spin

I'd say the same to you over the years trying to get you to think about things.

You've petered out of another incarnation of this discussion, still refusing to process the implications of the differing usage of κυριος.

sschlichter

This fellow must be confused as well. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [on amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk) ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels In these cases it amounts to a non-titular use without any transcendant implications. For instance, in Mark 2:28 when Jesus says the Son of God is lord of the Sabbath, he means he is one who exercises authority over the rules that govern the Sabbath. Of a similar nature is the non-titular use in Luke 10:2.

or...trinitarianism is a concept developed by the church to explain the peculiar sharing of Lordship between Jesus and the Father in Paul's writings.

This theory does not require that we take scissors out when Paul does not fall in line.

spin

Apparently. Whether the title refers to a real or metaphorical situation is irrelevant.

Already answered and shown not reflective of Paul.

Consider 1 Cor 2:16, "For who has known the mind of the Lord to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." Paul contrasts the mind of the Lord with the mind of Christ. We don't know the mind of the Lord, but we do know the mind of Christ, who, it is implied, knows the mind of the Lord.

Or 1 Cor 8:6, "for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." One god and one lord, two separate entities. (And "lord" here is obviously the position, hence titular.)

Or 1Cor 11:3, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ." This indicates a tiered relationship as christ is to every man, so god is to christ.

Paul clearly sees a nett distinction between the two entities, christ and god. He was certainly no trinitarian (or binitarian).

This rhetoric makes no sense to me.

sschlichter

perhaps you should read up on the trinity.

Christ is subservient to the father in orthodox trinitarianism.

All 3 members of the Trinity are distinct personalities in orthodox trinitarianism.

none of your verses are contradictory to the doctrine of Trinity.

scissors are used to cut paper. You can use scissors to shape a piece of paper by cutting out the pieces that you do not want. What is left is something you can consider your own. it is a very simple analogy.

avi

Steve: I am probably way off base here. Please correct my mistakes.

I thought that JC was only subservient to Yahweh in the tradition of Arius.

I understood, perhaps quite erroneously, the battle of Nicea to represent a defeat of Arius, and in particular, then, a defeat of his idea that there was a time when Jesus did not exist, i.e. that he MUST have been subservient to Yahweh, because he was created by Yahweh, like everything else in the universe.

I fail to comprehend how this question relates to spin's main issue: when did James become Jesus' brother? How does a "proper" definition of trinitarianism clarify the distinction between Kyrios meaning God, and kyrios meaning "master", i..e Lord? In the latter case, it would seem theoretically possible for a human "master", aka "lord" to have a brother. In the former situation, It seems incongruous that any omnipotent god, in this case, Yahweh, would require a "son", let alone a son with a brother.....

I remain unconvinced that the original text of Septuagint confounded Yahweh with Kyrios, instead of theos.

I have yet to locate a reference where Jupiter or Zeus are described as mere kyrios.

I understand show_no_mercy's argument that ancient Jews considered the word adon (or perhaps adonai, or adoni, sorry, I don't even understand English grammar, let alone Hebrew) to represent an honorific suitable for either human or Gods, thus equating mere humans with supernatural, omnipotent god, but that strikes me as confused thinking at best. I just don't accept the notion that ancient Jews would have accepted a lower status for Yahweh, than for Jupiter.....

avi

spin

Perhaps you should. We are dealing with evidence of two separate entities. If that doesn't communicate with you then following your logic there is no distinction between every man and christ and god.

God and christ as two separate entities overtly eliminates trinitarianism.

Personalities are a different issue from separate entities. One can retrofit trinitarianism through the multiple personality fudge, but it's inappropriate with the cited Pauline material.

Except for the fact that we are dealing with separate entities.

So the analogy was irrelevant.

And I'm highly impressed with your effort to defend the trinity.

judge

I considered what you had to say. I just don't think it's as convincing as you do. I have not said it is not worth looking at.
What I am saying is this . When we look at all the evidence, rather than just some of it, your theory looks weak.

Part of the evidence is the various uses of kurios. This is all you want to look at. There is more evidence to consider as outlined above.
When all the evidence is considered your theory ain't that strong.

sschlichter

ok, but after that, you will probably need to correct mine.

Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. What was at stake at Nicea is whether Jesus was a created being, not his subordination. The Nicene formula inisted that he was God from God, of the same substance as God. Arius beleived Jesus to be created by God. orthodoxy won the debate but christianity was very much arian for some time after Nicea.

subordination does not equate to inferiority. His eternal subordination is of order and operation, not of essence. he is begotten, not born - eternally begotten - eternally emanating from/with the Father - never created, never born.


I do not know why spin brought up the Trinity but his statement was speculative and incorrect, in my humble opinion.

~Steve

sschlichter

defend? I am applying the correct definition so you do not continue to err.

spin

This is hard to believe. You've made no response as to the differing meanings of κυριος in LXX Ps 110:1, nor have you shown any meaningful way of understanding the usage of κυριος in Gal 1:19. All you tried to do was to present a position which ignored the evidence regarding κυριος. This was a good sign that you had not considered what I had to say.

What is my theory?

What evidence did you outline above exactly?

See above.