Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 12-21-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

While you're falling over your presuppositions, you might read my blog entry on 1 Cor 11's last supper.

spin

Can't. It's inaccessible. I'd like to know why.

Chaucer

Does spin have you on his ignore list? If so, that would be the problem. If not, ask an admin. I can view the blog just fine.

Toto · 12-21-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

While you're falling over your presuppositions, you might read my blog entry on 1 Cor 11's last supper.

spin

Can't. It's inaccessible. I'd like to know why.

Chaucer

You should be able to click on the link. If it doesn't work, post in the Bugs and Complaints forum

Chaucer · 12-21-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Can't. It's inaccessible. I'd like to know why.

Chaucer

You should be able to click on the link.

Tried. Rebuffed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If it doesn't work, post in the Bugs and Complaints forum

Just sent a complaint there.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 12-21-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Can't. It's inaccessible. I'd like to know why.

Chaucer

Does spin have you on his ignore list? If so, that would be the problem. If not, ask an admin. I can view the blog just fine.

Good. Can you please copy/paste it into your next posting in this thread?

Thank you,

Chaucer

spin · 12-21-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

While it's not specifically slavery (merely subservience, class, power), the basic concept is correct.

Thanks, Spin, but the slavery metaphor really is central to Paul's teaching

You seem to be making Paul's use of κυριος idiosyncratic, which I don't think it is. That's why I cited the LXX of Ps.110:1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

There is a big difference between actual blasphemy, and something that makes you say "What?" before figuring it out.

I'm not sure that there is a difference here when the term in question is used specifically for ha-Shem. It would be blasphemy to use "ha-Shem" for anyone else.

At the same time there is a semantic issue of using a term for two different references without one being able to understand which it is. If you accept that Paul does do use κυριος this way, you suddenly have a number of times the term appears without the reader being able to distinguish who is being referred to (eg 1 Cor 7:25).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Though Phil 2 is impressive with its striking christology, it's not a provocation to the "border on blasphemy". That blashemy is more likely from marginal comments from non-Jewish commentators later included in the text.

I would be somewhat interested in your recostruction, but I'm wary of the idea of subtracting from a text just to make it fit a neat theory.

I'm not sure we are understanding each other. I don't think Phil 2 as is will help you make the case I was reacting to. The few uses in Paul where the non-titular use of κυριος refers to Jesus are what I was referring to as elevated marginal comments.

spin

ApostateAbe · 12-21-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Does spin have you on his ignore list? If so, that would be the problem. If not, ask an admin. I can view the blog just fine.

Good. Can you please copy/paste it into your next posting in this thread?

Thank you,

Chaucer

I would except that I recently asked spin to create a new thread out of it, plus I would lose his color-coded formatting (which is important).

Petergdi · 12-21-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Thanks, Spin, but the slavery metaphor really is central to Paul's teaching

You seem to be making Paul's use of κυριος idiosyncratic, which I don't think it is. That's why I cited the LXX of Ps.110:1.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was a Pauline idiosyncracy. The only thing I'm sure is peculiar to Paul is his take on the Law/Nomos/Torah. Practically everything else might well be common currency in primitive Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm not sure that there is a difference here when the term in question is used specifically for ha-Shem. It would be blasphemy to use "ha-Shem" for anyone else.

Paul is certainly not using the Name for Jesus in Philippians 2 - he is saying that God highly exalted Jesus because of his obedience and gave him his own Name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

At the same time there is a semantic issue of using a term for two different references without one being able to understand which it is. If you accept that Paul does do use κυριος this way, you suddenly have a number of times the term appears without the reader being able to distinguish who is being referred to (eg 1 Cor 7:25).

It may give some commentators trouble, but I don't think that means it was unclear to the original audience. It is reasonable for a critical commentator to avoid making assumptions about the background knowledge Paul assumed of his audience, but absolutely preposterous to have a working assumption that he expected his audience to have no background knowledge. Paul may have thought it perfectly obvious that "a commandment of the Lord" in1 Cor 7:25 meant a commandment of Christ. Your difficulty does not indicate that the text was unclear when written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I would be somewhat interested in your recostruction, but I'm wary of the idea of subtracting from a text just to make it fit a neat theory.

