spin

Fine.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that. And I agree with this:

On 1 Cor 7:25
Neither do I, but then I don't think Paul used κυριος ambivalently. I think its non-titular use for Jesus was later marginal commentary which was later included in the text that did.

And as you might imagine I would disagree. I think the idea that Paul could use the non-titular term κυριος for Jesus is only possible when the religion had left its Jewish roots behind, ie well after Paul's time and it is found acceptable when contemplated once the binitarian idea had become popular.

When you use a term such that the reader cannot tell what its reference is you stop communicating. And Paul certainly wanted to communicate.


spin

ApostateAbe

Guys, the veterans of this forum know that aa5874 always wins the argument, usually by default, because we always leave him alone.

Petergdi

But Paul had a reasonable expectation that his readers could tell. The recipients of his letters had a much clearer idea of mid first century theology and christology than modern bible commentators do. We can only have a theory of what they thought - I personally think my theory correct - but they actually knew what they thought.

Yes, but sometimes he failed to do so. I'm certain that people were already misreading him on the status of the Law when he was alive and writing. I don't think there was any contemporary misunderstanding of his christology because there is no sign of conflict or misunderstanding on that account in his letters while there is plenty of evidence of conflict and misunderstanding about his ideas about the Law.

Peter.

spin

What I referred to was a semantics issue. We have a text which apparently uses a term ambivalently. How can any reader know what the word means in any given use without sufficient contextual clues? You can try to assume that the reader didn't need them, but that's not reasonable. Either there are clues that allow the reader to tell and you can assume that we just can't see them, or there aren't and the idea of an ambivalent term is an imposition on Paul's text. I cannot assume that the ancient reader is linguistically more attuned than the modern reader as to contextual clues. One would expect not that such clues were invisible to us, but visible though arcane to us.

I don't think so either, but for a more transparent reason. The ambivalence in the term is a later imposition, when the non-titular κυριος is regularly used, but that is not the case by the time Mark was completed, as the non-titular use isn't found in Mark. And I don't remember such use in Matt either. We have to wait until Lk 7:13 for the first gospel use of κυριος for Jesus. This also suggests the non-titular use is post-Pauline.


spin

Steven Carr

This is also in Luke's Gospel, but , of course, there are early manuscripts of Luke's Gospel where this is missing, and Ehrman puts forward a very convincing case that it was added by scribes later to harmonise with Paul.

Why did Jesus tell the cult how to set up a ritualistic meal whereby his body would be present?

After all, surely everybody could already see that his body was present.

Or could they?

show_no_mercy

Post proof instead of histrionics.

Petergdi

But there is nothing unreasonable in the idea that the original readers might have the tools to sort it out more easily than you can. I can't think of a case where I don't think I know which is meant, even though some commentators do seem bewildered. It is possible that I may be sometimes wrong, but the original audience is unlikely to be confused.

But if they aren't linguistic clues, but background knowledge cues then your case is very weak.

If you know that Jesus's brother James is the big man in the Jerusalem church, then "the Lord's brother" is not confusing at all.

If you know that Jesus made rulings on how his followers should live, then having "no command of the Lord" about whether virgins should marry is obviously a reference to Jesus.

They are invisible to you because of your rules of interpretation. While I concede the possibility that the background knowledge available to me might be significantly different from the background knowledge of the original recipients of Paul's letters, the idea that they had no background knowledge is absurd.

It is interesting that third person use of "Lord" by itself to refer to Jesus is absent from Matthew and Mark, but present in Luke and John. I hadn't actually noticed that before. Second person use of "Lord" for Jesus is common enough in the first two gospels, but not third person use. (I do not count Mark 11:3 and Matthew 21:3 as exceptions.) The Clementine Recognitions and Homilies do use "Lord" in this way, while they are late, they do not appear to have the kind of christology that you seem to think lies behind this use.

I don't buy the idea that the absence of third person use of "Lord" by itself for Jesus in Matthew and Mark indicates that such use postdated those gospels, but it does seem to be an interesting fact, and I thank you for pointing it out.

Peter.

Petergdi

While you might think that when aa5874 voices an idea, it can only serve to discredit it in the mind of a reasonable person, anyone (even aa5874) repeating a false statement may tend to make people think that that statement is true.

Peter.

aa5874

Your response is rather silly and unsubstantiated.

You have not pointed a single false statement in any of my post where I showed, using a source of antiquity, that the Jesus of the Ebionites was considered a human through normal reproduction while the Jesus of the Pauline writer was regarded as the Son of God who was raised from the dead.

You have made a claim which appears to be false that the christology of the Ebionites was similar to that of the Pauline writer yet you have not provide a source of antiquity to support your assertion.

Based on Church History by Eusebius, the Ebionites REJECTED ALL the Pauline writINGS and called him an apostete of the Law.

It is false that The Christology of the Ebionites is the same as the Christology of the Pauline writer based on "Church History" by Eusebius.

Church History 3.27.1-2 See http://www.newadvent.org

Petergdi

Paul also regarded Jesus as a human through normal reproduction.

The Ebionites also regarded Jesus as the Son of God who was raised from the dead.

Have you ever read Paul for the purpose of finding out what he actually said rather than for finding out what someone else wants you to think he said?

I will give you one big hint - Paul thought that everyone was in the form of God and he thought what was special about Jesus was his obedience.

Peter.