Is Saint Paul more authoritative than the Gospels?

[blü 2]

As for Saint Paul, I can assure that philologists have found out that the Pauline style is so unique that all the epistles attributed to him (except Hebrews) are from the same person. Because there is a very unique pattern in the use of Greek words, and in the way of reasoning. There are zero doubts on them.

Interesting. It's been some years since I looked into the arguments about which of the letters attributed to Paul were likely written by him and which were pseudepigraphical.

Wikipedia, vox Dei ipsius, says:

Paul

1 Thessalonians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Philippians
PhilemonRomans​

Likely Paul

Ephesians
Colossians
2 Thessalonians​

Unlikely Paul

1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus​

Not

Hebrews​

which didn't surprise me so I think it's fairly close to what I dug up back then.

 

[Brian2]

Paul's letters were, it appears, unknown in the general Christian community until followers of Marcion produced them in arguments in the mid second century. This has given rise to the question, are they forgeries, written later? One of the reasons I think they're most likely authentic is that no one wanting to be taken seriously would invent a character like Paul, whose letters reveal a dingbat quality to his personality.

Dating the New Testament - Early Church Fathers

 

[Brian2]

Paul (like all the other NT authors) never met an historical Jesus.

That most of the authors of the NT did not meet Jesus seems to be a common fallacy of modern scholarship.
It seems to be based on the naturalistic methodology of science which is brought into history and presumes that anything supernatural in the stories is not true and so the prophecy about the Temple destruction has to have been written after or very close to 70AD, the date of the destruction.
Thus the authors were late enough not to have known Jesus.
Sceptics like modern scholarship because of it's presumptions about the supernatural and resulting conclusions and how they can use them in their ideas about the Bible.
The whole thing of course is circular reasoning. No supernatural in.(naturalistic methodology),,,,,,,,,,,, therefore no supernatural out (conclusion)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Neither the Gospels nor Paul's letters were written till after Jesus death. Neither the Gospels nor the letters are first hand accounts of what Jesus said or did.

It is likely that like Paul , the Gospel writers never met or heard Jesus teach.

The Gospels and Paul's writings concentrate on different things. The Gospels concentrate on Jesus words and doings. While Paul concentrates on what happened after Jesus death. And the establishment of communities and the correction and keeping their Teachings in line with his own.

Virtually all the Churches today owe more to Paul than any other influence.

While the Gospels might be considered to hold the majority of Jesus teachings.
Paul's has moulded the doctrine and character of the churches.

He was particularly concerned with the de-jewification of the Christian beliefs, and it's spread of it, in to the new non Jewish communities. He enabled the move of the centre of Christianity away from Jerusalem to Rome. And the leadership and influence from the teachings of James and Peter to those of himself.

Today Christianity is seen through the filter of Paul and his writings.

 

[Estro Felino]

Neither the Gospels nor Paul's letters were written till after Jesus death. Neither the Gospels nor the letters are first hand accounts of what Jesus said or did.

It is likely that like Paul , the Gospel writers never met or heard Jesus teach.

The Gospels and Paul's writings concentrate on different things. The Gospels concentrate on Jesus words and doings. While Paul concentrates on what happened after Jesus death. And the establishment of communities and the correction and keeping their Teachings in line with his own.

Virtually all the Churches today owe more to Paul than any other influence.

While the Gospels might be considered to hold the majority of Jesus teachings.
Paul's has moulded the doctrine and character of the churches.

He was particularly concerned with the de-jewification of the Christian beliefs, and it's spread of it, in to the new non Jewish communities. He enabled the move of the centre of Christianity away from Jerusalem to Rome. And the leadership and influence from the teachings of James and Peter to those of himself.

Today Christianity is seen through the filter of Paul and his writings.

I am sorry, but I disagree with this statement. The Gospels are so important that an entire Church is called evangelical after the Gospels.
This episode where you can see Jesus Christ's love towards the Gentiles show that the Gospel does mention that Christianity is for both Jews and Gentiles.

In the four Gospels you can find nothing but Love.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am sorry, but I disagree with this statement. The Gospels are so important that an entire Church is called evangelical after the Gospels.
This episode where you can see Jesus Christ's love towards the Gentiles show that the Gospel does mention that Christianity is for both Jews and Gentiles.

