Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chaucer · 09-03-2009, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

justify your crap.

For crying out loud. Do catch-phrases like these not qualify as blatant ad hominem? Spin's been using catch-phrases like these and "have certainly wasted too much time on you", "it helped you fall over yourself", "Omitted the falling over your feet bit", "We have to try to keep you tied to the ground", "Your claim was bullshit", and "crock of shite" throughout the last page or so.

Now I realize I've not been Simon Pure myself here, but I have at least tried to tone things down a bit recently, and I've also been duly warned (and why not?). But Spin hasn't even been called on these repeated ad hominems in this thread. Why has he never been called on them?

Seriously,

Chaucer

sschlichter · 09-03-2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul uses the term kurios in two distinct ways, reflecting the usage of the term in LXX Ps 110, "The lord said to my lord...".

the titular usage "Jesus is lord", the "lord Jesus Christ", "my lord"; and
in lieu of a name, "the lord said..."

It is the second usage that is under consideration. Does Paul use the term indiscriminantly for two different referents? This would seem to be for an author a course for confusion, for the reader has no way of knowing the content of the word when used, except what can be intuited from the context. Normally one would avoid doing such a thing.

It is clear that Paul uses kurios referring to god, especially in cases where he is citing the LXX -- though we cannot rely on the reading audience's knowing that he was citing the LXX. At other times for example 1 Cor 2:8b and 6:14 it is clearly used for Jesus. Is this Paul, guilty of using a term for two different referents? I'd answer "no", arguing in each case from contextual clues that these are obvious candidates for interpolation.

In 1 Cor 9:1 we find "Jesus our lord" and Paul's "work in the lord"; these are #1 and #2 of the distinction above, though the proximity might confuse. The expression "in the lord" can be found frequently enough in the LXX, so there should be little trouble seeing that it refers to god in 1 Cor 9:1 (& 9:2). When we arrive at 1 Cor 9:5 and the brothers of the lord, we hit the conflict seen in the recent part of this thread: because Jesus had brothers, "the brothers of the lord" must refer to the brothers of Jesus. The text itself doesn't help us -- if we assume that Paul can use the word kurios indiscriminantly for two different referents.

I don't like relying on the possibility of an interpolation when there are no clues for such an alteration, so I'm left with two choices: either Paul does use kurios for two different referents or "the brothers of the lord" doesn't refer to Jesus. The first choice is so unpalatable that I opt for the second choice.

spin

I am looking into this and will need some time to reply. However, I object to the palatability of what Paul says being a factor in determining what he said.

sschlichter · 09-03-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

justify your crap.

For crying out loud. Do catch-phrases like these not qualify as blatant ad hominem? Spin's been using catch-phrases like these and "have certainly wasted too much time on you", "it helped you fall over yourself", "Omitted the falling over your feet bit", "We have to try to keep you tied to the ground", "Your claim was bullshit", and "crock of shite" throughout the last page or so.

Now I realize I've not been Simon Pure myself here, but I have at least tried to tone things down a bit recently, and I've also been duly warned (and why not?). But Spin hasn't even been called on these repeated ad hominems in this thread. Why has he never been called on them?

Seriously,

Chaucer

yes, it gets a little thick sometimes. I try to ignore it (and also fail at times). it sometimes speaks to a bad argument. i.e. when someone is falling all over themselves, or supplying crocks of shite, it hardly requires announcing, it should be self evident.

jakejonesiv · 09-03-2009, 09:02 AM

The text, even after the interpolation is recognized, still reads "brother of the Lord" not "brother of Jesus." The exalted title Lord indicates a religous relationship, either to God himself, or to the glorified resurrected Christ.

The Hebrew scriptures are chock full of Ahijah, literally "the brother of Yahweh."

It would be silly to argue that this makes Yahweh someone's literal brother.

No Robots · 09-03-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Hebrew scriptures are chock full of Ahijah, literally "the brother of Yahweh."

This is a proper name.

spin · 09-03-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Hebrew scriptures are chock full of Ahijah, literally "the brother of Yahweh."

This is a proper name.

That is correct.

spin

jakejonesiv · 09-03-2009, 12:11 PM

Ahijah--the brother of Yahweh--was considered a righteous man, one of the pillars who according to Simon ben Yohai (Gen. R. xxxv), who would carry the world by his merits until the advent of the Messiah.

sschlichter · 09-03-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

This is a proper name.

That is correct.

spin

I would not argue that. It is the relevance that is in question.

No Robots · 09-03-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I would not argue that. It is the relevance that is in question.

Are you suggesting that "Brother of the Lord" is a proper name like "Ahijah?"

sschlichter · 09-03-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I would not argue that. It is the relevance that is in question.

Are you suggesting that "Brother of the Lord" is a proper name like "Ahijah?"

No, Paul assigns divinity to Jesus, it is apparent from Paul's use of kurios that Yahweh = The Lord = Jesus.

As un-palatable as you may find it.

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

09-03-2009, 09:02 AM	#424
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	The text, even after the interpolation is recognized, still reads "brother of the Lord" not "brother of Jesus." The exalted title Lord indicates a religous relationship, either to God himself, or to the glorified resurrected Christ. The Hebrew scriptures are chock full of Ahijah, literally "the brother of Yahweh." It would be silly to argue that this makes Yahweh someone's literal brother.

09-03-2009, 12:11 PM	#427
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Ahijah--the brother of Yahweh--was considered a righteous man, one of the pillars who according to Simon ben Yohai (Gen. R. xxxv), who would carry the world by his merits until the advent of the Messiah.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.