Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-25-2011, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Perhaps you should. We are dealing with evidence of two separate entities. If that doesn't communicate with you then following your logic there is no distinction between every man and christ and god.

God and christ as two separate entities overtly eliminates trinitarianism.

Personalities are a different issue from separate entities. One can retrofit trinitarianism through the multiple personality fudge, but it's inappropriate with the cited Pauline material.

Except for the fact that we are dealing with separate entities.

So the analogy was irrelevant.

And I'm highly impressed with your effort to defend the trinity.

defend? I am applying the correct definition so you do not continue to err.

Correct? Try again. You're all over the place. Are you taking the Arian side or the orthodox side? If you were really applying the "correct definition" you'd be arguing consubstantial and thus excluding separate entities.

You would of course be retrojecting the trinity nevertheless. It's a 4th century idea, the "correct definition" not being decided upon until the fall of Arius.

aa5874 · 02-25-2011, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Spin, stop for a minute. Stop and breathe, just for one minute.
Regardless of the points you are attempting to make.
Regardless of them.
The fact that Paul, just a few short words earlier refers to Jesus as lord signifigantly weakens your case.
Regardless of any argument about titular and non titular, it still dramatically weakens any case you make .

Judge, stop. Spin, stop.

You ALL have forgotten that Galatians 1.1 exist.

Galatians 1:1

Quote:

1 Paul, an apostle, (NOT of men, NEITHER by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead..

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a man.

You have ALL forgotten that the NT is a COMPILATION of Non-HERETICAL writings.

hjalti · 02-26-2011, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I agree, "the Lord" here refers to god. But it has been argued that this is a part of a non-pauline interpolation

I think everybody agrees that the titular use of lord in the pauline epistles refers to Jesus, although I think I saw "lord god" in a pastoral epistle.

Pastorals are not Paul.

I know that

Quote:

When you take it out of the argument context, you're supposed to see nothing.

Ok, well, you supplied the explanation in a response sschlichter: "Or 1Cor 11:3, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ." This indicates a tiered relationship as christ is to every man, so god is to christ."

I agree with that. Paul clearly thinks that god is separate being than Jesus, and a higher being than Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Sure. But I think that it's possible that he thought of Jesus as Jahweh and god was his father.

Any evidence for a polytheistic religion in Jewish traditions in the few centuries prior to Paul? Or have we skipped onto the gnostic duality? If the latter how does a Jew shift Yahweh from the father to the son??

I think Margaret Barker makes a good case for this in her book, The Great Angel (or via: amazon.co.uk).

spin, did you overlook this post? This seems like a verse where the lord refers to Jesus:

Quote:

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1Th 4:15-17

Other verses in 1Th talk about "the coming of Jesus".

spin · 02-26-2011, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Pastorals are not Paul.

I know that

Ok, well, you supplied the explanation in a response sschlichter: "Or 1Cor 11:3, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ." This indicates a tiered relationship as christ is to every man, so god is to christ."

I agree with that. Paul clearly thinks that god is separate being than Jesus, and a higher being than Jesus.

I think Margaret Barker makes a good case for this in her book, The Great Angel.

spin, did you overlook this post? This seems like a verse where the lord refers to Jesus:

Quote:

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1Th 4:15-17

Other verses in 1Th talk about "the coming of Jesus".

Have you checked out Zech 14:3-5 on the coming of the lord? How about Mal 4? These should give you some idea of the intervention of the lord on the day. I don't see 1 Th 4:15-17 is particularly different.

hjalti · 02-26-2011, 04:55 AM

spin, three times in 1Thess the author talks about the coming of Jesus (2:19, 3:13 and 5:23). In light of this I think it is more reasonable to interpret the "coming of the lord" as the same as the coming of Jesus.

spin · 02-26-2011, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

spin, three times in 1Thess the author talks about the coming of Jesus (2:19, 3:13 and 5:23). In light of this I think it is more reasonable to interpret the "coming of the lord" as the same as the coming of Jesus.

Is Jesus going to twiddle his thumbs when the lord comes? Paul uses similar statements about god and his messiah.

