Toto

Earl has already addressed this. For Paul, all flesh was sinful. So "likeness of flesh" and "likeness of sinful flesh" are similar phrases.

Is anyone else confused by this?

judge

In this instance this is nothing but circular reasoning though.

You want paul to mean paul to mean "likeness of flesh" even though paul didnt write that but wrote "likeness of sinful flesh", so you assume that the two terms are equivalent.

But the question remains why did Earl feel he had to change the quotation to one more in line with his case?

judge

Well of course you are saying that earl, cos if you admit any differently you'll have to abandon using this in defence of your theory.


No evidence supplied.

Paul says "flesh and blood" wont inherit it. You need to distinguish between "flesh", "sinful flesh" and "flesh and blood". they are not used interchaneably by paul, as you wish.

If you read the whole of Romans rather than taking snippets you'll find problems. Paul in chapter 5 does contrast, the life of Jesus with the lives of other men, in this way.

Seeing this you cant just assume that "sinful flesh" is eqivalent with "flesh" even though this would help your theory.


See above Earl read the book of Romans from start to finish rather than cherry picking snippets. In context there is every reason to question your analysis.

Doug Shaver

Not I. There is a lot of Paul's thinking that I'm not sure about, but on this particular point, he could not have made his opinion any clearer. He believed flesh was sinful, period. Not a word that he wrote suggests that he thought there ever were or ever would be any exceptions.

judge

Thats an interesting thought, but without evidence it is merely an assertion.

If all we do is make assertions what differentiates us from religious fundies?

Toto

If we were religious fundies, we would just excommunicate you to end this argument.

show_no_mercy

It's even worse than you're making it out to be judge. Earl Doherty's sophistry runs far deeper than you could have imagined.

Earl quoted Romans 8 in English, when we all know that the English languaged didn't exist in any form during the 1st century. Paul, of course, couldn't have possibly written in English. He wrote in Greek. The fact that Earl quotes Romans 8 in English only shows the lengths that he is willing to go to twist words for his own self-serving purposes. I can't even believe that he had the gall to put quote marks around that quote implying that Paul wrote in English!

The sophistry boggles the mind.

DCHindley

Split the hair, and there you will find me. Lift the rock, and under it you shall sweep me also. - Gosp. of Thomas saying 115.

DCH (lunchtime, at home, Governor)

judge

Seems I offended the Earl doherty fan club.
If any of you guys actually come up with any evidence about pauls usages feel free to post .
Let the record show Earl is unable to show where he got the phrase "likeness of flesh" from. Yet despite this he wants to use it. Even though he just seems to have invented it.
This is the kind of rubbish we are supposed to accept from Mythers?

Now I don't know whether Jesus existed ( and I don't care) but I do know that it is misleading to use that phrase the way Earl did

TedM

You haven't offended me, but I don't really understand what you are saying due to 2 things:

1. Since a rotten apple is still an apple, I don't see how 'likeness of sinful flesh' is different from 'likeness of flesh' in principle.

2. It sounds like your objection to his using quotes is that there was no such direct quote. Might it be that he is quoting his own paraphrase of 'likeness of sinful flesh' for simplicity? Would it have been ok if he only put quotes around the word likeness to illustrate his points?

Just curious to understand your view better. thanks, ted