GakuseiDon

deleted

aa5874

In Which century was this game played??

Jesus was one of the players???

Jesus Christ was supposedly ALIVE according to Paul when he composed his Epistles.

EarlDoherty

Sorry, Don, but your comparison does not work, on a couple of counts. The figure in question was not named "Augustus". He was named Octavian. "Augustus" was the exalted title he was given. And he became "Caesar" when he was adopted by Julius, before the civil war in which Octavian emerged victorious.

But regardless of how you wish to juggle the names, your analogy is invalid in this case because it is begging the question. You are using a figure with a known prior name (even if you got it wrong). The hymn does not state that the name of this emanation of God was Jesus. In fact, it pointedly does not give him a name, just as the hymns in Colossians 1:15-20 and 1 Timothy 3:16 do not supply a name. Nor does the Logos declaration in Hebrews 1:2-3. Nor does Romans 1:3-4, if that is a pre-Pauline piece of liturgy as some suggest (the final phrase of verse 4, "Jesus Christ our Lord," looks to be Paul himself, as it runs on into the next verse).

Quite a coincidence, eh, that none of this pre-Pauline literature supplies a name for the Son prior to his descent and exaltation? Leaving open the hymnist in the Phil. hymn to give the name "Jesus" to the Son only after he has been exalted.

So recast your analogy, leaving out any known name for your analogous figure. Of course, you can't do it on the basis of any historical person because they automatically have a known name. I think you'll find that a little more difficult. You'll end up with the same contradiction as I've pointed out.

The point is, you cannot disprove a contention through an analogy which does not fit the situation, but actually assumes the very thing which the contention lacks and which one is trying to prove.

Maybe JonA can help you, although I made it clear to him that simple dismissal was not acceptable, and I won't accept it from you. "You are overanalyzing" is a simple dismissal. With the failure of your analogy, that's all you have.

I don't know, it may be possible. Give it another try. After all, that's why I'm here with this OP.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Not sure what your problem is here. It was a common name because (I assume) many people were naming their sons after THE "Joshua" of Exodus fame. That doesn't take away from the prestige of that original. Today, Latin America is full of men named "Jesus". Does that detract from the power and devotion given to THE "Jesus"?

WE know next to nothing about the pre-Pauline sect or phase of the movement which created the hymns. Or at what point they decided to give the "Son" they discovered in scripture and perceived revelation the name "Jesus". But we can see from the Phil. hymn that they decided that God himself had given the Son that name after his resurrection.

He obviously had to be named something. What else but a name which embodied the concept of savior? And thus, in their mythological creativity, they had him receive that name at the point when he had performed the saving acts, after his death and resurrection. This hymn records someone's vision of that heavenly process.

Earl Doherty

outhouse

while this predates the gospels


you dont know if it predates the oral tradition that god told Mary who she would have given birth to a son called jesus.

GakuseiDon

In this case, I'm assuming that the name "above every name" is Lord. In which case, the passage reads:

Therefore also God highly exalted him,
and gave to him the name "Lord" that is above every name.
That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow...
And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

The point was to address your earlier comment, in the following quote:
I don't think it is a contradiction. Knees bow at the name of Jesus, because Jesus has been declared "Lord".

EarlDoherty

If you think this makes sense, it's no wonder you can't be persuaded of anything.

First of all, you've ignored my paragraph wherein I dispute that "Lord" is a name rather than a title.

Second, you've done nothing to counter the clear contradiction between your line 2 and line 3. Would YOU compose a hymn which has one "name" in the first line, followed by a statement that every knee should bow at a different name? Without making it clear that the two names were different? The sequence of terms and ideas between the two lines makes it essential that the word "name" in both lines must refer to the same thing.

The very fact that you offer an alternative reading like the above to make the hymn make the sense you want it to make merely demonstrates that THAT is the way the hymnist would have had to express it if HE wanted it to make sense in that way and avoid misunderstanding. It might also have helped if he had made it clear that the name Jesus is what this figure bore BEFORE his death and resurrection. He does not, and neither as I pointed out do any of the other pre-Pauline christological hymns.

