FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-30-2013, 11:05 PM   #21
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
There is no notion of sending it back in the use of kurios. You've invented the connection.
I didn't invent it. The text says 'send it back'. see Andrews post.
Fuck this is getting annoying. You overtly made a connection between sending the animal back and Jesus saying "tell him the lord needs it." You saw it as an assurance. That is what you invented.
Yes, I'm annoyed too that you can't see what seemed so obvious to me, even if I mis-interpreted it. IF you take out all quotes it reads as though Jesus tells them to tell the people that the Lord (Jesus) needs it, and that he will return it immediately when he is finished with it ("and immediately he will send it back here". 'Here' is the location the disciples would be at when they say this--ie where they got the colt from). Why did you act like you couldn't even fathom where I got this interpretation from, when that would be the most obvious way 99% of people would read it?
Here's the statement again:
The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately
Two parts:

1. a statement of purpose; and
2. a promise of a swift return.

The statement of purpose is that the lord needs the animal. The text doesn't say "I need the animal." Giving a third person statement in most languages means that a third person is involved. We've established from the LXX that there is cultural heritage regarding the use of the special κυριος indicating that the referent is god. This may have been broken down by the time Mark was written, but is there any evidence for this?--especially when we see the special κυριος at the end of the pericope, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord".

The language context suggests that we read it to mean that the animal serves god's purpose and he will make sure of its return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM

You missed the nuance. But, I consider "the Lord Jesus Christ" to be 'in lieu' of the name "Jesus". As such "the Lord" is not all that 'special'.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Either you've stopped understanding the terminology in play or you are not the same person I was talking to earlier.
It was more of a snide remark. Nothing serious. No, believe me, I know that 'the Lord' is used for God overwhelmingly by Paul, and only in a few places do we see it used for Jesus. While that MAY be helpful in the analysis, it also may mean nothing. Even though we may say there is a 70% chance of rain today the reality is that either it rains (100%) or it doesn't(0%).
We were talking about Paul in the other thread. Here we were talking about Mark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Since I came up with a good reason for why a biological relationship could be referred to as "brother of the Lord" which would render the 'normal' linguistic usage by Paul irrelevant, it may be that the odds you might see (90-100% that it means 'God') are based on a false assumption that Paul was following his own linguistic rules. It might well be that the importance of the linquistic analysis of "the Lord" in Paul is 0%.
I saw nothing in your conjecture to justify you saying 'I came up with a good reason for why a biological relationship could be referred to as "brother of the Lord"'. Perhaps you could elucidate in the appropriate thread.
spin is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 06:32 AM   #22
TedM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Yes, I'm annoyed too that you can't see what seemed so obvious to me, even if I mis-interpreted it. IF you take out all quotes it reads as though Jesus tells them to tell the people that the Lord (Jesus) needs it, and that he will return it immediately when he is finished with it ("and immediately he will send it back here". 'Here' is the location the disciples would be at when they say this--ie where they got the colt from). Why did you act like you couldn't even fathom where I got this interpretation from, when that would be the most obvious way 99% of people would read it?
Here's the statement again:
The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately
Two parts:

1. a statement of purpose; and
2. a promise of a swift return.

The statement of purpose is that the lord needs the animal. The text doesn't say "I need the animal." Giving a third person statement in most languages means that a third person is involved.
Nonsense. It would be third person if Jesus himself went and got the colt and then referred to himself as "the Lord".

IF I send someone next door to get sugar and they ask who needs it, and the response is "Bob" needs it, most likely "Bob" refers to me. Common sense dictates that the person who does the sending is the person who needs what is retrieved, and is also the person who will return it. That's what 99% of people would assume. The only reason you interpret it an atypical manner is because of your pre-conceived notion that "the Lord" only means God.

I'm not saying you are wrong, although I think you are. But, your interpretation is way outside of the norm, IMO.

Quote:
I saw nothing in your conjecture to justify you saying 'I came up with a good reason for why a biological relationship could be referred to as "brother of the Lord"'. Perhaps you could elucidate in the appropriate thread.
Ok, I'll responded there.
TedM is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 03:16 PM   #23
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Yes, I'm annoyed too that you can't see what seemed so obvious to me, even if I mis-interpreted it. IF you take out all quotes it reads as though Jesus tells them to tell the people that the Lord (Jesus) needs it, and that he will return it immediately when he is finished with it ("and immediately he will send it back here". 'Here' is the location the disciples would be at when they say this--ie where they got the colt from). Why did you act like you couldn't even fathom where I got this interpretation from, when that would be the most obvious way 99% of people would read it?
Here's the statement again:
The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately
Two parts:

1. a statement of purpose; and
2. a promise of a swift return.