I'm not sure we are understanding each other. I don't think Phil 2 as is will help you make the case I was reacting to. The few uses in Paul where the non-titular use of κυριος refers to Jesus are what I was referring to as elevated marginal comments.

I would say there were more than a few.

Peter.

aa5874 · 12-21-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Ebionites rejected ALL the Epistles with the name Paul according to a Church writer using the name Eusebius.

That is true, but it was on account of what they saw as his antinomianism, not his christology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And Paul did NOT consider that Jesus was an ordinary man,unlike the Ebionites,

The Ebionites regarded Jesus as an extraordinary man, not as an ordinary man.

The same is true of Paul.

Both regarded Jesus as the Son of God by God's choice. Neither meant the silliness that you frequently assert that "Son of God" denotes - as far as I know no one does - it is just your silliness.

Please don't give silly caricatures and expect me to take you seriously.

Peter.

But, you made claims about the Ebionites and Paul that are both erroneous and silly.

I have exposed your silly claim that Paul's Christology was similar to the Ebionites when they are as far apart as can be.

The Jesus of the Ebionites was just a man, and they practised Mosaic Laws, Paul's Jesus was the son of God who was raised from the dead and without the resurrection of Jesus the sins of mankind would not be forgiven.

It is just blatantly in error and silly to claim Paul's status of Jesus is close to the Ebionites when the Ebionites' Jesus did not abolish the Law and was not a God or his Son.

Galatians 1.1

Quote:

Paul, an apostle [not of men nor by man] but by Jesus Christ and God the father, who raised him from the dead....

The Ebionites were the apostle of one whose status was a man, Paul was an apostle of one whose status was the Son of God, was raised from the dead and could forgive sin without the need for the Mosaic Laws.

Chaucer · 12-21-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

That is true, but it was on account of what they saw as his antinomianism, not his christology.

The Ebionites regarded Jesus as an extraordinary man, not as an ordinary man.

The same is true of Paul.

Both regarded Jesus as the Son of God by God's choice. Neither meant the silliness that you frequently assert that "Son of God" denotes - as far as I know no one does - it is just your silliness.

Please don't give silly caricatures and expect me to take you seriously.

Peter.

But, you made claims about the Ebionites and Paul that are both erroneous and silly.

I have exposed your silly claim that Paul's Christology was similar to the Ebionites when they are as far apart as can be.

The Jesus of the Ebionites was just a man, and they practised Mosaic Laws, Paul's Jesus was the son of God who was raised from the dead and without the resurrection of Jesus the sins of mankind would not be forgiven.

It is just blatantly in error and silly to claim Paul's status of Jesus is close to the Ebionites when the Ebionites' Jesus did not abolish the Law and was not a God or his Son.

Galatians 1.1

Quote:

Paul, an apostle [not of men nor by man] but by Jesus Christ and God the father, who raised him from the dead....

The Ebionites were the apostle of one whose status was a man, Paul was an apostle of one whose status was the Son of God, was raised from the dead and could forgive sin without the need for the Mosaic Laws.

AHA!! So it's time -- finally -- to ask you this: Since you do think that the Ebionites thought of Jesus as a man, WHY did they think of Jesus as a man?

Chaucer

Petergdi · 12-21-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

That is true, but it was on account of what they saw as his antinomianism, not his christology.

The Ebionites regarded Jesus as an extraordinary man, not as an ordinary man.

The same is true of Paul.

Both regarded Jesus as the Son of God by God's choice. Neither meant the silliness that you frequently assert that "Son of God" denotes - as far as I know no one does - it is just your silliness.

Please don't give silly caricatures and expect me to take you seriously.

Peter.

But, you made claims about the Ebionites and Paul that are both erroneous and silly.

I have exposed your silly claim that Paul's Christology was similar to the Ebionites when they are as far apart as can be.

Rubbish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus of the Ebionites was just a man, and they practised Mosaic Laws, Paul's Jesus was the son of God who was raised from the dead and without the resurrection of Jesus the sins of mankind would not be forgiven.

The Jesus of the Ebionites is the Son of God. You have made no attempt to understand what either means by "Son of God."

Peter.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.