You also ignore that line 3 above is stated as a CONSEQUENCE of line 2. The hymnist is saying that 'BECAUSE this figure was given a certain name', the knee is bowed at that name. How can the second name be different from the first name? As I said, "Because he was given the name George, at the name of Robert everyone bowed the knee." Does this make sense to you? You simply erase the inconsistency in your own mind because you beg the question by adopting the view a priori that the hymnist is speaking of an HJ who already had the name Jesus. That is something we don't know from the hymn itself.

To put this another way, the point of verse 9 is to present the reason why the universe bends the knee in verse 10. That reason is because the figure has been "given the name above every name." If he goes on to say that the whole universe bends the knee at a certain name, this being "Jesus," how can this be a different name? Verse 9 governs verse 10, and if no differentiation is made between the "name" of verse 9 and the "name" of verse 10, they cannot be different. They only make sense as different by you imposing "Lord" in verse 9 where the hymnist has not stated it. Without that, no such meaning can reasonably be taken from it. In other words, your tweaking of the verse's words is begging the question. You state the way you want it to mean and THEN ask me if it makes sense? It might make some sense as YOU have revised it (though it would still be awkward in the hymnist's mouth), but it doesn’t make sense as the hymnist has stated it. Do you get that, Don?

It would be entirely different if the first line specified that it was a title, and if it stated that title. We could say, "Since Barack Obama was given the title 'President' as a result of winning the election, everyone saluted when they heard the name 'Barack Obama'." But "President" is not a name. And if the speaker further did not use the term "title" or the word "President" but rather the misleading term "name," then the only way anyone would take his statement is that the "name" was Barack Obama and because he was given that name, everyone saluted to it. And particularly if no one knew what name this figure possessed before he was elected President. And as far as this hymnist (and the rest of them) is concerned, we do not know any such prior name.

One has to use common sense and normal human ways of reading normal human ways of writing, rather than twist and contort a meaning that would have the writer creating misunderstandings and contradictions, just in order to serve one's own confessional purposes.

And the only reason anyone, whether yourself or NT scholars, would opt for such an alternative against every natural interpretation of a writer's words is for what would amount to confessional purposes. "An HJ no matter what the texts say, and no matter how unnaturally I have to contort the texts and read meanings into them!" is a form of confession, regardless of what you or New Testament scholars declare about your beliefs or non-beliefs.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

True, but I'm addressing your "Smoking Gun" point, where you ask, "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?" See the quote I gave from you in my last post, starting from your title "Another smoking gun?".

No. But what about "Because he was given the name 'Lord', at the name of Robert everyone bowed the knee"? That would make sense to me.

Of course. And that is my point. It makes perfect sense. Obama is called "President", so at the name of Obama, people saluted. Nothing weird or contradictory about it.

Agreed, but remember, I am addressing your "Smoking Gun" question, where you ask, "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?" Obviously if the name being referred to is "Jesus", then my point is moot. But what if the name being referred to is "Lord"? In that case, like your "President" example, it makes sense. Jesus is declared "Lord", so at the name of Jesus, all knees bow.

EarlDoherty

How many times do I have to repeat something? It makes sense the way you state it (or rather, the way I stated it), but that is not the way the hymnist states it. And in case you didn't notice (obviously you didn't), I agreed with you. I said, "It would be entirely different if..." I stated things the way the hymnist should have stated it if he had intended the meaning you claim. But he did not.

You're slowing down, Don. You've been at this too long. What's really keeping you from joining our ranks? After all, aren't you a minimalist already?

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Excellent! Remember, I am addressing your "Smoking Gun" point, where you ask, "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?". So we both agree it makes sense.

That's a separate point. If you are right, then my point is moot. Remember, I am addressing your "Smoking Gun" point, where you ask, "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?". If we are assuming that, then like your "President" example, it makes sense. Jesus is named "Lord", so at the name of Jesus, all knees bow.

If you are arguing that the name was not "Lord", then that is a different argument, and doesn't interactive with my point above, which looks at where you ask, "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?".