Ben C Smith

You later admit another possibility, namely that the authors did not think it through that far. And it is also possible that Matthew and Luke were thinking of Mary (despite Luke 1.36). They do not tell us either way.

In Romans 1.3-4 Paul contrasts according to the flesh with according to the spirit of holiness; he does not compare them. Davidic ancestry comes out on the fleshly side of the ledger here, not on the spiritual side.

Oh, you had it, then you lost it!

I agree that Paul may not have thought things through all the way. For the purposes of my present debate with Earl, I have agreed to view Paul as a mythicist of some kind. So Paul may have, as you say here, ignored the issue of a fleshly descendant of David versus a purely spiritual entity; this falls under my Paul contradicted himself royally option (just as Matthew and Luke appear to be contradicting themselves).

What this decidedly does not do is leave the meaning of seed of David according to the flesh up for grabs. It still has enough meaning to be an issue; if it lost that meaning, you could no longer speak as you do here of not thinking about the issue or ignoring the issue. There would be nothing to avoid thinking about or ignore, since it would now mean just what Paul needs it to mean to cohere with his purely heavenly savior figure.

Ben.

aa5874

And the contradictions and confusion are augmented by Jesus himself, according to the authors of the NT.

The words of Jesus according to gMatthew 22.45-46, "If David then call him Lord, how is he is son? And no man was able to answer him a word......"

But Jesus did answer his own question personally, and adamantly contradicts his own implication in the book called Revelation 22:16, 'I Jesus have sent my angels to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

How is he his son? Only God knows.

Amaleq13

What about adoption? The authors may have believed that Jesus could be adopted into Davidic ancestry.

gstafleu

Isn't the whole issue here what "kata sarka" means? In the scenario the belief is that the Davidian ancestry came via the holy spirit. Impregnating Mary is a rather kata sarka event. My point here is that the kata sarka Davidity of Jesus came into being via the kata sarka act of impregnating (in the sense of quickening the pregnancy) Mary. But this whole kata sarka process was done by a supernatural being. I don't quite see how Paul's contrast in Romans affects this.


If we allow un-logic, or just general lack of consideration, as explanations, then the for-grabness of the issue certainly increases.

Let me try it differently. You asked for examples where "from the seed of David kata sarka" could be seen to mean something different than the "natural" reading. In my scenario 1 we have such an example. Scenario 2 seems to work its way around that by positing that nobody considered the issue, or if they did they made a mess of it. That may not be a direct example of a "non-natural" interpretation, but it certainly opens the door to it. As you say: it remains an issue.

To summarize: scenario 1 gives you the example you asked for, scenario 2 opens the door to such an interpretation. In both cases you are no longer in a situation where such possibilities are completely unattested.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

True, and maybe he got a membership for Christmas. But we can only go by what is stated in the text, which adoption isn't.

Gerard Stafleu

EarlDoherty

:notworthy: Ben, you have solved our problem. How did Paul get around having a spiritual Christ be the descendant of a human David in Romans 1:3? How was he able to deal with the contradiction and go against the "natural" meaning of the words? It's clear to us now. He was simply "handling materials that he received--from scripture--without having thought it all out." :notworthy:

But what a minute....Didn't I say something like that somewhere along the line?

Earl Doherty

P.S. I finally figured out (with someone's help) how to get the smilies into the text. But who's that "cool guy" up top? I don't remember inviting him in.

Johnny Skeptic

The point is, if Paul had thought it all out, could he possibly have arrived at logical, rational conclusions, or would faith have been his only option? If the former, what logical, rational conclusions might have been available to Paul?

Of course, faith is the only option regarding many if not most important claims in the Bible. Following are some examples:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - Adam and Eve were real people.

3 - A global flood occured.

4 - The Exodus occured.

5 - The Ten Plagues in Egypt occured.

6 - A donkey talked.

7 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

8 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

9 - Jesus never sinned.

10 - Jesus' shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind.

11 - Jesus ascended into heaven.

Do you believe that Jesus said most or all of what the New Testament says that he said? If so, do you mind starting a new thread and stating why?

EarlDoherty

I made my earlier reply before proceeding to the second page of the thread, so perhaps it's a little stale, since Ben has essentially acknowledged the point. But he still claims that the meaning of Romans 1:3 is an "issue". I don't see why. If "of the seed of David" is something he found in (or knew from) scripture, and "according to the flesh" is (as I consistently claim) simply saying "in relation to the sphere of the flesh" there is no problem. How he understood it--well, we've decided he didn't try to understand it. He chose to add that qualifier phrase, even if it's woolly, because David was part of the realm of flesh and he had to relate that aspect of his spiritual Christ to that dimension, and because it was in parallel with the "kata pneuma" item. The fact that the phrase and its connection to David IS woolly shows that he didn't have any better way of describing it, simply because he didn't understand it and couldn't put it more succinctly, or more naturally.

The fact that "kata sarka" is woolly, and proving so difficult for us, is demonstrated by the regular translations in some of its appearances as "by human descent" or some such phrase. Why couldn't Paul have used clearer language like that? Why didn't anybody use clearer langauge like that? (One of the points I made in my "Revisiting Kata Sarka" posting.)

I would say the same thing goes for all of the epistolary usages of "kata sarka" which are equally woolly and stereotyped. How does a writer express himself more clearly when he doesn't understand what he's talking about?

Earl Doherty

Toto

I think it is highly dubious that the two different geneologies were supplied by Jesus' "family" - that the gospels have him rejecting in favor of his followers, but would you draw a connection between the women of ill repute in those geneologies and Mary? And which way does this cut in terms of historicity?

Ben C Smith

Glad to hear it!

I have no problem with that. And, if you think I have solved the problem, you should have no problem repeating the following statements:

1. Paul regarded Jesus as a purely spiritual figure.
2. Paul asserted, based on scripture, that Jesus was a physical descendant of David.
3. Paul contradicted himself from handling materials that he received.

If you can honestly repeat all three of those, then I have solved your problem for you, similarly to how we have come to regard Matthew and Luke:

1. Matthew and Luke asserted that Jesus was a physical descendant of David.
2. Matthew and Luke asserted that Jesus was born of a virgin (the hidden corollary being that Jesus was not physically related to his putative father).

The second part, about according to the flesh, you still have not demonstrated in any fashion. I suspect I have not solved your problem after all, since it still appears you are going to have difficulty stating that Paul discovered from scripture that Jesus was a physical descendant of David.

I ask again: Why did he not use clearer language like that for himself?

Ben.