Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 08-24-2009, 04:57 PM

Mithraism also had lots of differences in both doctrine and practice with Xianity. The central image of Mithraism was Mithras slaughtering a bull, with no crucifixion in sight, and that's just the beginning.

The main cited similarity, sacred meals, were a common religious custom, which says little about their relationship.

spin · 08-24-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul is not the issue: it is his readership. I plainly talked a bout the ancient reader. How the fuck would an ancient reader have been able to see that Paul was citing from a psalm??? The reader didn't have footnotes. Get it?

There are two uses: one is as a title; the other is a reference in place of a name, an absolute reference.

Have I not seen Jesus our lord [title!]? Are you not my work in the lord [absolute!]?

Assumptions. You assume that the gospels are relevant. You assume it doesn't matter that these are different uses of kurios. And you assume you can count.

I seem to have overvalued your reading abilities. I said nothing of the sort.

I said that all the instances I know of that are absolute uses of kurios referring to Jesus appear to be in disturbed contexts. That should put you ill at ease when trying to make sense of those absolute uses of kurios for Jesus.

Your persistent lack of understanding is tedious to me. You rumble on not noticing very much of the issues at all.

Umm, you didn't underline it correctly. you should have ton kurion hmwn and that answers your question. It ain't god. But look at the second use in the same verse. That's what you need to consider more carefully.

(And your transliteration is strange because you are using a "j" for the final sigma which confuses. It's clearer if you don't make the distinction between final and medial sigma.)

I do get the idea that there are diminishing returns when it is so hard to explain things to you.

I did not say that Rom 4:8 was ambiguous. In fact I said the quite the opposite:

Is Rom 4:8's "(the) lord" refer to Jesus or to god? (You can answer this one.) What about Rom 9:28? (It's easy because of 9:29.) Others can be quite hard to decide. What are "brothers of the lord" (1 Cor 9:5)? Are they a religious group or brothers of Jesus?

:banghead:

ah, your grammatical ambiguities are actually not even grammatical. they are based on your assumption that there are no Jews in the corinthian church. gotcha! I understand your version of reality and now I will discard it. If you want someone to follow along in your little q & a games, then you have to let them know what incorrect assumptions you are making along the way. so there is no grammatical ambiguity then.

Total non sequitur. You seem to be working under the sad assumption that because you can find out that a verse is a citation of the Hebrew bible through your footnotes, the people who read Corinthians when it was written would be able to know the same thing. Didn't know you were a joker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

if you cannot bring yourself to say that 1 cor 9:1 is referring to Jesus then all the greek in the world will not assit you in overcoming your stubborn-ness in the face of the correct understanding of reality.

I cannot help it if you don't understand the clear and simple distinction I made for you. The first use of kurios, a titular use is obviously about Jesus. However, the second one, the absolute doesn't. If you can't understand the first verse of Ps 110, why not just say so? That's just another case of titular and absolute uses of kurios and they are clearly two different referents. Same issue in 1 Cor 9:1.

Do you think when Hannah rejoiced in the lord (LXX 1 Sam 2:1), this "in the lord" refers to Jesus? (Cf. Php 3:1) Put your trust in the lord (2 Chr 20:20). I will strengthen them in the lord (Zech 10:12). Paul is using a common Hebrew bible phrase "in the lord", which obviously refers to god.

One can only try to lead the horse to water for so long.

spin

sschlichter · 08-25-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

ah, your grammatical ambiguities are actually not even grammatical. they are based on your assumption that there are no Jews in the corinthian church. gotcha! I understand your version of reality and now I will discard it. If you want someone to follow along in your little q & a games, then you have to let them know what incorrect assumptions you are making along the way. so there is no grammatical ambiguity then.

Total non sequitur. You seem to be working under the sad assumption that because you can find out that a verse is a citation of the Hebrew bible through your footnotes, the people who read Corinthians when it was written would be able to know the same thing. Didn't know you were a joker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

if you cannot bring yourself to say that 1 cor 9:1 is referring to Jesus then all the greek in the world will not assit you in overcoming your stubborn-ness in the face of the correct understanding of reality.

I cannot help it if you don't understand the clear and simple distinction I made for you. The first use of kurios, a titular use is obviously about Jesus. However, the second one, the absolute doesn't. If you can't understand the first verse of Ps 110, why not just say so? That's just another case of titular and absolute uses of kurios and they are clearly two different referents. Same issue in 1 Cor 9:1.

Do you think when Hannah rejoiced in the lord (LXX 1 Sam 2:1), this "in the lord" refers to Jesus? (Cf. Php 3:1) Put your trust in the lord (2 Chr 20:20). I will strengthen them in the lord (Zech 10:12). Paul is using a common Hebrew bible phrase "in the lord", which obviously refers to god.

One can only try to lead the horse to water for so long.

spin

Do you think when Paul says he is an apostle of the Lord, he is not referring to Jesus?