In the four Gospels you can find nothing but Love.

I have not denied the importance of the Gospels.
It is estimated that a quarter of all Christians are Evangelicals.
That would leave Three quarters that are not.
Most of whom also revere the Gospels.
However they could not be said to base their faith exclusively on them.

The Apostles knew nothing of the Bible or the Gospels.
Nor did their congregations.
Were they not Christians.?

I am not an evangelical,
does that make me unchristian?

 

[Truth in love]

Hi guys
This is particularly aimed at all Christians, regardless of their denomination.
This is something I have remarked throughout these years, on RF. Thanks to RF, I could discuss religion with other Christians, since in my country it is very difficult because it is not that religiously diverse.

According to my personal experience, I can say that being raised Catholic, a real, traditional Catholic education entirely focuses on the study of the Gospels. I vividly recall that my catechism teacher saying that the Gospel is more important than Saint Paul's epistles. Because
1) Saint Paul is not Jesus. The Gospels narrate what Jesus said.
2) Saint Paul is an apostle. Jesus is the Lord. Men are fallible, the Lord is infallible.
3) Saint Paul's epistles are answers to queries sent by the very first Christian communities across the Mediterranean (mainly in Greece and Anatolia). They have the form and the purpose of opinions and advises and yet they are considered like a Gospel.

Nevertheless, I really remarked that so many Christians quote Saint Paul much more often than the Gospels. As if Saint Paul was God.
The four Gospels are so rich in anecdotes, parables. It is about Jesus' teachings by 70%, while the 30% is about His life.
Please, discuss.

I’ve seen the trend many times. Paul’s teachings (some taken way out of context) form the basis for much of modern Christian thought.

One of the most telling is the placing of

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Below Paul saying saved by grace.

Now I love Paul’s teachings viewed through the the reality that most of what he wrote was trying to correct errors which came after he had been to various places to teach. In no way can they be a trump card over the words of Christ or the other apostles.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have not denied the importance of the Gospels.
It is estimated that a quarter of all Christians are Evangelicals.
That would leave Three quarters that are not.
Most of whom also revere the Gospels.
However they could not be said to base their faith exclusively on them.

The Apostles knew nothing of the Bible or the Gospels.
Nor did their congregations.
Were they not Christians.?

I am not an evangelical,
does that make me unchristian?

Let's analyze a practical example, then: soteriology and hamartiology.

What does Saint Paul says about sin and salvation?
Does he say that all sins are equal in the eyes of God?
How does a person attain salvation?

 

[Estro Felino]

Now I love Paul’s teachings viewed through the the reality that most of what he wrote was trying to correct errors which came after he had been to various places to teach. In no way can they be a trump card over the words of Christ or the other apostles.

Surely. But some speculate that Paul's epistles are more convenient to a certain narrative, that sees Christianity as an individualistic relationship between individual and God.

 

[Truth in love]

Surely. But some speculate that Paul's epistles are more convenient to a certain narrative, that sees Christianity as an individualistic relationship between individual and God.
Whereas the Gospels restlessly focus on universal brotherhood, and on the notion of sin as result of selfishness and greed.
Hence the reason why Paul's epistles have been turned into the real and only Gospel.

His writings to the current members vs those wishing to join have been used to dismiss baptism.

His rejection of “The law” have been used to dismiss the reality of commandments.

My snarky view over the years has been that those who want to “be saved” without actually following Christ tend to this type of Christian beliefs.

In more humble moments I go with the doing the best they know and are very sincere in what they believe.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Just to be clear, I said above,

He [Paul] expressly doesn't think Jesus is God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11) ─ but neither do any of the gospel authors.​

1 Corinthians 8:6 says:

yet 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.​

Paul's language keeps this distinction between God and Lord throughout.
Only Paul and the author of John think Jesus pre-existed in Heaven with God ie it's not the view of the synoptic authors. . It's consistent with the gnostic view but not decisive on its own, of course. What's decisive is Paul's statement that Jesus created the universe ─ the last part of the Corinthians quote above. It puts Paul's Jesus squarely in the role of the demiurge ("craftsman") who created the material universe, because creating anything material was nothing that would occur to a being so pure, so spiritual and so remote as the gnostic god ─ whence the necessity for a mediator (eg as in John 17).

