TedM

I hear you but I gave you a clear case where "the Lord" was NOT Jesus. As such, spin's idea that "Lord" is more like "Lord of" for Jesus, and is different from "the Lord" (which is a title for God in lieu of his actual name) may have some merit. A simple example which you gave was the "way of the Lord" passage. It is an OT passage. Yes, Jesus was fulfillment, but the author still may have considered it a passage about the fulfillment of the way of the Lord God's kingdom since in the OT "the Lord" clearly was God.

If you still don't agree, fine. You well may be right, but I do see spin's point. There is NOT a passage that one can't make a case for substituting God for "the Lord" in Mark. IF there is, I haven't seen you provide one yet, despite the ones you gave that MAY be referring to Jesus.

aa5874

Again, please get familiar with gMark and the Greek word for the "Lord".

Multiple times you are shown that the LORD [ κύριος ] is JESUS in gMark yet you put forward spin's absurdity that EVERY time "the Lord" is mentioned it refers to God.

The LORD [ κύριος ] directly refers to Jesus in a verse even which mentions God.

Examine Mark 16.19 NAS THE LORD Jesus sat down on the right hand of God.

Mark 16:19 NAS SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 16:19 Jesus is the LORD [ κύριος ] even in heaven in gMark.

TedM

For Pete's sake aa. First, "the Lord Jesus" is disqualified according to spin, because it isn't a substitute for Jesus' name (ie the name "Jesus" would have to be removed). It isn't the same as "the Lord". Second, I gave you this verse:

but you've chosen to ignore it. This is why people put you on ignore.

spin

As you haven't done what I asked of you, ie to tell me how the serf could interpret "here" in the context of your saying "the lord needs it and besides he'll send it back here", there is nothing here for me to respond to.

I will just add to the general issue of interpretation of the verse that the writer of Mt, putting aside the insertion of two animals, understood it like this:

KJV: 21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

NIV: 21:3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.

NASB: 21:3 If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them.

No "back" and no "here". The Lucan version finds it sufficient for Jesus just to give "tell him the lord has need of it", leaving the rest unsaid. (19:31)

aa5874

What total absurdity. How myopic can you be!!! You quoted a verse with "the Lord our God" and now claim a verse with "the Lord Jesus" is disqualified.

It is frightening how you and spin can be so illogical. If the phrase with the "the Lord" our God" qualifies then it is most obvious that a verse with "the Lord" Jesus must also qualify.

ALL verses with "the LORD" qualify.

Examine your own post.

I have exposed your fallacies that all verses with "the Lord" refers to God.

All verses with "the Lord" do NOT refer to God.

1. Mark 1:3 NAS 2. Mark 2 NAS3. Mark 5:19 NAS 4. Mark 11:3 NAS 5. Mark 16:19 NAS

TedM

This is bizarre, spin, but I'll try again. Here was your question:

It's unclear. To me though, "besides" implies that the tenant shouldn't worry about it -- "after all" it will be sent back "here" -- meaning to the tenant. Why would I use the word "besides" if "here" meant where I was at?

I don't have a clue as to why you included this as part of the question. My intention IS the whole issue -- but the intention is only determined from the words I used.

I responded the way I did because the question you posed for me is confusing enough to be totally unhelpful IMO.

TedM

Ok, I recant on that one. "the Lord Jesus" is disqualified according to spin, but I suppose he would also disqualify "the Lord our God" depending on whether he thinks "the Lord" is a substitute for God's name or is used as a title here. Not always easy to tell..



That's God, according to the OT.


Disqualified. Not "the Lord".



Not clear. Could be referring to God working through Jesus.



Could mean God needs it to fulfill his purpose through Jesus.


Disqualified. "the Lord" is not in lieu of Jesus' name in this passage according to spin.

I was right. You couldn't find one that is crystal clear. In contrast, Luke is full of them.

spin

Still not doing the job. Let's remove an unnecessary sticking point.

tell me how the serf could interpret "here" in the context of your saying "the lord needs it and besides he'll send it back here".

This is supposedly a speech act between you and the serf. In the instant the serf hears you say "here" in the instruction, he has to interpret it.

With the following statement I put in your mouth to the serf there is hopefully no problem.

'Tell him, "the lord has need of it and wants it here."'

The serf understands that "here" is where you are. Well, that's what "here" means... "where the speaker is". That's the problem with the other statement.

'Tell him, "the lord needs it and he'll send it back here"'

"here" means where the speaker, in this case you, is. It doesn't get to the point where the serf parrots your words to the tenant. It's the serf listening to you and you saying "here", which means to the serf where you are and interpreting it that way as would be natural.

aa5874

Please, recant ALL your fallacies. You have a lot to recant. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

If I did NOT identify your fallacies and absurdities then you would not have recanted.

In gMark--Jesus is the LORD in heaven and earth.

Mark 16:19 NAS The Son of Man is LORD of even the Sabbath.

TedM

If my serf said to the tenant: "The lord needs 'it'. The lord will send it back here.", the tenant would assume "here" means where 'it' is. By giving my serf the exact words to say, the meaning is implied to be whatever the tenant would understand them to be. My serf would understand it that way too. The ONLY way it makes sense that "here" means where I am, is if the only exact words I gave were "The lord needs it", with the remaining being a comment I was making directly to the serf. There was NO NEED to tell the challengers that God is doing the sending of the colt to Jesus when the disciples were TAKING IT. So, it's awkward in both a linguistic sense and a practical sense.

So, only the following 3 make sense:

1. Jesus directed them to say "The lord needs your colt. The lord will be returning it right away."

or

2. Jesus directed them to say "The lord needs your colt." and then commented that the person spoken to will immediately agree to send the colt back with the disciples.

or

3. Jesus directed them to say "The Lord needs your colt." and then commented that God would immediately see to it that the colt was brought back to Jesus.

In all 3 cases "the Lord" could mean Jesus or God.


What doesn't make sense:

Jesus directed them to say "The lord needs your colt. The lord will send it here to Jesus immediately." when 'here' would have meant 'there' to the hearers, and when the disciples were taking it.

That's the LAST I'm saying about it.