Don't you think it odd that of all the uses of the non-titular κυριος in 1 Thes the only one you feel sure of as Jesus reflects the LXX god? Would you like to posit that Paul's Jesus is the lord who avenges wrongs in 1 Thes 4:6? Isn't the "word of the lord" paralleled with "faith in god" in 1 Thes 1:8? If the word of the lord is of god here, then what about the "word of the lord" in 1 Thes 4:15? Why isn't the coming of the lord in 1 Thes 4:15 not the same as Zech 14:4-5?

(While we're on 1 Thes, another good Pauline anti-trinitarian statement is 3:13b, "...before our god and father at the coming of the lord Jesus....")

hjalti · 02-26-2011, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Don't you think it odd that of all the uses of the non-titular κυριος in 1 Thes the only one you feel sure of as Jesus reflects the LXX god?

Nope, if Paul thought of Jesus as Yahweh, you would expect that.

But I don't see any non-titular kyrios in 1 Thess that I think refer clearly to god the father.

Quote:

Would you like to posit that Paul's Jesus is the lord who avenges wrongs in 1 Thes 4:6?

He could be. I don't see why one should think that the lord in 1thes 4:6 refers to god the father.

Quote:

Isn't the "word of the lord" paralleled with "faith in god" in 1 Thes 1:8? If the word of the lord is of god here, then what about the "word of the lord" in 1 Thes 4:15?

It's not clear to me. Could be.

Quote:

Why isn't the coming of the lord in 1 Thes 4:15 not the same as Zech 14:4-5?

It isn't?

Quote:

(While we're on 1 Thes, another good Pauline anti-trinitarian statement is 3:13b, "...before our god and father at the coming of the lord Jesus....")

Is that intended to be for me? Like I said earlier, I agree that Paul was no trinitarian. And his "god" was clearly a higher being than Jesus.

But as I said, I'm still looking at all those "lords". And at least I understand what you mean by the difference between titular and non-titular use :grin:

Doug Shaver · 02-26-2011, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

From Galatians, we can say that Paul referred to Jesus as the Lord and that James was his adelphos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Oh, sure, we can say that. Christians have been saying it ever since they became convinced that the Lord Jesus about whom Paul wrote was the same Lord Jesus about whom the gospel authors wrote. But when all the evidence is taken into consideration, it becomes apparent to some of us that the first Christians who made that identification were in error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

this is the weakest argument I have ever seen clung to by such smart people.

Yeah, if I had intended an argument, it would be a lousy one. But I was simply making an observation about the circularity of your argument. As I have noted before in other threads, it is perfectly reasonable to construe Gal. 1:19 as affirming James's siblinghood to Jesus of Nazareth on the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. Without that assumption, though, other construals become quite reasonable.

spin · 02-26-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Don't you think it odd that of all the uses of the non-titular κυριος in 1 Thes the only one you feel sure of as Jesus reflects the LXX god?

Nope, if Paul thought of Jesus as Yahweh, you would expect that.

Paul has in no way signaled that Jesus was Yahweh. For me, if as Paul says Jesus was born of a woman, was a man, died, etc., there is no hope for Jesus to have been Yahweh.

hjalti · 02-26-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Nope, if Paul thought of Jesus as Yahweh, you would expect that.

Paul has in no way signaled that Jesus was Yahweh. For me, if as Paul says Jesus was born of a woman, was a man, died, etc., there is no hope for Jesus to have been Yahweh.

Not even an incarnation of Yahweh?

Well, Paul seems to think of Jesus as a divine being, and he seems to do some of the stuff that Yahweh was supposed to do. To me it seems like a plausible paradigm to think of Jesus as Yahweh and "god" as the god most high. Like I said earlier, I'm just following what the great prophetess Margaret Barker has said

Have you read her book, The Great Angel (or via: amazon.co.uk)? You obviously are very well versed in this subject, and I would love to hear what you think of her work.

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

02-26-2011, 04:55 AM	#125
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	spin, three times in 1Thess the author talks about the coming of Jesus (2:19, 3:13 and 5:23). In light of this I think it is more reasonable to interpret the "coming of the lord" as the same as the coming of Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.