And John's Jesus also created the universe ─ you can see these propositions together in John 1:2 ─

2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.​

Though all five major NT authors think Jesus is not God, John is perhaps the most emphatic on the point eg ─

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

I'd suggest that God and divine are not necessarily the same thing. Mark's Jesus is God-chosen, not God-sent. Matthew's and Luke's versions are conceived by a virgin so have God's Y-chromosome (while having incompatible and equally fake genealogies showing that Joseph, who is expressly not Jesus' father, was descended from David).

Oddly, I hadn't thought of it till this second ─ God conceiving [him]self (!). But the push to promote Jesus to God status comes after the gospel period. Even though it seems like predictable politics to want to promote the central character in Christianity to Boss status, and there were various proposals, we don't find the Trinity doctrine before the 4th century.

Right, but the claims here are different from the claims you initially made, and are much more minimal (though no less controversial). And the formula that you cite regarding Paul's apparent denial of the identity of Christ and God the Father hinges on interpretation of what exactly the Greek term kyrios is supposed to signify in relation to its Hebrew root, the human adon or the divine adonai. The fact that Paul immediately uses the shema formula in 1 Cor 8:6 while mentioning the lack of reality for Jews of multiple gods in 8:5 with relation to both God the Father and Jesus Christ as Lord also provide structural context for identification, because it would be exceedingly odd for Paul to claim simultaneously that 1.) there are no more than one divine entity and 2.) that both God the Father and Christ are divine personages through which redemption and bringing into the law occur. See:

This interpretation neglects the fact that ‘one Lord’ is not something brought to Deut 6:4, as an additional ‘one’ alongside the ‘one’ God. Rather, κύριος is the divine name in apposition to ὁ θεός in Deut 6:4 itself. The “one nation” of 2 Sam 7:23 presented as a parallel to the εἷς κύριος of 1 Cor 8:6 is, in the end, a red herring; κύριος is the name of the “one God,” a name that picks out the same being as θεός does in Deut 6:4, and that name is now applied to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Jesus is thereby identified with God as the co-bearer of the divine name. ("Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters", Hill, Wesley, 2015)
​

Also see

The numeral 'one' that is attached to both 'God' and 'Lord' does not set up two competing entities, but it unites in singleness the being and act of God as Father ("One God and Trinitarian Language in the Letters of Paul", Mauser, Ulrich, Horizons in Biblical Theology, 1998, Vol.20 (1), p.99-108)
​

But also see:

All of this seems deliberate on Paul's part. That is, he is reasserting for the Corinthians that their theology has it right: there is indeed only one God, over against all other "gods many and lords many." But at the same time, he insists that the identity of the one God also includes the one Lord; and ultimately he does so because (1) this is the now shared Christian perspective about the one God and (2) it is the inclusion of Christ as Lord in God's identity that will give Paul the leverage to forbid attendance at pagan festive meals. ("Christology in 1 Corinthians", Fee, Gordon F., "Pauline Christology", p.91)
​

Evcn Matthew V. Novenson, who is on the non-identity camp, makes a stronger claim for the divine statue of Jesus than what you seem to be imputing. See:

Paul’s Christ is not identical with God, but he stands in a closer relation to God than any other divine being does. In the letters of Paul, angels and demons are called angels and demons, not ‘sons of God’, as they often are in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 38:7). For Paul, only Christ is the son of God, with the rule-proving exception of people who get joined to Christ and thereby become sons of God themselves (Rom 8:14, 19; 9:26; Gal 3:26; 4:6–7). Christ is, moreover, ‘the image of God’ (2 Cor 4:4), the visible representation of the invisible God (analogous to the measure of the heavenly body of God [shiʿur qomah] in late antique Jewish mysticism). God’s glory (that is, his kavod or bodily presence) has always been hidden in his sanctuary in Jerusalem (Rom 9:4), but in the new creation, all human beings (not only priests but also laypeople, not only Jews but also gentiles) can attain ‘knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ’ (2 Cor 4:6). The divine pneuma (usually translated ‘spirit’) that people receive in the new creation is, at the same time, the pneuma of God and the pneuma of Christ (Rom 8:9). Paul’s Christ is the son of God, the image of God, the face of God. These descriptions are tantalizingly brief, but in one passage Paul supplies a narrative within which their sense becomes a bit clearer (Phil 2:5–11):

