Vorkosigan

Don....it helps me because it shows that the word FLESH, in the way Paul uses it frequently, stands for more than a plain reference to the meat that hangs on our bones. Ichabod denied that Paul ever made any such reference, when clearly he does it over and over again. I picked Galatians 4 because not only does he use it in a non-literal sense to denote a certain sphere of relationship to God, but he also defines it there as "allegorical."

Now, reflecting on the famous "kata sarka" passage in light of all these other passages, it is easy to see that Paul might very well mean what Doherty says he means -- not that Jesus came from a flesh-and-blood womb -- a womb Paul must have personally known, if the Bible legends are true -- but that Jesus's sphere of operations was "the sphere of the flesh." It seems incredible that if Paul is trying to establish a human and tribal identity for Jesus, that he does so in such a vague and obtuse manner.

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

Huh? You haven't shown any instances yet.

Vorkosigan

No, Ichabod, both begettings are concrete, phyical events. Paul clearly, however, says one birth is of the flesh, by which he means something allegorical.

I agree. And it doesn't change the fact that "flesh" designates something other than meat that hangs on bones, for Paul, frequently.

Thanks, Ichabod, for at least confessing that some examples exist. Also, the examples I gave, two were provided by Don. There are numerous examples of figurative uses of FLESH in Romans alone. Just run a search on the word over at Biblegateway.com. Some examples are certainly literal and concrete. Others are clearly metaphorical and ramify.

Well, thanks, but since the preposition KATA is part of the controversial passage in Romans, whyever on earth would I need to find "flesh" hanging by itself? In any case Paul frequently uses FLESH to designate an idea larger than meat on bones.

See Gal 4. Clearly both births are physical, so when Paul means that one birth is according to the flesh, it cannot mean the act of birth itself. FLESH instead designates a relationship to a covenant. To wit:

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons; one of the maid servant, and one of the free woman.
23 But he [that was] of the maid servant was born according to flesh, and he [that was] of the free woman through the promise.

Now are you claiming that while the first birth was natural, the second was metaphorical? Or what?

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

I didn't say that. I said three "dubious" examples. They don't prove your point at all, as I've pointed out. In relation to the second issue, are you serious? I've gone through Romans in Greek with a fine tooth-comb. Do you know Greek, Vorkosigan? I know what I'm saying. I just did a presentation and paper for Greek exegesis on Romans 6. I know what you're saying is what some commentators say (primarily, conservative evangelical commentators); but I'm disagreeing with it, and plenty of people agree with me on that.

No, I'm claiming that one birth was natural, but the other was miraculous.

GakuseiDon

Vork, we don't necessarily use it that way either in English. Here is one of the meanings:

5. the physical aspect of human beings, as opposed to the spiritual.

And so? What does this actually mean, then?

So, what does this meaning, then:

For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

From a HJ perspective, there is no vagueness or obtuseness. What about from your perspective?

Vorkosigan

Yes, thank you. That is exactly what I mean.

There's none from my point of view either. Paul refers to their time before they were believers, and then their time after they were believers. "From now on we regard no one from a world point of view." He simply reinforces this with the last line about Jesus, driving home his point with a fine bit of rhetoric. There's nothing about the HJ in here, only about the believer's point of view.

In any case, we seem to have both agreed that Paul can use FLESH in a non-literal sense. Which was exactly what I was saying. Which is exactly why the KATA SARKA in Romans 1 cannot be viewed as a vague reference to Jesus' mortal existence as described in the Gospels, which Paul gives no evidence of knowing anything about.

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

Can I just add one thing. Leaving aside the issue of "according to the flesh", which I can see we are never going to reach agreement on, how does the view that Vorkosigan et al. are maintaining deal with "descended from David" (Romans 1:3). How can one give the appearance from a worldly point of view of being descended from David?

This raises an important further issue. It seemed to me that Vorkosigan et al. were arguing for a conventional docetic view of Christ. That is, Christ appeared to be human but wasn't really. But in fact it seems that they are arguing for a more radical view, that Christ didn't appear in the earthly sphere at all. Otherwise, there would still be a "historical Christ", but it would be the history of an appearance, rather than the history of a human. Docetic Christology could still speak of a "historical Christ", but they maintained it was only an appearance.

So given this more radical understanding of Christ, how do you explain "descended from David", irrespective of the meaning of "according to the flesh"? How can Jesus appear to be descended from David "from a human point of view" or however you want to take it, if he never appeared in the earthly realm at all?

GakuseiDon

Good! We agree then.

There's more there than that. What about "Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer"

It seems that at one point the believers regarded Christ in a worldly way. But when? Before or after He died in the lower celestial realm? Before or after the first vision of the Risen Christ?

Magdlyn

To give Mr Doherty a short break, have any of you posting on this thread read Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man yet? I read it once through and am now rereading it.

He deals with the "descended from David" expectation quite thoroughly.

Vorkosigan

You called them "dubious." That's not the same as proving anything.

Sure don't.

Romans 8:5
For they that are according to flesh mind the things of the flesh; and they that are according to Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Feel free, Ichabod, to show that when Paul is speaking here, he means:

For they that are according to meat that hangs on bones, mind the things of the meat that hangs on bones; and they that are according to Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Frankly, I could not have, until this moment, ever imagined having a conversation in which the other party doubted that Paul ever used FLESH in a manner that was non-literal/figurative.

Or do the same with:

Romans 8:6
For the mind of the flesh [is] death; but the mind of the Spirit life and peace.

In fact, in Romans 8 Paul uses FLESH figuratively many times. In Romans 9 he uses it in a manner similar to Galatians 4, to designate a certain relationship to God.

All of these usages reflect on the famous KATA SARKA passage in Romans 1. When Jesus comes "according to the flesh" what does it mean? That Jesus popped out of a birth canal, or is Paul speaking of Jesus' relationship to the law, the covenants, and God?

That's not what Paul says, though. Paul says both happened with the child coming down the birth canal, but one was according to the flesh, the other, to the promise. And then he says the meaning is ALLEGORICAL.

Vorkosigan