Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 07-30-2013, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Spin does not seem to appreciate the similarity of "the Lord Jesus" to "the Lord".

Assuming that Joe read the o.p., I certainly didn't understand what he was saying at all.

And I don't understand what you are saying here with my not appreciating the similarity between "the lord Jesus" and "the lord". If I can understand the similarity between "the lord" and "the lord of mine" (Ps 110:1 literally, "the lord said to the lord of mine"), what makes you think I don't appreciate the similarity of "the lord Jesus" to "the lord"?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I think you see "the Lord Jesus Christ" as a title (the Lord) followed by a name (Jesus) followed by another title (Christ). While I recognize the inclusion of titles, I see the entire phrase as a way of referencing Jesus in a way that honors him as both Master and Messiah. As such I see it as a long 'name'. So for me it is a simple step to turn it into a short name which retains the title of honor: "the Lord". I understand what you are saying about Paul's usage of "the Lord" for God, but see little hindrance to using "the Lord" for Jesus if the context makes it clear that it is Jesus that is being discussed -- which in Paul's time would be the case when mentioning siblings/cousins to Jesus.

You're assuming in this last sentence what you need to demonstrate. That's what the thread about my trying to get McGrath to do just that was about. You simply cannot argue from what you want it to mean without demonstrating that it means what you want. You haven't done that. (It's the subject of that thread only--until you have demonstrated what you claim.)

I can't demonstrate it. I can only say that my opinion is that your attempts to demonstrate that "brother of the Lord" doesn't refer to Jesus are based on improbable assumptions on your part. But I can't prove that. That in no way means your argument is 'strong' though. You're attempting to use math. I'm attempting to use common sense. Sometimes common sense is better than math because in the end it all depends on the quality of the assumptions that are used for each.

spin · 07-30-2013, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Spin does not seem to appreciate the similarity of "the Lord Jesus" to "the Lord".

Assuming that Joe read the o.p., I certainly didn't understand what he was saying at all.

And I don't understand what you are saying here with my not appreciating the similarity between "the lord Jesus" and "the lord". If I can understand the similarity between "the lord" and "the lord of mine" (Ps 110:1 literally, "the lord said to the lord of mine"), what makes you think I don't appreciate the similarity of "the lord Jesus" to "the lord"?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I think you see "the Lord Jesus Christ" as a title (the Lord) followed by a name (Jesus) followed by another title (Christ). While I recognize the inclusion of titles, I see the entire phrase as a way of referencing Jesus in a way that honors him as both Master and Messiah. As such I see it as a long 'name'. So for me it is a simple step to turn it into a short name which retains the title of honor: "the Lord". I understand what you are saying about Paul's usage of "the Lord" for God, but see little hindrance to using "the Lord" for Jesus if the context makes it clear that it is Jesus that is being discussed -- which in Paul's time would be the case when mentioning siblings/cousins to Jesus.

You're assuming in this last sentence what you need to demonstrate. That's what the thread about my trying to get McGrath to do just that was about. You simply cannot argue from what you want it to mean without demonstrating that it means what you want. You haven't done that. (It's the subject of that thread only--until you have demonstrated what you claim.)

I can't demonstrate it. I can only say that my opinion is that your attempts to demonstrate that "brother of the Lord" doesn't refer to Jesus are based on improbable assumptions on your part. But I can't prove that.

The use of the claim that Paul is talking about the physical brother of Jesus as a peg of historical data collapses at this point. If the premise cannot be demonstrated then it is irrelevant.

And that's where the argument for the historical Jesus rests after all the smoke and mirrors are removed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

That in no way means your argument is 'strong' though. You're attempting to use math. I'm attempting to use common sense. Sometimes common sense is better than math because in the end it all depends on the quality of the assumptions that are used for each.

stephan huller · 07-30-2013, 09:27 AM

what you found is extremely profound no one's ever quite that it like that before

stephan huller · 07-30-2013, 09:28 AM

I wish I could cite it but saying it comes from spin doesn't sound very academic

stephan huller · 07-30-2013, 09:32 AM

whenever my messages start looking like this it means I'm driving

TedM · 07-30-2013, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If the premise cannot be demonstrated then it is irrelevant.

