Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-23-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Consider 1 Cor 2:16, "For who has known the mind of the Lord to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." Paul contrasts the mind of the Lord with the mind of Christ. We don't know the mind of the Lord, but we do know the mind of Christ, who, it is implied, knows the mind of the Lord.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

What am I supposed to see here?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Paul, as I said earlier, was no trinitarian (or binitarian).

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??

spin · 02-23-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK, but that was sort of my point. You can't say, "From Gal. 1:19, we infer that Jesus Christ was James's brother, therefore Christianity was founded by a man known as Jesus Christ, therefore the canonical gospels, which are about a man known as Jesus Christ, must contain at least some factual content about the founder of Christianity."

From Galatians, we can say that Paul referred to Jesus as the Lord

This is the untenable conjecture I have tried to wean you out of. The use of the non-titular κυριος in the verse requires you to justify the equation with Jesus, a step which has no contextual evidence to allow you to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

and that James was his adelphos. Mark concurs that Jesus had an adelphos named James.

And the thread started on the basis that the Marcan evidence doesn't help you as you'd hope, for Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1 point to a prior tradition that has "Mary, mother of James and Joses", but not mother of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

That is all I am positing.

A conjecture and an inerrantist approach to the text.

aa5874 · 02-23-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK, but that was sort of my point. You can't say, "From Gal. 1:19, we infer that Jesus Christ was James's brother, therefore Christianity was founded by a man known as Jesus Christ, therefore the canonical gospels, which are about a man known as Jesus Christ, must contain at least some factual content about the founder of Christianity."

From Galatians, we can say that Paul referred to Jesus as the Lord and that James was his adelphos. Mark concurs that Jesus had an adelphos named James. That is all I am positing.

~Steve

You cannot do history in a VACUUM or by using the very least or most unreliable data.

No-one will ATTEMPT to reconstruct the history of Pilate by using gMark alone. In fact, in gMark we SIMPLY have a character name PILATE not even the name PONTIUS can be found in gMark and it is NOT even stated in gMark that Pilate was a governor in Judea during the reign of Tiberius.

Are we to ASSUME history of Pilate by just guessing because there are NO details of Pilate in gMark.

The answer is a BIG NO.

Well, there are a MASSIVE amount of details about Jesus of the NT and he was NOT of the seed of man.

judge · 02-23-2011, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have always said that there were a few examples where a Pauline letter features a non-titular κυριος used for Jesus. And I have said that they are in contexts that point to the usage as interpolation. Get ready to whinge:... Boo-hoo, interpolation. How convenient!

.

Heres the thing.
Ok we can admit that there are instances where Paul uses a "non-titular κυριος used for Jesus".
These instances are one thing that could ruin your theory.
So...theres two thing you could do.

1. Not mention them.

2. Tackle them head on.

I dont care whether your theory stands or falls. So Im not going to root them all out, after all you are the one promoting this. Im interested to look though. So what we know is that you admit these instances are there, but you haven't mentioned what they are. It looks like you may be hiding them.
Why not these tackle these head on ? Admit they are there and one by one explain them away?
Otherwise you seem to be cherry picking.

If you were a lawyer in court then, yes it might be advantageous to ignore evidence that may hurt your clients case, but we aren't in court here.
If you are going to present your case then why not be upfront and amit the possibe problems?

spin · 02-24-2011, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have always said that there were a few examples where a Pauline letter features a non-titular κυριος used for Jesus. And I have said that they are in contexts that point to the usage as interpolation. Get ready to whinge:... Boo-hoo, interpolation. How convenient!

.

Heres the thing.

It might be the "thing" for you but you're saying nothing, because you still don't fundamentally know what the issue is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Ok we can admit that there are instances where Paul uses a "non-titular κυριος used for Jesus".

When you say "Paul uses" you are assuming a conclusion.

You need to answer the question: how can you tell what the reference of the non-titular κυριος is without any contextual clues?

And sorry, you are incapable of doing so. Come back when you have an answer.

Until that time it is wiser to think that Paul was attempting to communicate and didn't use terms in such an opaque manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

These instances are one thing that could ruin your theory.
So...theres two thing you could do.

1. Not mention them.

2. Tackle them head on.

I dont care whether your theory stands or falls. So Im not going to root them all out, after all you are the one promoting this. Im interested to look though. So what we know is that you admit these instances are there, but you haven't mentioned what they are. It looks like you may be hiding them.
Why not these tackle these head on ? Admit they are there and one by one explain them away?
Otherwise you seem to be cherry picking.

If you were a lawyer in court then, yes it might be advantageous to ignore evidence that may hurt your clients case, but we aren't in court here.
If you are going to present your case then why not be upfront and amit the possibe problems?

Doug Shaver · 02-24-2011, 03:14 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.

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.

judge · 02-24-2011, 01:34 PM

delete

show_no_mercy · 02-24-2011, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

There's also 1 Cor 10.9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did--and were killed by snakes....

show_no_mercy and I debated a similar issue. The essence of that discussion bears weight here, as spin and others discuss various questions arising from interpretation of "Paul's" epistles, relating to the dual meaning of kurios : lord, and god.

