judge

Or what about verse 1 Corinthians 6:14?

14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

Galatians 1:18-20

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

sschlichter

1 Cor 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
1 Cor 6:16 Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is one body with her? For it is said, " The two will become one flesh."
1 Cor 6:17 But the one united with the Lord is one spirit with him.

just to avoid what I expect will be a suggestion that 6:17 is not referring to Christ, I included a little context.

Other examples, of which there are legion:

1 Cor 9:1 Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
1 Cor 15:57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!
2 Cor 11:31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is blessed forever

to stick with Galatians - In chapter 5 Paul is advocating freedom from the law in Christ. It is apparent that he is using the Lord and Christ Jesus interchangably.

Gal 5:3 And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Gal 5:4 You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace!
Gal 5:5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait expectantly for the hope of righteousness.
Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight - the only thing that matters is faith working through love.
...
Gal 5:10 I am confident in the Lord that you will accept no other view.


The non-titular use looks like this.

Matt 8:25 So they came and woke him up saying, "Lord, save us! We are about to die!"

judge

You've had much more time to at least do your homework. Then you wont make blunders like you did in the very first line of this thread.

And then you whole case is based around this error...

Then of course matthew 13:55 is shown to you.

But of course that's not anything to be concerned about. You've already decided your conclusion so let's just make the new facts fit..ughh...uummmph...

Dont you think it would be better to do your homework, get your facts straight, see all the facts and then make your theory up, rather than shoehorn things later on?

aa5874

Your post is MOST laughable. A resurrected Ghost was human because there are stories about a GHOST that ate food AFTER it was buried!!!!! What a big joke.

But, tell us the whole joke. You IGNORED the funniest part.

The HUMAN GHOST will LIFT OFF.

Houston we have a BIG JOKE. GHOST/MAN, Jesus Christ, was the FIRST to ROCKET into SPACE without a ROCKET over 1800 years ago.

Luke 24.51 And please look at Luke 1.34-35 to see how Ghost/man, Jesus Christ, was CONCEIVED. It is NOT a laughing matter. A ghost did it.


Do you have GALATIANS 1.1-16 in your Bible? Do you realise that the Pauline writings are NON-HERETICAL and that the Church writers IDENTIFIED and REFUTED the Heresy that Jesus was a man WITH A HUMAN father?

You MUST first understand the BELIEFS of antiquity. You must FIRST read at least "Against Heresies"25 & 26 attributed to Irenaeus. "Paul" was NOT LISTED as a Heretic. In the NT CANON, "Paul" did NOT preach the Heresy that Jesus was a man with a human father.

This is "PAUL" in Galatians 1.1 You WONT find a man in the NT called Jesus Christ only GOD INCARNATE.

sschlichter

definition of incarnate: invested with bodily and especially human nature and form.

Good job, you found the man Jesus Christ!

This would be easier (and frankly more enjoyable) if you understood the difference between what you beleive and what the author is stating. If the question was whether aa8654 believes in the hypostatic union then I could have just answered no.

spin

Thanks for trying to help judge, but once you'd pointed him to the area he stumbled on a good example....

It's good to see you try to play catch up, judge.

I have always said that there were a few examples where a Pauline letter features a non-titular κυριος used for Jesus. And I have said that they are in contexts that point to the usage as interpolation. Get ready to whinge:... Boo-hoo, interpolation. How convenient!

For the rest of the people reading...

The passage 1 Cor 6:12-20 is about the body of the believer. More specifically 6:13-15,

"Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food," and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. Do you not know your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never."

Oh, I left out v.14:

"And God raised the Lord and will raise us by his power."

Can you see without checking your bible where it fits into the discourse? As I read it, it is pure non sequitur to the developed argument. And while the rest of the discourse reflects to the needs of the Pauline community at Corinth and has little relevance outside it, the sentence about the raising of the Lord (v.14) is generic and would be considered the most significant statement in the passage.

The grounds we use in looking for an interpolation involve amongst other things a passage

1. lacking direct relevance to the context; and

2. having more significance than its context.

Under other circumstances I would also argue on the linguistic grounds that the use of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus doesn't fit Paul's use of the term for god. I'd ask, how can a term uniquely used for god (as Paul inherited the term) suddenly be used for Jesus? It makes instances of its usage that have no contextual clues suddenly become meaningless. What does κυριος refer to in 1 Cor 7? If the non-titular κυριος can also mean Jesus, there is no way of knowing...

...just as there would still be no way of knowing what κυριος referred to here.

judge has assiduously refused to consider the issue.

[HR=1]100[/HR]
Back to hjalti, there is an opposition in 1 Cor 6:16-17 (the prostitute and the lord) which is analogous with the opposition in 1 Cor 9:20-21 (demons and the lord). 1 Cor 9:22 clearly points to the fact that "the lord" refers to the god of Israel with its reference to "provoking ... to jealousy". You can eat from the table of demons or from the table of [god]. (1 Cor 9:26 also indicates that "the lord" refers to god by surreptitiously citing from Ps 24:1.)

In 6:16-17, as one can be joined with the prostitute is one flesh, one can be joined to the lord and is one spirit. I see no problem here, if "the lord" refers to god. It is all metaphorical language.

aa5874

Your JOKE gets bigger.

You MUST now get the definition for "GOD INCARNATE".

It must have occurred to you that "GOD INCARNATE" has a different meaning to "incarnate".

Why did you NOT show the meaning of "God Incarnate"?

I can't even trust you to look up the meaning of TWO words.

spin

Now, read it.

Titular.

Titular.

Umm, blatantly titular.

Hello, think about "the lord says to my lord" as a good indicator of the difference.

You can underline whatever you like, but there is no argument here.

"Lord" here is ... you guessed it, titular. The Greek vocative is a helpful indicator. The non-titular κυριος by its nature is always in the 3rd person.

hjalti

spin, did you miss this post?

A small correction: I think you are refering to 1 cor 10, not 9.

I think it's possible that in 1 Cor 10 Paul is talking about Jesus as the god of Israel, Yahweh.

When I examine 1 Cor 6 again, I think it could swing either way: the union in v. 15 of the believer with Christ points in my opinion to the Lord being Jesus. But v. 19 (where the holy, indwelling spirit is from god) could point in the other direction.

---

I just noticed v. 11 talks about the spirit of our god.

spin

Because it argues based on what it says regarding other apparent interpolations in the text. You can't just have Gal 1:18-24 without the other interpolations.

You understand we disagree.

I don't need to assume that it is an interpolation. Ochkam prefers the simpler approach.

Which I deal with in this thread.

This is a linguistic issue, not what you buy into necessarily, but how the reader can know what a reference means. Does Paul refer to both god and Jesus with the non-titular κυριος and how can you know at any one time who is being referred to?

I've been working from the few examples that necessitate a reading of Jesus.