gurugeorge

This is a reasonable rationalisation from an HJ p.ov., but it doesn't work for me because there doesn't seem to be any link made between any sort of historical person recently decesased and resurrected in Palestine, and this entity who's giving Paul the "gospel" and the inside gen on "Christ" - which is telling, because it would be a point of great interest, well worth celebrating.

What's evident is just this entity communicating directly with the Christian, with no hint that this entity is connected with a living, breathing being who lived on earth just a few decades before.

Just as an aside, I keep meaning to mention, but keep forgetting to: I always feel a bit of sympathy for committed Christians because it always seems that the only way they can defend their HJ in the early record is by these kinds of sketchy, vaguely plausible links, and the kind of brave, rearguard actions over minutiae that you yourself (if I may say so! ) are so good at. If I were a Christian I would desperately wish the earlier Christians had been less coy about their HJ beliefs (especially in view of the fact that coyness is the last thing you can accuse all subsequent Christians of, wrt to their HJ)!

gurugeorge

Exactly. That's what makes me cautious about interpreting it as HJ. Why in God's name go through all this OT foofaraw when you'd recently had almost identical teachings fresh from the lips of God incarnate Himself? And if you preferred to use the OT versions, wouldn't you at least mention this, and justify it in some way?

Note that the "Him" appears to be God pure and simple, and it's only after "He" does all the stuff that sounds like an HJ that "He" then "manifested as the Son of God"! And then in the passage after your quote, there's the bit about the reason for him manifesting as the Son is because manifesting plainly as God would have been too much for people to bear (or something like that).

What could it all mean? Who knows! It could mean HJ, but it doesn't perspicuously mean HJ.

andrewcriddle

Surely 1 Corinthians 8:6 should be paraphrased 'there is one God - I mean the Father - from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord - I mean Jesus Christ - through whom are all things and thriugh whom we exist.'

Lord may be a title here but it is a unique and specific title (like President or Prime Minister). It is uniquely appropriate according to Paul to call Christ Lord, more appropriate than even calling God the Father Lord.

Andrew Criddle

spin

I can't see how you think you are getting beyond the distinction made with "the lord said to my lord".

Paul considered himself to be a Jew -- even though a diaspora Jew -- and a diaspora Jew, speaking Greek, confronted with Ps 110:1 would have absolutely no difficulty with the distinction.

What do you consider has happened to Paul? You don't make sense to me.


spin

TedM

I think this is an interesting topic. Has there been a thread on it? Do you intend on answering my last post with regard to it? Would you like to start a thread on it, presenting your position for discussion? As I understand it your position removes a number of the strongest arguments for a historical Jesus from Paul's writings, so it seem very worthy of discussion to me.

ted

spin

You're a fine one at trying to get other people to work while you sit around firing conjectures.

The reason why I'm talking about the new testament is because nobody here wants to talk about either the Hebrew bible or the dead sea scrolls in any tangibly constructive way. It's always errors, inconsistencies, horrors, unfulfilled prophecies and all that other stuff that show the damage that christianity has done on the individual.

I'm interested principally in history and there is little history in nt studies. This opens the field up to vain speculations, which are rife.

I've had an insight about language use regarding kyrios. I think I've elucidated the point relatively clearly now. If you think it's worthwhile, why don't you do a little legwork, or inspire others to, and allow me to think about other insights?


spin

andrewcriddle

If this is an argument about Jewish exegesis, please could you give evidence about how ancient Jewish sources understood references to the Lord ?

I'm not sure it is as clear cut as you make out.

For example, there is rabbinic debate as to whether in Exodus 24:1 'And to Moses he (God) said "Go up to the Lord... ' whether the Lord here means God or Metatron.

(I'm not suggesting that Paul was influenced by Metatron speculation I'm just using it as an example.)

Andrew Criddle

TedM

Hey, lighten up. I said you have an interesting idea. You've used it to challenge some interpratations I've given. I've to some extent challenged your idea, pointing out some potential flaws I see in it, and obviously to do so I put in some time and effort.

I'm surprised some at your answer because I was under the impression that you had done a thorough analysis and come to your conclusion, you seemed so adamant. So, when I asked about how many passages are unclear in the use of kyrios vs how many clearly reference Jesus, I thought you would have a ready answer. When I pointed out a specific passage in Romans, I thought you would be willing to discuss it more than you did. Fill me in--is this a recent idea you are just playing around with or are you convinced that this is absolutely clear?

If you don't wish to respond to those and make a more comprehensive arguement that is more convincing than pointing out the context of a few passages and the idea that Paul surely wouldn't have used his grammar inconsitently, because you want to 'think about other insights', that's your perogative. However, you should be able to see that it doesn't seem that you take your own idea very seriously if you aren't willing to support it. So, why should anyone else?

ted

NOGO

You are brilliant!
I did not disagree.

I am glad that you liked my answer.

TedM

Your point seemed valid to me NOGO. Sure, we can't say that Cephas is Peter for certain, but we can say that the name is unusual (I think) and so odds are there wouldn't be two different people of prominence with that name in early Christianity. The odds therefore strongly favor him being the same person--again that is IF both names are unusual. I haven't looked into the issue before, but one might think that the author of Acts would at least know which "Peter" Paul would have met in Galatia, at the least, given its importance in early Christianity.

ted