I like water. You seem like a smart person. so, I am willing to endure your insults and condescending uppitiness if some sort of nugget of purpose would be the result.

There is simply no evidence that the Lord's brothers is a first century glee club. it is true that you will not likely find another person that an author is claiming to be God that has brothers. the very unique claim that Paul is making is what is driving the use of kurios that you are picking at. Also, you seem to be capable of pretending that Paul does not otherwise conclude that Jesus is God.

bacht · 08-25-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Do you think when Paul says he is an apostle of the Lord, he is not referring to Jesus?

I like water. You seem like a smart person. so, I am willing to endure your insults and condescending uppitiness if some sort of nugget of purpose would be the result.

There is simply no evidence that the Lord's brothers is a first century glee club. it is true that you will not likely find another person that an author is claiming to be God that has brothers. the very unique claim that Paul is making is what is driving the use of kurios that you are picking at. Also, you seem to be capable of pretending that Paul does not otherwise conclude that Jesus is God.

I don't think so, Paul seems to be careful not to say this. He refers to Christ as Lord and Son of God but not as just God.

sschlichter · 08-25-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Do you think when Paul says he is an apostle of the Lord, he is not referring to Jesus?

I like water. You seem like a smart person. so, I am willing to endure your insults and condescending uppitiness if some sort of nugget of purpose would be the result.

There is simply no evidence that the Lord's brothers is a first century glee club. it is true that you will not likely find another person that an author is claiming to be God that has brothers. the very unique claim that Paul is making is what is driving the use of kurios that you are picking at. Also, you seem to be capable of pretending that Paul does not otherwise conclude that Jesus is God.

I don't think so, Paul seems to be careful not to say this. He refers to Christ as Lord and Son of God but not as just God.

No, he very emphatically said exactly that:

(Php 2:6) who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,

There are plenty of references from Paul (and elsewhere)

Plus, as spin has pointed out Paul uses kurios to also refer to Jesus, where he says I am an apostle of the Lord or when he refers to the Lord's brothers, whom have married.

spin · 08-25-2009, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I don't think so, Paul seems to be careful not to say this. He refers to Christ as Lord and Son of God but not as just God.

No, he very emphatically said exactly that:

One of the problems of using an old translation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(Php 2:6) who though he existed in the form [morfh] of God
did not regard equality [isos]with God
as something to be grasped,

Sticking to the same translation for the subsequent verse:

But made himself of no reputation,
and took upon him the form[morfh] of a servant
being made in the likeness of man

Being in the form of god makes no claim about being god. In fact it says the opposite to what you want: it says that he was not god (but in that form).

The Greek isos which you know from "isosceles triangle" and "isobar". It implies distinctness between the equal things. Being equal [isa] with god shows that he wasn't god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

There are plenty of references from Paul (and elsewhere)

We're always interested in such claims regarding Paul, so let's see some more of those plenty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Plus, as spin has pointed out Paul uses kurios to also refer to Jesus, where he says I am an apostle of the Lord or when he refers to the Lord's brothers, whom have married.

You misrepresent me.

spin

spin · 08-25-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Total non sequitur. You seem to be working under the sad assumption that because you can find out that a verse is a citation of the Hebrew bible through your footnotes, the people who read Corinthians when it was written would be able to know the same thing. Didn't know you were a joker.

I cannot help it if you don't understand the clear and simple distinction I made for you. The first use of kurios, a titular use is obviously about Jesus. However, the second one, the absolute doesn't. If you can't understand the first verse of Ps 110, why not just say so? That's just another case of titular and absolute uses of kurios and they are clearly two different referents. Same issue in 1 Cor 9:1.

Do you think when Hannah rejoiced in the lord (LXX 1 Sam 2:1), this "in the lord" refers to Jesus? (Cf. Php 3:1) Put your trust in the lord (2 Chr 20:20). I will strengthen them in the lord (Zech 10:12). Paul is using a common Hebrew bible phrase "in the lord", which obviously refers to god.

One can only try to lead the horse to water for so long.

Do you think when Paul says he is an apostle of the Lord, he is not referring to Jesus?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I like water. You seem like a smart person. so, I am willing to endure your insults and condescending uppitiness if some sort of nugget of purpose would be the result.

Don't endure insults etc., show some analysis of the material that you're shuffling around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

There is simply no evidence that the Lord's brothers is a first century glee club.

At the time of Paul's writing there "is simply no evidence that the Lord's brothers" means anything else. You continue to retroject, and invalidate your analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

it is true that you will not likely find another person that an author is claiming to be God that has brothers. the very unique claim that Paul is making is what is driving the use of kurios that you are picking at.

