judge

This is just your excuse in this instance. You want to ignore the immediate context, so you will look anywhere but the immediate context. Paul refers to Jesus as Lord in verse three, then a few lines later uses the word Lord again. Was he trying to confuse his readers?

It just makes your case look extremely weak. It wil never fly in the real world. Its the same old problem. You post your ideas here, where there are always a few who will agree.

Look to the immediate context!!

judge

You are projecting your own 21st century take on this onto ancient readers!

Galatians is a letter written to one community. There is no reason to think that this community when they recieved the letter had access to all the other Pauline material.
They would have looked at the immediate context!

You of course in the 21sy century have all the other pauline material at hand, and so want to ignore the immediate context and invent excuses by looking elsewhere.

judge

Again you insist on ignoring the immediate context. Paul in verse 3 writes of the Lord Jesus...then in verse 19 he refers to the Lord again.

It doesn't make it wrong, it makes it very weak!

You cant even for a second stop and even consider that your theory might have problems. No that is too awful to contemplate. :devil1:

spin

Noting the immediate context doesn't mean ignoring the semantic range of the terms used. You can't understand anything doing so.

You obviously cannot understand "the lord says to my lord". How can you expect to understand "James, the brother of the lord"?

In no sense. You just lack the basic linguistics.

Nobody is claiming this. Straw man.

See above.

Now you are just running logorrheic. Obviously you refuse to do your job and so you spew naive banalities.

I have shown you that these are two distinct uses. Despite the fact that thoes uses were clearly understood in the Judeo-Christian cultural context, as it is found in both the LXX and christian literature citing the LXX, you continue not deal with the issue. How can you deal with the context when you cannot even deal with the language issues?

You've had years to attempt to show that there might be problems, but you continue to fall flat on your face at every outing.

:slowclap:

Either you can understand what the people of the times understood, ie the difference between the two usages of κυριος, or you can continue ignoring the obvious and have no means of understanding the relevant texts.

judge

Spin, stop for a minute. Stop and breathe, just for one minute.
Regardless of the points you are attempting to make.
Regardless of them.
The fact that Paul, just a few short words earlier refers to Jesus as lord signifigantly weakens your case.
Regardless of any argument about titular and non titular, it still dramatically weakens any case you make .

spin

It would be nice, if you'd thought of this rather than just echoing me.

Just as the Psalm translator used it differently in "the lord says to my lord".

Rubbish. Until you can work out what the words signify you cannot hope to understand. You are saying, let's forget what the specific word means. Really useful, judge. You must deal with the range of significance of the individual words in order to understand the context.

While you continue to refuse to deal with the distinction between the titular and non-titular uses of κυριος, as in LXX Ps 110:1, you are participating in a conversation without knowing what's going on, yet pretending you do.

judge

. Go back through the archives and you'll see that it was I who first gave you this advice. Then later , unconsciously no doubt, you then used it.



imitation. It's the sincerest firm of flattery. So I guess I'm flattered.

sschlichter

This reference (Mark 2:28) and Luke 10:2 is non-titular. The difficulty is yours.

sschlichter

this is the weakest argument I have ever seen clung to by such smart people.

spin

I'm sorry for your confusion. I've supplied you with enough information to understand the distinction. If you don't understand the issue, you should either stop talking about it or seek further clarification. As is, you have merely displayed your lack of understanding by insisting on your claim without interacting with what was said to you about it.

[HR=1]100[/HR]
If this had been a reference such as haShem ("the name") I doubt that there would be any confusion. The semantic content of the two words "ha" and "shem" is not at issue. It is a reference to the god of the Jews. When used to refer to god, it doesn't reduce to "the" and "name" to be used for their lexical content. It is merely a reference to god.

This is the case with the non-titular κυριος in the LXX, as inherited by Paul, who happily cites LXX referring to κυριος meaning god. But because of the later non-Jewish christian use of κυριος as the savior, what the non-titular κυριος referred to became blurred, helping the change to binitarian then trinitarian theology.