spin

Doh! Point missed. You had help. What did the ancient reader do?? Your bible gave you a footnote, but the ancient publishing industry didn't get that sophisticated. Get the issue?

(I found the following attempt at an analysis more indicative of assumption...)

Oops, moving from titulary use of kurios ("our lord") to absolute use ("my work in the lord") and assuming the same referent. You should be ready for such a change from Ps 110, "the lord says to my lord...." (think about the situation as an ancient reader, if you only had the LXX: eipen o kurios tw kuriw mou).

You haven't scratched the surface.

Is there any philology somewhere behind this that needs consideration?

I didn't say anything about 1 Cor 9:5 being an interpolation. It was an example of how you would certainly assume too much.

OK, finish them.

OK, what are your questions?


spin

spin

I wish a few of those historicists would get a little insight as well.


spin

sschlichter

besides your annoying assumption that I am hear to try to guess what is on your mind, it appears to be a moot issue. if not, then you are going to have to spell it out for me. try typing real slow. Are you suggesting that Saul, son of a Pharisee would not have known the OT?

I do not need to assume the same referent. climb off of the big white horse you rode in on and answer the question. Who is the use of kurios referring to in verse 1?

I gave you concrete reasons (i think thre were 3 or 4) why I personally would interpret it to mean jesus brothers. I also gave you a summary of why it is a moot point even if I did not. You claim that the ambiguous use of kurios is a hint of interpolation, i ask for verses, you supply this one, I point out it does not relate, you point out it was an assumption test. this is what I call tedious.

1)
ouk eimi eleuqeroj ouk eimi apostoloj ouxi ihsoun ton kurion hmwn eoraka ou to ergon mou umeij este en kuriw

Who is the underlined referring to?

2)
How is Rom 4:8 ambiguous when Psalms 32:2 in the Septuagint is not?

spin

Paul is not the issue: it is his readership. I plainly talked a bout the ancient reader. How the fuck would an ancient reader have been able to see that Paul was citing from a psalm??? The reader didn't have footnotes. Get it?

There are two uses: one is as a title; the other is a reference in place of a name, an absolute reference.

Have I not seen Jesus our lord [title!]? Are you not my work in the lord [absolute!]?

Assumptions. You assume that the gospels are relevant. You assume it doesn't matter that these are different uses of kurios. And you assume you can count.

I seem to have overvalued your reading abilities. I said nothing of the sort.

I said that all the instances I know of that are absolute uses of kurios referring to Jesus appear to be in disturbed contexts. That should put you ill at ease when trying to make sense of those absolute uses of kurios for Jesus.

Your persistent lack of understanding is tedious to me. You rumble on not noticing very much of the issues at all.

Umm, you didn't underline it correctly. you should have ton kurion hmwn and that answers your question. It ain't god. But look at the second use in the same verse. That's what you need to consider more carefully.

(And your transliteration is strange because you are using a "j" for the final sigma which confuses. It's clearer if you don't make the distinction between final and medial sigma.)

I do get the idea that there are diminishing returns when it is so hard to explain things to you.

I did not say that Rom 4:8 was ambiguous. In fact I said the quite the opposite:

Is Rom 4:8's "(the) lord" refer to Jesus or to god? (You can answer this one.) What about Rom 9:28? (It's easy because of 9:29.) Others can be quite hard to decide. What are "brothers of the lord" (1 Cor 9:5)? Are they a religious group or brothers of Jesus?

:banghead:


spin

avi

Hmm. Responding in this fashion suggests that you do know the date when Mithras was born...May I inquire, which piece of evidence points to his birth date?

Hmm. Responding in this fashion suggests that you do know the date when Jesus was born...May I inquire, which piece of evidence points to his birth date?

Jedi Mind Trick

No, I don't admit to 1 to 1 similarities. I think there are some, I said some, very loose similarities, but nothing that I think sticks to the "Jesus is all myth" scenario. As to the paucity of references outside the bible I am quite comfortable with the idea that Jesus was more low key than what the NT would have us believe. He, quite simply was probably overlooked outside of Palestine due to the turmoil of the time in which he lived and the fall in 70 CE.

sschlichter

ah, your grammatical ambiguities are actually not even grammatical. they are based on your assumption that there are no Jews in the corinthian church. gotcha! I understand your version of reality and now I will discard it. If you want someone to follow along in your little q & a games, then you have to let them know what incorrect assumptions you are making along the way. so there is no grammatical ambiguity then.

if you cannot bring yourself to say that 1 cor 9:1 is referring to Jesus then all the greek in the world will not assit you in overcoming your stubborn-ness in the face of the correct understanding of reality.

Doug Shaver

OK. That works.

angelo

So according to you, Jesus was unique in claiming to be a son of god, the messiah no less. During this time frame there were litterely hundreds of so called messiahs who all claimed to be sons of god.

Kapyong

Gday,

Oh please !
No games thanks.

There is NO evidence that Mithras was born on Dec. 25th.

It's just an urban legend.

K.