"Christ Jesus, who, although he was in the form of God, did not consider it as spoils to be equal with God, but he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being in the likeness of humans; and being found as a human in regard to figure, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, the death of a cross. Therefore indeed God highly exalted him and gave him the name higher than every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of beings in heaven and on earth and in the underworld, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is lord to the glory of God the father."​

In this fascinating passage, Christ is neither God nor human, exactly. He exists in the heavenly form of God, but his likeness and figure are human. He undergoes the quintessentially human experience of death (and thus is a mortal, strictly speaking), but he receives obeisance from human and superhuman beings like a high god would.37 Like Metatron in the Jewish mystical text 3 Enoch, Christ in Philippians 2 is both a deified human being and the archangelic form of God. ("Did Paul abandon either Judaism or Monotheism", Matthew V. Novenson, New Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, 2020, p.252)​

Which certainly isn't the trinitarian formula as conceived by the creedal churches, but is way more "high" than simply considering Christ as God-chosen. Already the hypostatic union is being pressaged in these passages, and Paul uses language that is reminiscent of the incarnation.
But even Novenson admits that the identification of Jesus with God is earlier than the 4th century A.D., as you posit:

Admittedly, Titus 2:13 arguably does call Jesus a god: ‘the appearing of the glory of our great god and savior Jesus Christ.’ (ibid., p.251)​

2 Titus is written way before the 4th century A.D, unless consensus has shifted massively. I think there's an argument to be made that Paul didn't consider Jesus identical with God (and I think he would have been wrong in intending the text in this manner upon revelation from God, but that's a theological question, not exegetical), but in Pauline scholarship your claims are definitely suspect regarding the nature of the shema. As for the concept of the trinity, at the very least its found in the Didache in the 1st century AD, so Augustine was simply reacting to a much older tradition that would become orthodoxy.

I am not as well-versed in Johannine scholarship, I will admit, so I can't really talk about there. Though I'd be skeptical of consensus regarding the shema there too.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Thank you. That is very insightful.
I would like to point out that Mariology is a fundamental part of Catholic theology. Catholics believe in four Marian dogmas*.
Whose source and legitimization is necessarily to be found in the canonical Gospel (and in some apocryphal Gospels).
Has Paul ever spoken of Mary? Well...he probably did, given that the number of epistles lost is immense.
So we cannot exclude he discussed Mariology in his epistles.

* which are 1) Mother of God 2)Perpetual Virginity 3) Immaculate Conception 4) Assumption

The New Cambridge Companion to St. Paul doesn't talk about Mary, though I assume that's because Paul probably simply never met her, and if he did, likely didn't feel the need to mention her in pastoral care to his congregants.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey : ↑
" who is God "
Does one mean here in the Biblical sense in which even the Jews have been called "gods", which means chosen one of G-d-the Father, and nothing else, it transpires, please? Right?
Estro Felino↑
No. God the Father = God the Son.
paarsurrey : ↑
How could G-d have a son when G-d doesn't have a wife, please? Right?

Well...this is a same-faith debate.

Among Christians.

OK.
But, isn't it an odd thing even for the Christianity people, please?

Regards

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Estro Felino↑
No. God the Father = God the Son.
paarsurrey : ↑
How could G-d have a son when G-d doesn't have a wife, please? Right?

OK.
But, isn't it an odd thing even for the Christianity people, please?

Regards

"Son" is intended as a phenomenological term which describes how our cognitive acts understand the relation between the persons of the trinity. We can replace "son" with the form "Person B of the Godhead is predicated of Person A in the propositional form "B descends from A''". It's why the Son = Word of God.