Demonstrated? You have very strange way of looking at this. Why not 'Demonstrated to be a reasonable alternative'?

Once you realize that there is no absurdity in using "the Lord" for both God and Jesus AS LONG AS THE DISTINCTION IS CLEAR FOR THE AUDIENCE, then both options are equally on the table from a linguistic standpoint and all of your arguments for only one usage become irrelevant. Then you are left with the other kinds of arguments, which have almost no support for a "brother of God" group and significant support for relatives of Jesus called "brothers". By this logical process of elimination the most likely conclusion is the one I have suggested. of course

andrewcriddle · 07-30-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Can you find examples in the corpus of Paul's "genuine" letters beyond the two in 1 Corinthians I have already mentioned that you can guarantee must refer to Jesus (as in the case of god raising the lord and the blood of the lord)? Try to use the criteria I have given above and consider the way Paul writes, assuming a relationship between god and Jesus.

I don't think I can guarantee what follows. I'm not sure guarantee is appropriate here.

However:
a/ When in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul distinguishes teaching from the Lord and teaching from Paul himself, it makes more sense as a distinction between teaching from Christ and teaching from Paul, than as a distinction between teaching from God and teaching from Paul.
b/ When in 1 Thessalonians 4 Paul speaks of the future coming of the Lord and his descent from Heaven, it makes more sense as the descent of Christ from Heaven than as the descent of God himself.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 07-30-2013, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If the premise cannot be demonstrated then it is irrelevant.

Demonstrated? You have very strange way of looking at this. Why not 'Demonstrated to be a reasonable alternative'?

Once you realize that there is no absurdity in using "the Lord" for both God and Jesus AS LONG AS THE DISTINCTION IS CLEAR FOR THE AUDIENCE, then both options are equally on the table from a linguistic standpoint and all of your arguments for only one usage become irrelevant. Then you are left with the other kinds of arguments, which have almost no support for a "brother of God" group and significant support for relatives of Jesus called "brothers". By this logical process of elimination the most likely conclusion is the one I have suggested. of course

When you ignore the context of the statement you are attempting to respond to you stop making much sense.

spin · 07-30-2013, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Can you find examples in the corpus of Paul's "genuine" letters beyond the two in 1 Corinthians I have already mentioned that you can guarantee must refer to Jesus (as in the case of god raising the lord and the blood of the lord)? Try to use the criteria I have given above and consider the way Paul writes, assuming a relationship between god and Jesus.

I don't think I can guarantee what follows. I'm not sure guarantee is appropriate here.

However:
a/ When in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul distinguishes teaching from the Lord and teaching from Paul himself, it makes more sense as a distinction between teaching from Christ and teaching from Paul, than as a distinction between teaching from God and teaching from Paul.

I see it as a legal statement: this is what the lord has ordained.

Quote:

b/ When in 1 Thessalonians 4 Paul speaks of the future coming of the Lord and his descent from Heaven, it makes more sense as the descent of Christ from Heaven than as the descent of God himself.

Yet god will bring those who have fallen asleep (1 Thes 4:14b).

spin · 07-30-2013, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Your theory seems to sweep the notion that it is the god of the Hebrew bible referred to throughout the LXX by the special κυριος without positing a reason for suddenly using it against the cultural tradition, I mean other than well hey, maybe they may have wanted a shorter phrase that was not "brothers of our lord Jesus". Something has to push people over the edge when they have a tradition that is changed. You've got nothing. Remember "the lord" to Paul when growing up--accepting his notion that he was well versed in the faith--was the god of gods.

The push that I have posited was when believers began to embrace the influence of pagan salvation as found in mystery cults. It was the savior who was the lord. This implies a transition period in the development of the religion, yet Paul is at the beginning of the written tradition, so there doesn't seem to be a reason for him jumping from using the special κυριος for god to using it occasionally for Jesus, despite the lack of clear pointers to his having done so.

