I want to add here, for the sake of future conversations, that the stance you are taking resembles that of many evangelical apologists, not only in your defense of the extant text as it stands in most manuscripts, but also in your explanation of the title "Son of God" being attached to the resurrection (rather than to pre-existence) in this passage by reference to the meaning of the participle ὁρισθέντος. For example:Bernard Muller wrote:ὁρισθέντος is fairly ambiguous and can mean "defined", "determined", "declared".
Anyway, I do not see any conflict: Jesus can be determined (by humans) to be the Son because of his alleged resurrection. That does not mean the Son was not pre-existent and not sent on earth by God. Only that he was "incognito" as a man, not revealing he was the Son in any ways.
(The article goes on to offer a different kind of apology for this verse, but you can see how common your approach has been in the annals of Christian apologetics.)
Now, I honestly do not care how many apologists you agree with in your interpretation of these texts. As I have noted before, sometimes apologists get it right; sometimes they even have excellent ideas. I am not bringing this up as an ad hominem against your argument; rather, I am reminded that you have used ad hominem arguments against me before:
Bernard Muller wrote:In Galatians? No he did not. Just that a prominent apologist made a point from Paul going to Arabia and then goes on with some far-fetched parallels between Paul and Phinehas/Elijah, even saying Paul tried to imitate Phinehas &/or Elijah.
The first quote is of no great moment, but the second quote ought to strike you as supremely ironic by now: as if I would "take cover" behind Christian scholars as part of an apologetic stance for 1 Corinthians 15.4 when all along I lean toward regarding most of 15.3-11 as an interpolation. I kept the scholars anonymous in that thread because (A) I wanted to focus on the matter at hand and not on a list of names and (B) because the position I hold has been held by so many different scholars whom I have read over the years that naming a few would be futile, and I cannot ever hope to remember all of them; it is such a common position. I did mention that at least one of the scholars is a Christian while at least one of them is an atheist, and these two were, respectively, N. T. Wright and Robert M. Price.Bernard Muller wrote:I think you are taking cover behind some anonymous various scholars, which I think might be Christians and therefore taking an apologist stand for 1 Corinthians 15:4.
But I digress. My point is that it does no more good for you to condemn my arguments on the basis of their resemblance to apologetics than it does for me to do the same to you when your arguments resemble apologetics. Again, just a point for future conversations.
Now, as for the verb ὁρίζω, which of the following instances best approximate(s) the meaning you would find for it in Romans 1.4?
Numbers 30.3 (30.4 LXX): "Also if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation in her father's house in her youth...."
Numbers 30.4 (30.5 LXX): "...and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand."
Numbers 30.5 (30.6 LXX): "But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her."
Numbers 30.6 (30.7 LXX): "However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself...."
Numbers 30.7 (30.8 LXX): "...and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand."
Numbers 30.8 (30.9 LXX): "But if on the day her husband hears of it, he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the Lord will forgive her."
Numbers 30.11 (30.12 LXX): "...and her husband heard it, but said nothing to her and did not forbid her, then all her vows shall stand, and every obligation by which she bound herself shall stand."
Numbers 34.6: "As for the western border, the Great Sea shall mark it off, that is, its coastline; this shall be your west border."
Joshua 13.7: "Now therefore, apportion this land for an inheritance to the nine tribes, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. From Jordan to the great sea westward thou shalt give it them: the great sea shall mark it off."
Joshua 13.27: ...and in the valley, Beth-haram and Beth-nimrah and Succoth and Zaphon, the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon, and the Jordan shall mark it off, as far as the lower end of the Sea of Chinnereth beyond the Jordan to the east.
Joshua 15.12: "And the Great Sea shall mark off the western border, even its coastline. This is the border around the sons of Judah according to their families."
Joshua 18.20: Moreover, the Jordan shall mark it off on the east side. This was the inheritance of the sons of Benjamin, according to their families and according to its borders all around.
Joshua 23.4: "See, I have apportioned to you these nations which remain as an inheritance for your tribes, with all the nations beginning at Jordan; and some I have destroyed; and the Great Sea shall mark it off westward."
Proverbs 16.30: And the man that fixes his eyes devises perverse things, and marks out with his lips all evil: he is a furnace of wickedness.
Proverbs 18.18: The lot puts an end to contentions and decides between the mighty.
Ezekiel 47.20: "This part of the Great Sea marks it off, till one comes opposite the entrance of Emath. This is the west side."
Daniel 6.12: Then they approached and spoke before the king about the king's injunction, "Did you not issue an injunction that any man who makes a petition to any god or man besides you, O king, for thirty days, is to be cast into the lions' den?" The king answered and said, "The statement is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which may not be revoked."
3 Maccabees 5.42: The king, just like another Phalaris, a prey to thoughtlessness, made no account of the changes which his own mind had undergone, issuing in the deliverance of the Jews. He swore a fruitless oath, and determined forthwith to send them to Hades, crushed by the knees and feet of the elephants.
3 Maccabees 6.36: They made a public ordinance to commemorate these things for generations to come, as long as they should be sojourners. They thus established these days as days of mirth, not for the purpose of drinking or luxury, but because God had saved them.
Luke 22.22: "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"
Acts 2.23: "...this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."
Acts 10.42: "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead."
Acts 11.29: And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
Acts 17.26: "And He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation...."
Acts 17.31: "...because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Hebrews 4.7: He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts."
Do any stand out to your mind? (This is not a trick question; I only now assembled them all, and have not reviewed each and every one of them very carefully yet.)
Ben.