A good example of how scholastic philosophers understood the problem of the Trinity is explicated in Bonaventure's identification of the Godhead with the transcendental of love, and he sees love as possessing the phenomenological (i.e. how the subject relates to the object of their subjectivity) structure of being-oriented-towards an other, which leads to the Godhead positing itself in the distinct forms of God the Father loving God the Son as subject-object, but being of the same substance (the transcendental universal of love). But since this pure love is infinite, it must pass into even other objects and bring them into its gambit, which is why the Holy Spirit, passing out of the relation of God the Father-God the Son, intervenes into the world as justifying love (Bonaventure's version of the filioque.)

Edit: Hegel has an interesting understanding of Trinity. God begins as pure concept (God the Father) which moves into pure nothingness (negation of the concept for nothing is pure concept) in the form of the negation of God (seen in God passing into the incarnate Son crucified on the Cross) but finding that pure nothing itself is empty, nothing returns back into pure being, and an oscillation occurs between these two extremes, seen as a negation of negation or becoming, in Christ's resurrection and ascent, bringing both being and nothingness and preserving it under one concept ensuring the identity of God the Father and God the Son. This relation of identity between them is nothing but the Spirit which concretizes the activity of the Godhead through the Son in the world. God therefore becomes a concrete concept in the world through an immanent movement within the concept of God itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Hi guys
This is particularly aimed at all Christians, regardless of their denomination.
This is something I have remarked throughout these years, on RF. Thanks to RF, I could discuss religion with other Christians, since in my country it is very difficult because it is not that religiously diverse.

According to my personal experience, I can say that being raised Catholic, a real, traditional Catholic education entirely focuses on the study of the Gospels. I vividly recall that my catechism teacher saying that the Gospel is more important than Saint Paul's epistles. Because
1) Saint Paul is not Jesus. The Gospels narrate what Jesus said.
2) Saint Paul is an apostle. Jesus is the Lord. Men are fallible, the Lord is infallible.
3) Saint Paul's epistles are answers to queries sent by the very first Christian communities across the Mediterranean (mainly in Greece and Anatolia). They have the form and the purpose of opinions and advises and yet they are considered like a Gospel.

Nevertheless, I really remarked that so many Christians quote Saint Paul much more often than the Gospels. As if Saint Paul was God.
The four Gospels are so rich in anecdotes, parables. It is about Jesus' teachings by 70%, while the 30% is about His life.
Please, discuss.

It's not an either/ or. Both are equally inspired.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's not an either/ or. Both are equally inspired.

Let's analyze a practical example, then: soteriology and hamartiology.

What does Saint Paul says about sin and salvation?
Does he say that all sins are equal in the eyes of God?
How does a person attain salvation?

 

[blü 2]

That most of the authors of the NT did not meet Jesus seems to be a common fallacy of modern scholarship.

The fallacy would consist of asserting that at least one did. There's no reason to think any of them did.

It seems to be based on the naturalistic methodology of science which is brought into history and presumes that anything supernatural in the stories is not true and so the prophecy about the Temple destruction has to have been written after or very close to 70AD, the date of the destruction.

Yes, of course.

If you're going to credit Christian supernatural tales as accurate statements about reality then first, you're going to accept tales from a claimed category which is supported by not even one authenticated example; and second, if you accept Christian supernatural tales then you have no reasoned basis for refusing to accept the supernatural stories and myths of any other culture, ancient or modern ─ are you happy to do that? Do you believe in fairies, goblins, banshees, ghosts, magic (the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, often just by wishing)?

Will you suffer a witch to live?

Sceptics like modern scholarship because of it's presumptions about the supernatural and resulting conclusions and how they can use them in their ideas about the Bible.

It's far more general than that. Historical method and textual criticism are two overlapping branches of skeptical reasoned enquiry, which is found here and there throughout history but really got into gear and created the modern world as a result of the Enlightenment.

The whole thing of course is circular reasoning. No supernatural in.(naturalistic methodology),,,,,,,,,,,, therefore no supernatural out (conclusion)

No, the whole thing is lack of clear definitions, lack of testable hypotheses, and as I said, total absence of authenticated examples.

