Amaleq13

IIRC, en sarka has been suggested as a far less ambiguous choice if he intended to convey the idea of a body on earth just like everybody else.

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure that it isn't necessarily accurate. Again, Ignatius and Luke cannot possibly have meant literal descendent. The only clear uses of the qualifier kata sarka mean exactly what Doherty suggests they do. Does it make it absolutely necessary? Of course not. For all we can unquestionably confirm, it could be an idiom for a type of tomato. Does it mean that the burden of proof rests squarely on the descenter? Yep.

This presumes a deliberation that isn't necessarily apt--Paul's writing an introduction to a letter, not exegeting a text. Incidentally, it's also generally held that Paul is simply reiterating an earlier apostolic greeting in order to lend credibility to himself--copying the introduction from other letters.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

It is just so annoyingly frustrating for Paul to use such an ambiguous phrase. If he was more clear, the whole matter wouldn't even be in question.

Assuming it is an inherited phrase just moves the responsibility for the choice earlier, doesn't it? Somebody chose it instead of something more explicit and the reason for that choice continues to be a puzzle.

andrewcriddle

Thanks.

I tried to look up the places in Paul where kata sarka is used.

Places I found where

Romans 1:3; 4:1; 8:4, 5, 12, 13; 9:5;
1 Corinthians 1:26
2 Corinthians 1:17; 5:16; 10: 2, 3; 11:18
Galatians 4: 23, 29
Ephesians 6:5
Colossians 3:22

(There is a reference in John 8:15 which seems to have a similar meaning to at least some of the Pauline references. I am excluding Galatians 5:17 kata (ths) sarkos which is grammatically different)

Of these Romans 1:3 Romans 9:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:16 are referring to Christ.

IMO kata sarka can be treated in two ways.

a/ it can be regarded as a vague phrase without fixed meaning, whose meaning must be sought largely in the context of each passage where it is used. If so regarded it provides little help in determining Paul's understanding of Christ.

b/ It can be regarded as having for Paul and probably his hearers andd other early Christians. A reasonably consistent almost technical meaning. Such a meaning has to be determined from the NT usages taken as a whole. If so regarded the most satisfactory meaning would seem to be 'humanly speaking' 'in a human way' etc. With merely probably understood before human or humanly

In this case whatever Paul's views about the bodily nature oif Christ he would not be referring to this issue one way or the other by using kata sarka.

ie this phrase on its own is neutral between a docetic understanding of Christ and a truly physical corporeal human understanding. (I'm not saying Paul as a whole is neitral on this issue I'm talking only about the implication of using this phrase)

However Paul's references to Christ kata sarka would probably mean that he regarded Christ as at least apparently human ie at very least docetic rather than mythical. In the sense that there is a merely human understanding of Christ which is valid as far as it goes but not sufficient. ie Paul would not have used this phrase if he regarded all information about Christ as being the result of spiritual revelations (in Doherty's phrase 'channeling Jesus') .

So IF kata sarka does have a reasonably precise meaning then Paul's use of it about Christ does seem to mean that he regarde Christ as at least perceptible to the general public even if not necessarily fully human.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

This worded what I was trying to say earlier much more effectively than I did. Thanks for the inadvertant help

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Andrew,


Thanks for the information.

I'm not sure this eliminates Doherty's conceptualization but it does seem to make it a reasonable possibility that an earth-bound Jesus was in mind. However, we still appear to have a disparity between Paul's Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels because I don't see how anyone could refer to the latter as "merely human".

andrewcriddle

I don't think the Jesus of the Gospels would be regarded by Paul as an example of a 'merely human' perception of Jesus.

The Gospels cleary present Jesus from a position of faith. The 'merely human' perception of Jesus would be how Jesus appeared to people of the time whether followers/believers or not.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I think we can safely exclude any depiction of Jesus being considered divine as consistent but how much of the Gospel depiction would have been considered "merely human" by the general public or, more specifically, his fellow Jews? Would a miracle-working, wisdom-teaching prophet be considered "merely human"? What about a Messiah?

To introduce a somewhat less tangential question, relative to the OP, what is your understanding of Philippians 2:7?

"but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,"(YLT)

My understanding is that this can be interpreted to conflict with the Gospel depiction of Jesus continuing to have and display the sort of power Paul is indicating was abandoned with the incarnation.

Is that an accurate interpretation of the Greek phrase translated "empty himself"?

Vivisector

From the FWIW Department, I found these two sources to provide some decent introductory information on the "Christ Hymn:"

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/seelyphl.html

http://www.annarborvineyard.org/dons...mnofchrist.pdf

The second is a review of a book I don't have.

My take on the first is, Seely would say that the phrase "empty himself" would be most closely related to unselfish service. I'm uncertain of how helpful/relevant this might be; probably depends on how one defines "power."

Cheers,

V.

Amaleq13

Those are very interesting and helpful articles. Thanks, V.

I think mythicists will find Seely's especially interesting even though he is clearly not one, himself.