Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Jesus is Lord
OK so that out of the way, I don’t think Jesus actually ever considered himself lord, except of heaven, as in “my kingdom is not of this world”. God’s son and king are two very different things.
A dictionary definition (and there are many) that I think applies is “a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.” Most of the time the disciples called him teacher, or rabbi, not lord. Did Jesus have power, yes, did he wield it in that way? That is open to interpretation. I think his motivation was more as teacher then ruler.
One thing I was thinking when I posed it was this:
The term "lord," I think, has a more militaristic, or in-your-face sense today than it did when the KJV was translated.
Then, a lord, or nobleman, had responsibilities, as part of the concept of the Great Chain of Being, to care for the people living on his lands. They looked to him as landlord, in a more profound sense than we mean that word today, but they also looked to him for protection, and that's lost when people toss around the word "lord" today.
From "Great Chain of Being" at Wikipedia:
"Each link in the chain might be further divided into its component parts. In medieval secular society, for example, the king is at the top, followed by the aristocratic lords, and then the peasants below them. Solidifying the king's position at the top of humanity's social order is the doctrine of the divine right of kings. In the family, the father is head of the household; below him, his wife; below her, their children. The children might be subdivided so that the males are one link above the females."
What isn't made explicit above is the point that at every level of the chain, from the king on down, there is responsibility for the well-being of every one below. King's get as bad rap sometimes for the "divine right" stuff; but, in theory, in came with awesome responsibilities.
One does wonder what Rabbi Yeshua himself would think.
It is only after the Romanization of Christianity that "Jesus" as "Lord" begins to appear.
And it used as the dictionary term is used:
American Heritage Dictionary:
A man of high rank in a feudal society or in one that retains feudal forms and institutions, especially:
A territorial magnate.
The proprietor of a manor.
Lords The House of Lords.
(Abbr. Ld.) Chiefly British. The general masculine title of nobility and other rank:
Used as a form of address for a marquis, an earl, or a viscount.
Used as the usual style for a baron.
Used as a courtesy title for a younger son of a duke or marquis.
Used as a title for certain high officials and dignitaries: Lord Chamberlain; the Lord Mayor of London.
Used as a title for a bishop.
A man of renowned power or authority.
A man who has mastery in a given field or activity.
Archaic. The male head of a household.
Archaic. A husband.
How does the concept of Jesus as Lord fit in with the concept of Jesus as Logos? One is hierachial and the other is foundational.
Question: Does not "Lord" denote submission? How does that differ from "Islam" which means submission?
Good stuff on Mark being sans the word until it was probably added later. There's LOTS of stuff not in Mark that is in the other, later, Gospels.
Which raises a point: To synthesize the four Gospels is to conjure up a story that no one of the Gospel writers intended. Each is its own tale.
This is a good example of a basic LDS doctrine.
Trixie, have you ever heard of the Q-Gospel?
"All that the Church wants to-day is courage and devotion. Let but the Church know her rights and claim them, let her cease to assimilate herself to the sons of earth, let her cease from her accursed fornication with the state, and she shall become the pure, chaste bride of Christ."
Of course, I expect that I read that one way and others will read it vastly differently. To me, the "sons of the earth" are the ones living in fear, keeping God in a box, effectively using doctrinal bouncers to "fence" Communion and keep out "those kind of people" (choose your own "those").
But "accursed fornication with the state" is crystal clear. Church good. State good. Church mixed with state: Evil.
Here's the whole sermon:
That was a Greek concept, correct? Predating Jesus, actually? Makes sense to me that Greek thinkers would apply a Greek concept to try to explain the Mystery of Jesus as a bridge between Creator and Created -- not unlike the concept of Blood Atonement was a Jewish way of trying to wrap one's brain around the same general concept.
But it didn't originate with the Greeks. They adapted it from the Egyptian's concept of Maat. Maat, by one definition was the ubiquitous concept of right from wrong, truth, respect for the devine order set forth at the creation of the world. Maat bound all things together. If at the final judgement you were found to be outside the balance of Maat, your soul was eaten and you ceased to exist.
Other concepts almost identical to Logos are Tao, Rta, Dharma, and Shabda. In other words the concept is at least 6000 years old and is basic to most major religions. Why?
Was Jesus the culmination of all that expectation?
Drlobo, Well, the concept of "Logos" was used to assert, or explain, the deity of Jesus. So, in that sense, almost any Christian, but not all, would say Yes, Jesus was the culmination of all that expectation.
