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 07-29-2013, 08:40 AM   #11
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Content carried back from a discussion of Paul's use of κυριος.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
...I checked out Mark and Luke's use of "the Lord" as well as how they portray the relationship between Jesus and God.

Mark and Luke both have references to God and Jesus as "the Lord". Luke has many more references to Jesus as "the Lord" than Mark. But both of them appear to see Jesus and God as two distinct entities, similarly to Paul. In fact they both refer to Jesus as seated next to God, as Paul did. Here are some references to illustrate the relationship Jesus has to God in them:

Mark 11:3
If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.”
This in no way implies that Jesus is the one referred to here as "the lord". He is expressing god's need. There are easier ways to say what you want the writer to have said, eg 'Say "My lord has need of it"' or 'Say "My master has need of it"' or 'Say "Jesus has need of it"', etc. Sadly the writer doesn't support your desired reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Mark 8:38
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 13:32
But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
I don't see the relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Luke 1:32
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;


Luke 9:20
And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.”

Luke 9:26
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

Luke 10:22
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

Luke 22:69
But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

Luke 22:29
and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you

Luke 22:70
And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”


Luke 23:35
And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One.”


If Mark and Luke see Jesus' relationship to God similarly to the way Paul saw it, but they can refer to both God and Jesus as "the Lord", why couldn't Paul also have done so?
I don't believe either Mark or Luke was written by a single writer. The evidence so firmly counsels against such a simplification. But Mark doesn't support your claim about it anyway, as you seem to have failed to understand your one hope. Without a single authorship of Luke, we have different uses of terminology where the writer of the birth narrative can use "lord" as one would expect of someone whose cultural heritage is that of the LXX usage. At what stage of the composition of Luke did the first use of the special κυριος get incorporated in the text?
spin is offline  
Old 07-29-2013, 10:31 AM   #12
TedM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post

Quote:
Mark 11:3
If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.”
This in no way implies that Jesus is the one referred to here as "the lord". He is expressing god's need. There are easier ways to say what you want the writer to have said, eg 'Say "My lord has need of it"' or 'Say "My master has need of it"' or 'Say "Jesus has need of it"', etc. Sadly the writer doesn't support your desired reading.
That's quite a stretch there spin. Jesus sent the disciples to get the colt. God didn't. Jesus told them if questioned to assure them that it will be sent back. Are we to think the disciples were supposed to tell them that God would send the colt back? While that's possible it is a stretch. The most literal reading is that since Jesus rode on the colt, he was the one who needed it and would return it. Geez.. Here's the passage:


Quote:
2 and *said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.”
In 2 other places in Mark Jesus is clearly referred to as Lord. It's no big stretch to insert a 'the' even though you seem to think it is. If one is to refer to a master directly one says "Master". If it is indirect one says "the Master". What's the complication here?






Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Mark 8:38
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 13:32
But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
I don't see the relevance.
Just pointing out that Jesus and God aren't one and the same -- similar conception that Paul had.


Quote:
Quote:
If Mark and Luke see Jesus' relationship to God similarly to the way Paul saw it, but they can refer to both God and Jesus as "the Lord", why couldn't Paul also have done so?
I don't believe either Mark or Luke was written by a single writer... Without a single authorship of Luke, we have different uses of terminology
Ok
TedM is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 09:31 AM   #13
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:
Mark 11:3
If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.”
This in no way implies that Jesus is the one referred to here as "the lord". He is expressing god's need. There are easier ways to say what you want the writer to have said, eg 'Say "My lord has need of it"' or 'Say "My master has need of it"' or 'Say "Jesus has need of it"', etc. Sadly the writer doesn't support your desired reading.
That's quite a stretch there spin.
I guess you need the exercise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Jesus sent the disciples to get the colt. God didn't. Jesus told them if questioned to assure them that it will be sent back.
There's no implication of this in the text. You made it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Are we to think the disciples were supposed to tell them that God would send the colt back?
There's no notion of sending it back. There is a greater purpose for the ass's colt, foreordained by the lord.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
While that's possible it is a stretch. The most literal reading is that since Jesus rode on the colt, he was the one who needed it and would return it. Geez..
Yup, geez.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Here's the passage:

Quote:
2 and *said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.”
In 2 other places in Mark Jesus is clearly referred to as Lord.
Referring to Jesus as lord is irrelevant here unless it is the special κυριος.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It's no big stretch to insert a 'the' even though you seem to think it is. If one is to refer to a master directly one says "Master". If it is indirect one says "the Master". What's the complication here?
If it looks like the special κυριος then we have to treat it as such.
spin is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 10:49 AM   #14
TedM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
There's no notion of sending it back.
?? What part of "immediately he will send it back here" means there is 'no notion of sending it back'?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It's no big stretch to insert a 'the' even though you seem to think it is. If one is to refer to a master directly one says "Master". If it is indirect one says "the Master". What's the complication here?
If it looks like the special κυριος then we have to treat it as such.
Calling it 'special' doesn't make it so.
TedM is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 11:39 AM   #15
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Could someone clarify what this means?

Quote:
and *said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.”
I know the original did not have punctuation - but this reads as if the disciples are to say "the Lord has need of it." They are not to say it will be returned - that is what Jesus says, meaning that the colt will be immediately sent back to Jesus ("here") once the name of the Lord is invoked ??
Toto is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 12:07 PM   #16
andrewcriddle
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Could someone clarify what this means?

Quote:
and *said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.”
I know the original did not have punctuation - but this reads as if the disciples are to say "the Lord has need of it." They are not to say it will be returned - that is what Jesus says, meaning that the colt will be immediately sent back to Jesus ("here") once the name of the Lord is invoked ??
There is a textual issue in Mark 11:3 if PALIN back is original (as in NA) then it means Jesus will return the colt immediately. If PALIN is omitted (as in TR compare Matthew) then it means that the colt will be sent immediately to Jesus.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 12:38 PM   #17
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
There's no notion of sending it back.
?? What part of "immediately he will send it back here" means there is 'no notion of sending it back'?
There is no notion of sending it back involved in the use of kurios. Mentioning that the lord has need of the animal is a rationale for taking the ass's colt. You've invented the connection.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It's no big stretch to insert a 'the' even though you seem to think it is. If one is to refer to a master directly one says "Master". If it is indirect one says "the Master". What's the complication here?
If it looks like the special κυριος then we have to treat it as such.
Calling it 'special' doesn't make it so.
Are you the same person who showed understanding earlier the distinction between the usual usage and the special usage of kurios, ie in lieu of a name? If so, how is this case not an example of special kurios?
spin is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 12:45 PM   #18
TedM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

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.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It's no big stretch to insert a 'the' even though you seem to think it is. If one is to refer to a master directly one says "Master". If it is indirect one says "the Master". What's the complication here?
If it looks like the special κυριος then we have to treat it as such.
Calling it 'special' doesn't make it so.
Are you the same person who showed understanding earlier the distinction between the usual usage and the special usage of kurios, ie in lieu of a name? If so, how is this case not an example of special kurios?
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'.
TedM is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 01:07 PM   #19
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
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It's no big stretch to insert a 'the' even though you seem to think it is. If one is to refer to a master directly one says "Master". If it is indirect one says "the Master". What's the complication here?
If it looks like the special κυριος then we have to treat it as such.
Calling it 'special' doesn't make it so.
Are you the same person who showed understanding earlier the distinction between the usual usage and the special usage of kurios, ie in lieu of a name? If so, how is this case not an example of special kurios?
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.
spin is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 01:40 PM   #20
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
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?



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%). 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%.
TedM 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.