The fact that Paul repeatedly used "the Lord Jesus Christ" and the gospel writers seemed to have no difficulty referring to Jesus as "the Lord" suggests that this 'cultural tradition' was not as strongly embedded as you might think it was. Apparently the love for Jesus was so great that using the phrase to describe Jesus was NOT seen as dishonoring God. "the Lord Jesus Christ" like it or not was not just a 'title'. It as a whole would quickly be seen as a way of referring to Jesus -- it was also a NAME for Jesus. As such, shortening it would be the next logical step. This is exactly what we see in the later writings. Jesus was "the Lord". He was "the Master".

The title became the name because it was CONVENIENT. That's what was needed when describing the brothers of Jesus -- a convenient phrase that honored Jesus at the same time. Obviously a shortcut would only have been used if the meaning was clearly not that of "the Lord God". The brothers of Jesus would have been so widely known (esp if the leader was his brother) that the usage of "the Lord" to describe their relationship would have been immediately understood by the Christian community. If anything would have 'sparked' the first usage of "the Lord" in lieu of using Jesus' name, it would have been something like this.

I find your response regarding my first example of Jesus as the Lord of the dead and living to be a stretch, as it served no purpose other than to confuse, if "the Lord" in the prior verse (8) was God. And your rewrite of the second example to not be more helpful than my rewrite. So, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The grammar is straightforward.

1. you have "the lord", unqualified, no possessive pronoun, no "lord of" anything. Just κυριος and nothing else. It is unmistakable. In the LXX that is Yahweh.

2. you have "our lord", "the lord of the pteradactyls", "the lord Jesus". In this second case you have to treat κυριος as an ordinary noun. You consider what it means in its context.

It's as if you lose focus of the simple distinction by trying to wiggle out of the implications. It doesn't matter how many times 'Paul repeatedly used "the Lord Jesus Christ"'. It's still number two. The title. The indication of power or authority over something. In all the following it is number two:

our lord
our lord Jesus Christ
the lord Jesus Christ
our lord Jesus
Christ Jesus our lord
Jesus Christ our lord
Jesus the lord of truth, justice and the American way
one lord, Jesus
the lord god (LXX translation artefact)

In all the following we have the special use of κυριος:

the lord

This distinction should be evident as the latter usage needs no context. It needs to be unqualified in every way.

It should be obvious that the lord of the living and the dead is not the special κυριος, ie κυριος here is qualified. When Paul relates god and Jesus through language because Jesus is the representative of god, one expects similarities in the language. If you are a servant to Jesus, you are a servant of god (or a servant of the lord).

It doesn't matter that one of the terms Paul has strongly associated with Jesus is κυριος. It is not the special κυριος. Paul clearly shows what he is doing when he declares himself the servant of Jesus Christ. Jesus is his lord. That's a fundamental notion for Paul. It is still not the special κυριος. It is the plain old ordinary noun used in the usual way.

Bringing in what the gospel writers indicate has nothing to do with Paul. Influence can only go from what was before to what came later, not backwards.

We know that the special κυριος became used for Jesus, which is why christians can seemlessly use it for both god and Jesus and partly why they were saddled with the trinity. You need to establish when and in relation to which documents the special κυριος became used for Jesus. So we forget the gospel writers while dealing with Paul. That neither Mt or Mk evince a certain use of the special κυριος for Jesus should put a break on this line of argument, for we have an apparent relative chronology from Paul to Mk & Mt before the certain usage in Lk of the special κυριος for Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2013, 09:27 AM	#33
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	what you found is extremely profound no one's ever quite that it like that before

07-30-2013, 09:28 AM	#34
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I wish I could cite it but saying it comes from spin doesn't sound very academic

07-30-2013, 09:32 AM	#35
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	whenever my messages start looking like this it means I'm driving

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.