What was Paul's primary lesson he wanted people to learn

[lsayre]

Philippians 2:8-11 (ESV) RE: Someone was awarded the name 'Jesus' post obedience leading to death on a cross. Whom that someone might be eludes me. But why bother bestowing the name 'Jesus' upon someone who was already named Jesus?

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

My apology for potentially sidetracking this thread. My better answer(s) to the OP's title/poser have already been deposited earlier. But the door is open to Paul (or Saul) perhaps being the name before it was exalted to Jesus. Might this be one among the 'originally intended' primary messages? Albeit that catholicizers nigh-on obliterated this once primary message upon adopting Paul... Or could it have been some other name, whereby the catholicizers (lower case 'c') assigned the name Saul/Paul as part of their adoption/obfuscation plan? Simon? Etc...

[perseusomega9]

Philippians 2:8-11 (ESV) RE: Someone was awarded the name 'Jesus' post obedience leading to death on a cross. Whom that someone might be eludes me. But why bother bestowing the name 'Jesus' upon someone who was already named Jesus?

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

My apology for potentially sidetracking this thread. My better answer(s) to the OP's title/poser have already been deposited earlier. But the door is open to Paul (or Saul) perhaps being the name before it was exalted to Jesus. Might this be one among the 'originally intended' primary messages? Albeit that catholicizers nigh-on obliterated this once primary message upon adopting Paul... Or could it have been some other name, whereby the catholicizers (lower case 'c') assigned the name Saul/Paul as part of their adoption/obfuscation plan? Simon? Etc...

You mean Saul who was Paul(and let's never mention this ever again)?

[perseusomega9]

Simon Magus Peter Paul sounds like a great 60s band name.

eta: (Let's update to 90s hiphop) "Are you down with SMPP"

[John2]

Simon Magus Peter Paul sounds like a great 60s band name.

eta: (Let's update to 90s hiphop) "Are you down with SMPP"

I like "Pleroma" and "Fayyum Fragment."

[Paul the Uncertain]

Philippians 2:8-11 (ESV) RE: Someone was awarded the name 'Jesus' post obedience leading to death on a cross.

I don't see that as being what is on the page. God bestowed "the name above every name," which is an oxymoron (nothing can be above every instance of its own kind), so we may infer figurative rather than literal intent. There are many possibilities for the intended referent. Perhaps Paul has briefed his audience in person about the meaning of the phrase (one beauty of oxymorons is that they necessarily have no inherent meaning, but they can be suggestive - jumbo shrimp).

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Regardless, once a distinction has been bestowed (on anyone), thereafter the name they have always had becomes a cue for others to recognize their new status. Jesus's new status is apparently recognized by genuflection and acclamation.

Just another Jesus gets a promotion for good performance. He is still Jesus afterward, but no longer just another Jesus.

So it seems to me, other views are possible.

[DCHindley]

The Jews are of Hagar, and the Gentiles are of Sarah. This must be at the very ground floor.

Hint: After the application of some seriously twisted and incoherent logic meant to baffle only those who don't know better, along with those who do but for whatever reason are willing to overlook that detail, Paul fails in adequately (or even remotely) proving this key tenant, and worse, he (and anyone who goes along with him) must smack the Hebrew God in the face and proclaim this God to be a liar whereby to even attempt to do so. Thus in the end Paul is a failure. But to those who didn't/don't know better, he was/is the founder of an entire new religion.

BINGO! Long ago I gave up on understanding the Pauline writings as the product of one man, primarily because on the face of things the logic would have to be seriously twisted. My solution was to see it as reflecting two narratives:

1) letters about the good news that gentiles would inherit a revitalized holy land along with Abraham's physical offspring, when the future blessed age happened to drop by, on the basis of faith, not by works of the Mosaic law which did not exist at the time God justified Abram on the basis of his promise of a blessed land.

2) A commentary on the original letters that countered it by a narrative that a divine redeemer figure had righted an off kilter world.

These two narratives did not get along well. A 2nd editor tried to make it seem to integrate better, but it was still not a pretty sight.

DCH

PS: The whole ugly mess, as I have decomposed it, is presented here:
viewtopic.php?p=120348#p120348

[lsayre]

Nice!

Paul's seriously twisted logic that the promised "seed" was actually singular, and as such referred to Jesus, was yet another of the primary lessons Paul wanted people to learn. But Genesis 13:16 and 15:5 seem impossible to rectify with the twisted non-plurality of the word "seed", albeit that as Bart Ehrman always says, an apologetic reading from a perspective which accepts the outcome one seeks aforehand will always justify said pre-desired outcome.

[lsayre]

Nice!

Paul's seriously twisted logic that the promised "seed" was actually singular, and as such referred to Jesus, was yet another of the primary lessons Paul wanted people to learn. But Genesis 13:16 and 15:5 seem impossible to rectify with the non-plurality of the singular word "seed", albeit that as Bart Ehrman always says, an apologetic reading from a perspective which accepts the outcome one seeks aforehand will always justify said pre-desired outcome.

This got me thinking. Should we be so easily willing to quite similarly accept the singularity of the plural word Elohim? It's almost as if we've been conditionally brainwashed into accepting this singularity.

[schillingklaus]

The name awarded to the saviour is of course YHWH. Only the patristic forger, who identified illogically YHWH with The Father and euhemerized Jesus into the Messiah, screwed it up.