Another way to say it, tho, might be: Jesus, whether or not He was "God" or whether or not He was "divine" as most people mean it today ("God"), was the perfect example of God's love and the ultimate example of how to live "for God," which is to strive to live, and die if neeed be, for others.
But I am a simple creature.
If you try to accept both then you have classic Orwellian double think.
Thus the devine right of the King would equal to the free unfettered understanding of the individual. The obediant follower would be equal to the free thinking seeker.
Drlobo, I don't see them as mutually exclusive ideas -- not if *both* are efforts to comprehend and exoplain the Mystery!
Jesus as Logos does, in this context, require that one believe that Jesus was/is God. To conceive Jesus as "Lord" -- of one's life, of one's thoughts, of one's actions -- does not, IMHO, absolutely require belief in His deity as it understood by most of Christendom today, that is, that Jesus was/is "God."
But I see nothing Orwellian in adhering to both notions: Jesus is Lord, and Jesus is God. How are they contradictory, let alone antithetical to one another?
The Holy Trinity. The Father. The Son. The Holy Ghost. They are separate but equal.
A Baptist preacher described it as an egg: The Father (shell). The Son (the white). The Holy Ghost (the yoke).
I like it.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams
"Mysteries are due to secrecy." Francis Bacon
"What happens to the hole when the cheese is gone?"
Anyway, this video is rather cool in conjunction with the discussion:
You'll need a few minutes and your speakers on.
Interesting "splat" -- never heard the term in that context before. The narrative totally conflates every concept of God, the Creator, the Sacred, whatever, that I've ever heard of, which, I reckon, was the point. ...
I just can't help but think: Jesus spent his time, as far as we can tell, pointing people to God. And we spend our time pointing people to Jesus. "Why callest thou me good?" he said. "There is none good but God in heaven." Then, early-early on, His post-Easter followers came to conclude that they were one and the same.
I'm just sayin'.
Interesting video, interesting terms, how many of them have been applied to others before and since
Jesus? Seriously, which of those terms are orignial with/to Jesus alone?
Brushing up against the truth ER, you are.
The term "Lord' refers to letting him control our lives and souls completely. For His glory, not ours.
The term "Lord' refers to letting him control our lives and souls completely. For His glory, not ours.
The 1.8 inch monster insects have already devastated bee populations in huge areas of France.
Now they are expected to cross the Channel and swoop on British honey bees who are just a quarter of their size.
The Asian hornets, with a three-inch wingspan, can also attack humans with their stings. Their bite has been compared to a hot nail entering the body.
They feed their young with the larvae of bees, whose nests they ransack.
A handful can destroy a nest of 30,000 bees in hours — a major fear for the UK beekeeping industry. Their football shaped nests cover forests in Aquitaine, southern France.
The hornet is thought to have arrived in Europe from Asia in crates of Chinese pottery in 2004. Climate change has been blamed for its rapid spread.
Stuart Hine, of the Natural History Museum in London, said: “There’s no doubt that these hornets are heading north and will probably find their way to Britain.
Need I say more.
Mathew 4:6-7 (the devil)and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written 'He will command his angels concerning you and with their hands they will support you lest you dash your foot against a stone.'" Jesus answered him. "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God, to the test.'" Luke also has this account in his gospel. The Apostles were constantly calling Jesus "Lord." Sure, they called him "master" and "teacher." Martha and Mary (Lazarus's sister) also called Jesus "Lord." See John 11:27-32. "Doubting" Thomas refers to Jesus as "My Lord and my God" in John 21:28. Also, Jesus did refer to himself as the ruler of the world in John 17:11. Anyway. The Apostles knew that Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah. "Lord" in these contexes means God. Jesus refers to Himself as "I Am" several times which is how God refers to Himself when speaking to Moses at the burning bush.
Actually, except as a nortmal subject/verb, Jesus only refers to himself once as the Jehova version of "I Am".
John 8:58 (New King James Version)
58: Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Hornets- bees- Lord- Jesus ?
"This is a term translated at for King James when he wanted a bible in English. One of the things he did is interpret certain terms in the context of a divine kingship thus enhancing his own divine right to kingship."
To that I say amen. Especially since many times in the King James version the word "Lord" is used instead of the hebrew word for rabbi, master, etc.
I don't know what the heck the UK hornets-bees thing is all about.