The statement of purpose is that the lord needs the animal. The text doesn't say "I need the animal." Giving a third person statement in most languages means that a third person is involved.
Nonsense. It would be third person if Jesus himself went and got the colt and then referred to himself as "the Lord".
Ummm, if Jesus tells his disciples to tell them that the lord needs it, he is referring to himself in the third person. All you need to do is read the text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
IF I send someone next door to get sugar and they ask who needs it, and the response is "Bob" needs it, most likely "Bob" refers to me.
If the church sends you to Africa as a missionary, they might say to tell the Africans that the lord sent you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Common sense dictates...
...that when you are talking about not common issues common sense is inappropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
...that the person who does the sending is the person who needs what is retrieved, and is also the person who will return it. That's what 99% of people would assume. The only reason you interpret it an atypical manner is because of your pre-conceived notion that "the Lord" only means God.

I'm not saying you are wrong, although I think you are. But, your interpretation is way outside of the norm, IMO.
Who returned the colt?? Crash. Burn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
I saw nothing in your conjecture to justify you saying 'I came up with a good reason for why a biological relationship could be referred to as "brother of the Lord"'. Perhaps you could elucidate in the appropriate thread.
Ok, I'll responded there.
spin is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 03:41 PM   #24
TedM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Who returned the colt?? Crash. Burn.
Presumably the one who needed to sit on it and who assured them it would be returned.
TedM is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 06:38 PM   #25
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Who returned the colt?? Crash. Burn.
Presumably the one who needed to sit on it and who assured them it would be returned.
Not in the text. We do know that the disciples were sent to get the animal. That does suggest that they may have returned it rather than the one who sat on it, so the text not only doesn't support you it suggests that your conclusion isn't right.

You're too used to equating "the lord" with Jesus in christian literature, so you don't read what the texts say. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.
spin is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 07:41 PM   #26
TedM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Who returned the colt?? Crash. Burn.
Presumably the one who needed to sit on it and who assured them it would be returned.
Not in the text. We do know that the disciples were sent to get the animal. That does suggest that they may have returned it rather than the one who sat on it, so the text not only doesn't support you it suggests that your conclusion isn't right.

You're too used to equating "the lord" with Jesus in christian literature, so you don't read what the texts say. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.
I didn't mean he returned it himself. He returned it through the disciples, most likely. Sorry wasn't clear. You could be right. I suspect that the only reason you have this view is because you think Mark never referred to Jesus as "the Lord", even though he is referred to as "Lord" in 7:28, and not "Lord of" something. I know you think "Lord" is a title and not a name, but I think "the Lord" is a title too.. so for me there is virtually no difference. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
TedM is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 10:47 PM   #27
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Who returned the colt?? Crash. Burn.
Presumably the one who needed to sit on it and who assured them it would be returned.
Not in the text. We do know that the disciples were sent to get the animal. That does suggest that they may have returned it rather than the one who sat on it, so the text not only doesn't support you it suggests that your conclusion isn't right.

You're too used to equating "the lord" with Jesus in christian literature, so you don't read what the texts say. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.
I didn't mean he returned it himself. He returned it through the disciples, most likely. Sorry wasn't clear. You could be right. I suspect that the only reason you have this view is because you think Mark never referred to Jesus as "the Lord", even though he is referred to as "Lord" in 7:28, and not "Lord of" something.
Just to refresh your memory, in the o.p. I said,
Nobody else in the LXX is referred to in the third person as "the lord".
Mk 7:28, "Yes, lord," she replied. This is the second person. In the parables of Jesus the wealthy man, the man of power is called, "lord". Grammatically, it is the vocative, the form of a noun spoken to a person, frequently found used by people speaking to figures of power in the LXX (translating adonai, which is usually translated as "my lord" though just "lord" κυριε in the LXX). This is detail that I didn't think you would need to give me reason to provide, but like kicking an old habit one clutches at whatever will help one hold on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
I know you think "Lord" is a title and not a name, but I think "the Lord" is a title too..
In the LXX it's used purely for Yahweh, as a replacement for the name, and obviously derived from the Greek title. However, because of acting as the replacement for the name of god, it has now a name-like usage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
so for me there is virtually no difference.
Do you think the early readers saw virtually no difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Stop with the lazy "We'll just have to agree to disagree." If you didn't want to think the thing through, why go through any of it?

