Clivedurdle

Ellegard, I think correctly, argues for a very early church heirarchy, evolved directly from Judaic principles.

Don't forget gnosticism - an HJ is not neccessary!

If Jesus didn't say stuff like upon this rock, why do you assume there is a Jesus? How does this minimalist Jesus start this religion? For a a god - easy peasy!

Doug Shaver

If he was "not all that extraordinary," how do you account for a bunch of Jews thinking, within a generation after his ignominious death, that he was the son of God?

Clivedurdle

What about in the realm of the flesh, in contrast to realm of the spirit? I would say the difference is to do with eternal and mortal, not necessarily geographic. In any case who says there was a clear definition of geography and cosmology?

dongiovanni1976x

I should have prefaced that by saying- not at all extraordinary when compared to other extraordinary figures of his time. i.e. Appollonius of Tyana etc...Just that those who kept his story alive contributed to him winning out among his peers.

jjramsey

If one is talking about Middle Platonism, the definition is clear. However, a similar trick can be done with "realm" as with "sphere," first translating kata as "in the realm of," with "realm" used in a loose sense that accords with the inherent looseness of kata, e.g. "realm of possibilities," and second, switch from using "realm" in a vague sense to using "realm" in the sense of an actual territory or place.

jgibson000

And on what actual instances in Hellenistic literature of the usage of KATA with SARX, let alone after or in association with phrases like GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS, do you base this claim?

Jeffrey Gibson

S.C.Carlson

I think this sums up succinctly the fundamental fallacy in Doherty's kata sarka argument.

Stephen

Clivedurdle

Let's try again

According to the flesh, according to the spirit.

What is the difference? It cannot be material and spiritual - that is a recent enlightenment differentiation - God walked with Adam in the cool of the evening is the biblical thinking - is God in the realm of the flesh here?

Maybe the distinction is as Paul repeats a myriad times - between eternal and mortal. Christ's flesh was a funny flesh - resurrectable, eternal, you can put his hand in his side, walks through walls.

This discussion ignores holiness and sin. Adam got a "new" body when he ate the fruit - one that died. Christ gave Adam his original body back via the Eucharist and resurrection (and all of us our new bodies - and heaven). Do you believe Adam existed? Why believe Christ did? Paul says clearly Christ is the new Adam!

Why a new heaven and earth if there is some separation of flesh and spirit? That is a recent concept - it was one universe in biblical times!

Is it not all a simple mistake, assuming this jesus god is human?

jgibson000

Exactly so.

We could have been spared a lot of the bluster on this matter if certain things about the way KATA with the accusative was used in Koine had not been overlooked or swept (as apparently they have been done) under the rug -- namely, the facts that in addition to KATA being used in Koine as (1) a marker of specific spacial aspects including extension in space (with the senses of "along", "over", "through", "in", "upon"), extension toward (with the senses of "to", "up to", but not "down") and of separation and distributiono, (2) a marker of a temporal aspect of something (with senses of at [the time of], on [a day or occasion], during [an event], (3) a marker of the division of a greater whole into individual parts, (4) a marker of intention or goal, and (5) a marker of norm of similarity or homogeneity that introduces the norm which governs something, including the norm of the law or the norm according to which a judgment is rendered, or rewards or punishments or, as a periphrasis, to express equality, similarity, or example, it was also, and for our puposes most significantly, used (6) to indicate the nature, kind, peculiarity or characteristics of a thing (conveying the idea of "with respect to, in relation to") and ,when used with SARC, to mean "physically" and "with respect to human descent/one's lineage and ancestry".


So the claims (1) that KATA has a "basic meaning", (2) that KATA with the accusative always carries within itself in all of its instances of use an essential, let alone an etymologically derived and inescapable, signification of movement, let alone movement "down" or "through", and (3) that KATA SARKA somehow therefore means "in, within, or with respect to some sort of space or realm" are nonsense, and anyone who says otherwise has simply not done his/her homework or has (intentionally or not) ignored the evidence that standard (and online) lexicons and studies of KATA plainly set out to the contrary.

Jeffrey Gibson

Sparrow

I had no idea the middle platonists required such perfection of their spheres. I always took it to mean an amorphous blob. The sub lunar realm being that which was literally below the moon. Since the ancients could clearly see that there were things between them and the moon that they could nonetheless not reach and interact with, clouds, lightning and rainbows for example, it seems to me there is some possibility for something to be sub lunar yet not neccessarily tangible. Must be my misunderstanding.

My question though is this: After you have examined kata sarka through the microscope and ruled out an intangible sphere or even simple incorrect usage on the part of Paul, and thus eliminating Doherty's kata sarka argument, what else make Doherty's arguments fail? Or is the only failure you see his interpretation of these two words? If his argument has no merit whatsoever, I'd expect the attack to come from several directions.