More of the same retrojection. Although you cannot accept the possibility of a group called "the brothers of the lord", you don't offer any argument against the notion. I've pointed to the Hebrew name Ahijah, which means "the lord is my brother", ie the lord's brother. If you can have one you can have more than one. You have numerous glee clubs in antiquity: the hasidim, the rechabites, the pharisees. For some reason you have brain blockage when it comes to the possibility of "the brothers of the lord" as one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Also, you seem to be capable of pretending that Paul does not otherwise conclude that Jesus is God.

I think you are plain wrong and you don't understand your proof texts, as in the Philippians case.

spin

angelo · 08-26-2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Hmm. Responding in this fashion suggests that you do know the date when Mithras was born...May I inquire, which piece of evidence points to his birth date?

Oh please !
No games thanks.

There is NO evidence that Mithras was born on Dec. 25th.

It's just an urban legend.

K.

What evidence is there that Jesus was born on the 25th?

sschlichter · 08-26-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Do you think when Paul says he is an apostle of the Lord, he is not referring to Jesus?

No.

you answered in the negative to a negatively stated question. I am not sure you meant to agree that Paul 1 Cor 9:2 is using the name of The LORD to refer to jesus.

Quote:

Don't endure insults etc., show some analysis of the material that you're shuffling around.

I can chew gum and walk at the same time as well.

Quote:

At the time of Paul's writing there "is simply no evidence that the Lord's brothers" means anything else. You continue to retroject, and invalidate your analysis.

More of the same retrojection. Although you cannot accept the possibility of a group called "the brothers of the lord", you don't offer any argument against the notion. I've pointed to the Hebrew name Ahijah, which means "the lord is my brother", ie the lord's brother. If you can have one you can have more than one. You have numerous glee clubs in antiquity: the hasidim, the rechabites, the pharisees. For some reason you have brain blockage when it comes to the possibility of "the brothers of the lord" as one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Also, you seem to be capable of pretending that Paul does not otherwise conclude that Jesus is God.

I think you are plain wrong and you don't understand your proof texts, as in the Philippians case.

spin

I am using the NET bible. It is a very new translation. it is available online as well as the translation notes on Phil 2:6 @ bible.org

Your logic betrays you. The same word where it is un-questionably referring to the brother of jesus, such as Gal 1:19 where Paul says of James adelphon tou kuriou. exact same usage referring to a single person that is known to be the physical brother of Jesus and grammatically cannot refer to a member of a group. You claim this usage is the same as the usage in the LXX and could only be used of God. here, it is used of God, however it is the incarnated God that he is referring to. that can serve as a 2nd example of where Paul views Jesus as divine.

spin · 08-26-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

No.

you answered in the negative to a negatively stated question. I am not sure you meant to agree that Paul 1 Cor 9:2 is using the name of The LORD to refer to jesus.

I can chew gum and walk at the same time as well.

So you're not Gerald Ford?! -- just a good impersonator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

At the time of Paul's writing there "is simply no evidence that the Lord's brothers" means anything else. You continue to retroject, and invalidate your analysis.

More of the same retrojection. Although you cannot accept the possibility of a group called "the brothers of the lord", you don't offer any argument against the notion. I've pointed to the Hebrew name Ahijah, which means "the lord is my brother", ie the lord's brother. If you can have one you can have more than one. You have numerous glee clubs in antiquity: the hasidim, the rechabites, the pharisees. For some reason you have brain blockage when it comes to the possibility of "the brothers of the lord" as one.

I think you are plain wrong and you don't understand your proof texts, as in the Philippians case.

spin

I am using the NET bible. It is a very new translation. it is available online as well as the translation notes on Phil 2:6 @ bible.org

That's good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Your logic betrays you. The same word where it is un-questionably referring to the brother of jesus, such as Gal 1:19 where Paul says of James adelphon tou kuriou.

It seems for some reason you might think that I have ignored this verse. In a post from 2008 I wrote to someone using the phrase "James, brother of Christ" referring to Gal 1:19,

You are perverting the text. Gal 1:19 says "the lord's brother", a term equivalent in meaning to the Hebrew name Ahijah.

The phrase could without any problem be worded, "the brother of the lord" to reduce the assumption level.

There's no point in trying to support your conjecture based on a conjecture about another verse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

exact same usage referring to a single person that is known to be the physical brother of Jesus and grammatically cannot refer to a member of a group. You claim this usage is the same as the usage in the LXX and could only be used of God. here, it is used of God, however it is the incarnated God that he is referring to. that can serve as a 2nd example of where Paul views Jesus as divine.

Sorry, no cupey doll. You shouldn't argue based on conjecture alone.

spin

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

08-24-2009, 04:57 PM	#291
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Mithraism also had lots of differences in both doctrine and practice with Xianity. The central image of Mithraism was Mithras slaughtering a bull, with no crucifixion in sight, and that's just the beginning. The main cited similarity, sacred meals, were a common religious custom, which says little about their relationship.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.