 

[blü 2]

Right, but the claims here are different from the claims you initially made, and are much more minimal (though no less controversial).

Really? Bearing in mind that I was running through a summary, please elaborate.

And the formula that you cite regarding Paul's apparent denial of the identity of Christ and God the Father hinges on interpretation of what exactly the Greek term kyrios is supposed to signify in relation to its Hebrew root, the human adon or the divine adonai.

Kyrios meanings 'lord', 'master', 'boss', 'owner', and as a form of address, 'sir'. It doesn't mean 'god' and Paul doesn't confuse the two meanings. Rather he states clearly that the Father is God and Jesus is Lord and is not God.

Notice that precise relationship in the weird sign-off to Matthew (Matthew 28:18) where God goes on vacation leaving Jesus to superintend everything 'in heaven and earth' ─ the boss hands the administration over to his senior staffer.

it would be exceedingly odd for Paul to claim simultaneously that 1.) there are no more than one divine entity and 2.) that both God the Father and Christ are divine personages through which redemption and bringing into the law occur.

The bible has various examples of divine beings who are not God the Father ─ the Ghost, and the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, and the Son of Man, and Matthew's and Luke's angels being examples.

"Jesus is thereby identified with God as the co-bearer of the divine name."

No. There are five main versions of Jesus in the NT and (a) every one of them denies he's God and (b) none of them ever claims to be God.

Thus, if Jesus were in fact God then his whole ministry was founded on a major deceit. The four gospel Jesuses would be saying "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me" and the Jesuses of Mark and Matthew would be saying "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?"

"Paul’s Christ is not identical with God, but he stands in a closer relation to God than any other divine being does."

Yes. So does John's. Unlike the synoptic Jesuses, those two pre-existed in Heaven with God, created the material universe, and were sent to earth by God. Whereas Mark's Jesus was an ordinary Jew till his baptism and adoption on the model of David's becoming the son of God in Psalm 2:7; and Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses (ludicrously) have God's Y-chromosome.

 

[Kenny]

Do you agree with the fact that according to Paul, all sins are equally grave in the eyes of God?

I'm not sure that statement really can be said. Perhaps it depends on the context?

In separation from God, yes, all sins are equal in the sense that all sins separate us from God.. But does Paul say all sins are equal?

1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

In reading this scripture, it would appear he is saying there is more gravity in one than the other.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Really? Bearing in mind that I was running through a summary, please elaborate.
Kyrios meanings 'lord', 'master', 'boss', 'owner', and as a form of address, 'sir'. It doesn't mean 'god' and Paul doesn't confuse the two meanings. Rather he states clearly that the Father is God and Jesus is Lord and is not God.

Notice that precise relationship in the weird sign-off to Matthew (Matthew 28:18) where God goes on vacation leaving Jesus to superintend everything 'in heaven and earth' ─ the boss hands the administration over to his senior staffer.
The bible has various examples of divine beings who are not God the Father ─ the Ghost, and the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, and the Son of Man, and Matthew's and Luke's angels being examples.
No. There are five main versions of Jesus in the NT and (a) every one of them denies he's God and (b) none of them ever claims to be God.

Thus, if Jesus were in fact God then his whole ministry was founded on a major deceit. The four gospel Jesuses would be saying "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me" and the Jesuses of Mark and Matthew would be saying "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?"
Yes. So does John's. Unlike the synoptic Jesuses, those two pre-existed in Heaven with God, created the material universe, and were sent to earth by God. Whereas Mark's Jesus was an ordinary Jew till his baptism and adoption on the model of David's becoming the son of God in Psalm 2:7; and Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses (ludicrously) have God's Y-chromosome.

I mean, now you are just saying stuff, no offense. Kyrios is supposed to signify both adon as referring to human masters and the tetragammaton (adonai). See:

Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word Lord (or in certain cases God) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton” (see the notes on Exodus 3.14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh,” this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”). Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios (“Lord”) for the Name. ("To the Reader", Bruce M. Metzger, New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV edition)​

I provided a wealth of references from active Pauline scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals and publishing in highly rated secular Bible scholarship presses. You are just asserting things. I'll respond again if you can provide sources for your claims outside self-exegesis.