As I had endeavored to explain, probably without success, the original Septuagint, in my opinion, did not translate yahweh (or "el") as kurios. The seventy bilingual Jewish scholars, working in Alexandria, would have, in my opinion, translated yahweh as theos, not kurios. In my opinion, the controversy we struggle with today, is derived from struggles to enforce trinitarian doctrine, so that all extant copies of septuagint were translated, as we see with Codex Sinaiticus, ks/ko, replacing theos/kurios. Paul's letters, in my view, were interpolated well after the controversy had been settled, i.e. post Nicea: JC was kurios, and he was also theos, therefore, kurios means both god and lord, at least in our oldest extant copies of Septuagint, which also contain Paul's letters (Codex Sinaiticus).

But, look at the original Hebrew, not post-Nicean Greek, and one finds a clear delineation. Yahweh/El is NOT synonymous with adonai, in the original Hebrew text of Psalm 110:1. I think it is fair to say, that show_no_mercy disputes my contention, and imagines that even in ancient times, Jews considered adonai to represent an honorific title, suitable for "god". I disagree, with him on this point. I think he projects contemporary attitudes onto an ancient civilization....

But, even if I am proven wrong, here, on this issue of whether or not "adonai" would have been regarded, 2200 years ago, as an honorary title suitable for both man and divine, supreme deity, in essence equating humans with god, two additional problems remain, in my opinion, in seeking clarification on this issue of single versus dual meaning for the word kurios. It goes without saying that "brother of god" is completely different from "brother of a lord"....

Isaiah 7:14 לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.

There's no YHWH here, but Isaiah is clearly talking about how the god of the Jews will give Ahaz a sign.

Philo has a few exegetical musings for why both "lord" and "god" are used to refer to the god of the Jews. So either Philo's entire corpus was edited to reflect Christian values (but for some reason wasn't edited to explicitly refer to Jesus as the Logos or any other Christian specific theology), or Philo is reading a version of the LXX which uses both lord and god for the god of the Jews:

Quote:

Questions and Answers in Genesis (57) Why God places a cherubim in front of the Paradise, and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life?. The name cherubim designates the two original virtues which belong to the Deity, namely, his creative and his royal virtues. The one of which has the title of God, the other, or the royal virtue, that of Lord

Questions and Answers In Genesis (51) Why is he said to have built an altar to God, and not to the Lord?. In passages of beneficence and regeneration, as at the creation of the world, the sacred writer only refers to the beneficent virtue of the Creator, by which he makes everything in its integrity, and he implies this by concealing the royal name of Lord, as one which bears with it supreme authority; therefore now also, since what he is describing is the beginning of the renewed generation of mankind, he borrows for his description the beneficent virtue, which bears the name of God; for he used the kingly attribute, which declares his imperial power, by which he is called Lord, when he was describing the punishment inflicted by the flood.

Who Is The Heir of Divine Things? (205) And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. (206) And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;" neither being uncreate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work.

Note that in Who Is The Heir of Divine Things, it is implicit that the Logos is standing between the Lord (i.e. God) and humanity.

judge · 02-24-2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'd ask, how can a term uniquely used for god (as Paul inherited the term) suddenly be used for Jesus? .

the problem is the immediate context.

Galatians in just the third verse uses Lord to refer to jesus.

1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Then in verse 19 we have a reference to the Lord again.

19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Its easy to see how someone could think that the lord was Jesus.

Your convoluted theory with all its ad hoc explanations seems weak.

Of course you probably want to say verse 3 is an interploation becuase it is inconvenient I guess. :devil1:

spin · 02-24-2011, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'd ask, how can a term uniquely used for god (as Paul inherited the term) suddenly be used for Jesus? .

the problem is the immediate context.

Now this is ironic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Galatians in just the third verse uses Lord to refer to jesus.

And I have extensively talked about the issue, making a clear division between two usages of κυριος: one reflects a title, indicating status, power or position. The other is non-titular, being a direct reference to an entity, as though it were a substitute for a name (as "The Rock" is a direct reference to an actor).

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

A perfect example of the titular usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Then in verse 19 we have a reference to the Lord again.

19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Changing usage, we have a non-titular example. κυριος is not used as a titular here; it doesn't indicate rank or status or power.

If this distinction means nothing to you then you cannot understand the difference between the two usages of κυριος in LXX Ps 110:1, "the lord says to my lord..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Its easy to see how someone could think that the lord was Jesus.

Someone who does not take notice of Paul's language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Your convoluted theory with all its ad hoc explanations seems weak.

If I you find my analysis convoluted, then you must be perplexed by "the lord says to my lord".

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Of course you probably want to say verse 3 is an interploation becuase it is inconvenient I guess. :devil1:

When you refuse to understand what people say to you, as is apparently the case with this naive presentation, you have little hope of understanding what you are trying to talk about.

Think about it before you waste your time again showing your lack of comprehension: what's going on with the differing usages of κυριος in LXX Ps 110:1?

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

02-24-2011, 01:34 PM	#97
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	delete

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.