So a reading of 1:19 appears to say that James was the brother of Jesus Christ. So do I read that James was the brother of the Cosmic Christ or a earthly Jesus in his prior physical form? I see no reason to read it as brother of a Cosmic Christ.

With logic like this I wonder what you'd do with "brother of the cross" or "sister of mercy". In fact, "children of god" must be difficult for you as well... children of the great pie in the sky? You need to zone out of your modern prejudices and try to understand the text for what it says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

As to the magical interpolation, just because you gotta have for your purposes, is not evidence one exists. Once the interpolation games starts where to they end.

Arguments regarding interpolation are based on evidence, evidence which has been discussed often enough here. Either you process the evidence or you ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Did Marcion write the literature ascribed to Paul much like Marlowe wrote the literature ascribed to Shakespeare? Interpolation and Ideologies go hand in hand, once the contemplation of a interpolation exists, then what that interpolation consists of is colored by ideology. I have this fantastic dream of discovering a cache of sealed clay jars containing 1st century Pauline epistles and demolishing the HJers, JMers and orthodox theories. :devil1: I fear the jars would be empty.

When an opponent claims the ability to read my mind, it is time to go to bed.

spin · 05-25-2011, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Don't be silly. One can easily have ideological views while being an agnostic.

Please read exactly what I said. Had you done so, you would have understood that Paul uses "lord" as a titular with Jesus. This means, when you state the following, you don't understand the issue at hand.

With logic like this I wonder what you'd do with "brother of the cross" or "sister of mercy". In fact, "children of god" must be difficult for you as well... children of the great pie in the sky? You need to zone out of your modern prejudices and try to understand the text for what it says.

Arguments regarding interpolation are based on evidence, evidence which has been discussed often enough here. Either you process the evidence or you ignore it.

When an opponent claims the ability to read my mind, it is time to go to bed.

I agree it's time for you to go to bed. I'm not an opponent and there is no mind reading going on to my understanding. There's just the betrayal of your prose, from which we can judge that you haven't done your job. If you think you've been misrepresented, make your case. Otherwise, catch the zees.

avi · 05-25-2011, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The difference can be seen in LXX Ps.110:1, "The lord says to my lord", both instances of "lord" in the Greek are the same word, but context makes it clear which is which: the first refers to god, the second to a person of importance. You can see the difference through the different usage. It's a difference maintained at the time of the production of the gospel of Mark in which one finds "lord" used 17 times and the distinction is maintained throughout. Here we see that Paul's use of "lord" was still in use when Mark was compiled.

The LXX version of Psalms 110:1 is corrupt, in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The DSS show that adonai was a later substitute for yhwh. That should still be the case for the Vorlage of the text that Philo had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...here is at least one image of DSS (Psalms 119:59-64), which shows yahweh just as it had been written for many centuries.

Here is Psalms 110:1 in Hebrew, note that in this "original" version, one observes "yahweh", NOT "adonai":

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B19C110.htm

with the King James version juxtaposed with the transliterated Hebrew, and n.b. the Latin Vulgate uses "David" not "the lord".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

I have this fantastic dream of discovering a cache of sealed clay jars containing 1st century Pauline epistles and demolishing the HJers, JMers and orthodox theories. I fear the jars would be empty.

nice. Why would someone have placed these documents into clay jars, in the first place? How would we date them to 1st century? If we cannot even agree about documents which HAVE been found in clay jars, i.e. DSS showing "yahweh", versus "adonai", then, how would we be able to reconcile the huge differences sure to emerge with such a discovery, starting with my certain claim of fraud......

avi

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

05-24-2011, 11:46 PM	#96
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	As usual, I won't argue with you, spin. I'll just correct a misunderstanding: my last post wasn't about trying to get a historical Jesus out of Paul. It was strictly a discussion with jgoodguy about what Paul believed about the historical Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.