The normal thing would be, when you send others to do something, to say, "tell them I need it." When Jesus tells them to say "the lord needs it", comfortably reads as though this is all part of god's plan and the animal is needed to fulfill a task in that plan. Just as god's minions appropriate the animal, they will also return it. There is no need to go against the trend set by the LXX and Paul by reading "the lord" here as Jesus. It makes perfect sense, reading it as god.

So, not even here did Mark refer to Jesus in narrative as "the lord".
spin is offline  
Old 08-01-2013, 01:06 AM   #28
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
.....You're too used to equating "the lord" with Jesus in christian literature, so you don't read what the texts say. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.
You are too used to equating "the lord" with God in the Septuagint so you forget that Galatians 1.19 is actually in the New Testament.

Now, when you equate the "lord" with God I hope you remember that Apollo and Zeus were considered Lords.

Examine the Lucian's Zeus Tragoedus.

The God Athene addresses Zeus as Lord of Lords.

See http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl3/wl307.htm

Quote:
Athene----Cronides, lord of lords, and all our sire,
I clasp thy knees; grant thou what I require...
Quote:
Zeus----- Ah, Hermes, but there is a great deal in Darius's remark about Zopyrus--I would rather have had one ally like Damis than be the lord of a thousand Babylons.
Was it Zeus, Apollo, Hermes, or Athene that needed the ASS?

May be it was ASclepius :angry: :banghead:

Surely in antiquity there were many "Lords" equated with Gods even Zeus and Jesus.

But, we know it was prophesied that the LORD Jesus would NEED ASSES according to Matthew!!

Matthew 21
Quote:
3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say , The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. 4 All this was done , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying , 5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold , thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
The Lord Jesus' ASS riding prophecy is found in Zechariah.

Zechariah 9:9 KJV
Quote:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout , O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation ; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
It was the Lord Jesus that needed the ASSES for his prophesied donkey ride into Jerusalem.

Jesus was LORD when he rode his prophesied ASSES in gMatthew.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-01-2013, 06:08 AM   #29
TedM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Just to refresh your memory, in the o.p. I said,
Nobody else in the LXX is referred to in the third person as "the lord".
Mk 7:28, "Yes, lord," she replied. This is the second person. In the parables of Jesus the wealthy man, the man of power is called, "lord". Grammatically, it is the vocative, the form of a noun spoken to a person, frequently found used by people speaking to figures of power in the LXX (translating adonai, which is usually translated as "my lord" though just "lord" κυριε in the LXX).
But once you start referring to someone in the second person in such a way "Teacher, what is 'truth'"? , then it is only logical that when you refer to them in the third person you'll put the word "the" before it: "The Teacher told me what 'truth' is".

Using Mark 7:28:

second person:
Quote:
Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children’s crumbs.
third person reference to this would be:
Quote:
"I responded to the Lord by saying that 'even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs.'"

While it may be notable that nobody in the the LXX was referred to in the third person as "the Lord", that Psalms passage could have read "God said to the lord", had the context been clear that "the lord" was his earthly "lord" (ie 'my lord).

But in the case of the colt, the context is clear that Jesus needed the colt and that through him it would be returned. You say that he would have simply said 'I need the colt'. The word 'I' doesn't convey the authority that "the Lord" does. In the larger context of Mark Jesus was well known - so much so that the Syrophoenician woman called him Lord. If in the case of the colt the disciples had referred to their Teacher as "the Lord" it would not only be understandable why they should do so, but the background in Mark supports the idea that whoever he got the colt from would know that Jesus was known as "the Lord" -- they too may have addressed him directly as "Lord". When you think of "the Lord" as similar to "the Teacher" or "the Master" none of this is problematic. But when you think that only God can be called "the Lord" it's a problem. But, it's an unnecessary and illogical restriction.



Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
I know you think "Lord" is a title and not a name, but I think "the Lord" is a title too..
In the LXX it's used purely for Yahweh, as a replacement for the name, and obviously derived from the Greek title. However, because of acting as the replacement for the name of god, it has now a name-like usage.
It's notable, but not necessary significant to the point where we can make any meaningful predictions about it. I could also say that simply "Lord" as in 7:28, or the phrase Paul uses repeatedly "the Lord Jesus Christ" ALSO has a 'name-like' usage. You seem to see a wide gulf from going from "Lord" or "the Lord Jesus Christ" or "our Lord" to using "the Lord" in lieu of the name of Jesus. This is because traditionally God is the only one we see evidence of as being referred to as "the Lord". But surely if David or GMARK were to refer to his "my Lord" or "Lord" in the third person, he would say "the Lord"! It's a natural progression. It's normal second person/third person usage! Would he always have to keep saying "my Lord" or something like that in order to avoid any confusion with Yahweh? Of course not -- in reality its a tiny 'leap' to go from the title "Lord" to the title being used in lieu of a name in "the Lord" whenever the CONTEXT makes it clear. Remove the context and I totally agree with you...it would seem blasphemous. Put in the context and it is no big deal.
TedM is offline  
Old 08-01-2013, 08:09 AM   #30
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Just to refresh your memory, in the o.p. I said,
Nobody else in the LXX is referred to in the third person as "the lord".
Mk 7:28, "Yes, lord," she replied. This is the second person. In the parables of Jesus the wealthy man, the man of power is called, "lord". Grammatically, it is the vocative, the form of a noun spoken to a person, frequently found used by people speaking to figures of power in the LXX (translating adonai, which is usually translated as "my lord" though just "lord" κυριε in the LXX).
But once you start referring to someone in the second person in such a way "Teacher, what is 'truth'"? , then it is only logical that when you refer to them in the third person you'll put the word "the" before it: "The Teacher told me what 'truth' is".

Using Mark 7:28:

second person:
Quote:
Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children’s crumbs.
third person reference to this would be:
Quote:
"I responded to the Lord by saying that 'even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs.'"
You're just making things up for your own convenience now, TedM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
While it may be notable that nobody in the the LXX was referred to in the third person as "the Lord", that Psalms passage could have read "God said to the lord", had the context been clear that "the lord" was his earthly "lord" (ie 'my lord).
And again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
But in the case of the colt, the context is clear that Jesus needed the colt and that through him it would be returned. You say that he would have simply said 'I need the colt'.
Wrong. I said, what would be normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
The word 'I' doesn't convey the authority that "the Lord" does.
Hmm, funny that, especially when one considers that "the lord" means "god" in the wake of the LXX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
In the larger context of Mark Jesus was well known - so much so that the Syrophoenician woman called him Lord.
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
If in the case of the colt the disciples had referred to their Teacher as "the Lord"
If you want to try to string an argument together without evidence into if conjectures, you know where that gets you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
it would not only be understandable why they should do so, but the background in Mark supports the idea that whoever he got the colt from would know that Jesus was known as "the Lord" -- they too may have addressed him directly as "Lord". When you think of "the Lord" as similar to "the Teacher" or "the Master" none of this is problematic.
Yes, an evidenceless argument. Next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
But when you think that only God can be called "the Lord" it's a problem. But, it's an unnecessary and illogical restriction.
When the evidence up to Mk confirms that that was the usage, you have no counteroffer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
I know you think "Lord" is a title and not a name, but I think "the Lord" is a title too..
In the LXX it's used purely for Yahweh, as a replacement for the name, and obviously derived from the Greek title. However, because of acting as the replacement for the name of god, it has now a name-like usage.
It's notable, but not necessary significant to the point where we can make any meaningful predictions about it.
Ignoring strong evidence in order to propose conjecture based purely on your own desire:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
I could also say that simply "Lord" as in 7:28, or the phrase Paul uses repeatedly "the Lord Jesus Christ" ALSO has a 'name-like' usage.
If you could do so meaningfully, do it and stop pretending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
You seem to see a wide gulf from going from "Lord" or "the Lord Jesus Christ" or "our Lord" to using "the Lord" in lieu of the name of Jesus. This is because traditionally God is the only one we see evidence of as being referred to as "the Lord". But surely if David or GMARK were to refer to his "my Lord" or "Lord" in the third person, he would say "the Lord"! It's a natural progression.
More of the same conjecture, well, repeating the same desire once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It's normal second person/third person usage!
If it were normal you could show the precursors to it, but you know that you are speaking plain crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Would he always have to keep saying "my Lord" or something like that in order to avoid any confusion with Yahweh? Of course not -- in reality its a tiny 'leap' to go from the title "Lord" to the title being used in lieu of a name in "the Lord" whenever the CONTEXT makes it clear. Remove the context and I totally agree with you...it would seem blasphemous. Put in the context and it is no big deal.
Try to put it into context, please, rather than this web of conjecture. I've pointed out that the LXX supports the usage of "the lord" for god and that reflects the earliest christian era. You've shown no evidence to allow you to think any differently here. Is this the stage where you go on self-ban rather than waste more time saying nothing?
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:41 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.