spin

Zzzzzz. Oh, wot? Oh, I use "Hebrew bible" instead of the polemical "old testament". Ok? Zzzzzz.

I have little interest in psychology and I was being polite. Those interested in psych are often those who are needy.

Although I'm not interested in psych, don't fool yourself into thinking I don't know anything about it.

(Left for you to contemplate.)

Attempting not to project.

Dunno.

Convenient.

I was merely saying that there was an interpolation in v.29, not that t he whole verse is an interpolation. It mentions "the body" and someone after the last supper interpolation felt it was necessary to clarify the body as "of the lord".

The problem is that I still don't know what you mean by "absolute use".[/quote]
It functions as a name ("The lord said..."), not as a title ("my lord" or "the lord Jesus"). Hence "the lord said to my lord" demonstrates the difference between absolute and titular use of kurios.


spin

Solo

But then again Jesus, as the referent of the title. stands in some places as a (near-)absolute Lord. When Paul says "not I but the Lord" he means Christ as manifestation God. In 1 Th 4:16 he even emphasizes Christ as 'autos ho kyrios'. So I don't buy this distinction: in the psalm of David the meaning is clear : 'God said to my king', but you cannot operate with this cookie cutter across the NT texts with meaningful results.

It looks like Mark deliberately plays with the titular use of the word, when he wants to indicate the supplicants are in distress, doubling up the "absolute" use with the title of Jesus (whose name suggests positive answer to a cry for God's help) who (Mark suggests to the reader through allegory) stands in front of them. The Syrophoenician woman (7:28), the father of the epileptic boy (9:24), Bartimaeus (10:51), are examples of this.

Jiri

spin

(Thanks for straightening out the QUOTE tags, I note I left them in a mess.)

There is no reason to read autos ho kurios as referring to Jesus. Those who are dead in Christ will rise to heaven. This is the sort of passage that is always understood to indicate that it is Jesus, but is Paul really communicating such an idea or is that just unsupported trinitarian exegesis?

Both Mk 7:28 and Mk 9:24 are vocatives (functionally 2nd person), plainly titular. Why do you see the writer using kurie outside the expected titular of respect? (Mk 10:51 is rabbouni.)


spin

Solo

Yes, Paul is "really communicating" the idea that the Lord himself will "descend" from heaven. Any place in the tanakh where YHWH moves around ?

You are right about Mk 10:51. But the other two are 'kyrie'.

I have just explained what I see Mark doing: he is using the Pauline (near-absolute) 'Lord' to convey that Jesus' acts (or acts that he is asked to perform) are miracles of God and that these are attainable through faith. So, the 'lord' in them is not the equivalent of sir, in a query like: may I have your autograph ?.

Jiri

spin

With or without merkabah?

As I said. One of us had to check it, right?

It's just like rabbouni. See Matt's parables of the bridesmaids, 25:11, and of the talents, 25:20, for a similar use of kurie.


spin

Solo

You got that mixed up with the sweet thing that swings low, spin. Are you telling me Ezekiel actually saw 'the Lord' sitting in that terrific contraption ?

The Matt context are Jesus' kingdom parables - not the same thing as the two Markan instances.

Jiri

spin

Your off on a tangent. The chariot of god implies rider being god. Is it not tradition that god is seated on the throne in the innermost palace of the seventh heaven? Why can't he be the rider of the merkabah??

No squirming: the use of language is the same.


spin

Solo

These are your assertions, not mine, spin. If you have anything in a way of reference to the idea that God in the tanakh was riding in (on/under) Ezekiel's chariot, please provide.


I am sorry if this appears trivial to you. But apparently, in the heat of the argument, you forgot what we were arguing about : we were to determine whether the address of Jesus as lord in NT is plain 'titular' or whether some of that heavenly glory that was previously of the Lord (God) was transferred to him. For this argument, of course it makes a great deal of difference if examples that you provide are specimen of the use of lord by Jesus.

Jiri

aa5874

But, whether or not the TF was interpolated, the information as presented in the TF supports the MJ position.

Like the writer called Paul, the writer Josephus would have written about one specific mythical event.

The resurrection.

Josephus, if the TF is genuine, did not write about any specific event, doctrine or follower of Jesus, just that he did ten thousand unspecified wonderful things and was seen in a resurrected state.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

spin

You are asserting that god didn't ride in his own chariot. And you're projecting your act of asserting onto me.

Not trivial. Arbitrary. For some reason you have lost sight of the fact that the exact same language is used in the two parables as with the titular references to Jesus. You have no reason to assume that there is any difference as they are used exactly the same way, all titular. You mistakenly brought rabbouni into the discussion and cannot see that it clarifies the contrary position to yours. When you thought the verse had "kurios" you were happy to mention it, but when you found out that it was a different title you simply let it go rather than correct your error.


spin