rlogan

Gosh, do you actually have one? Other than reiterating mine?

duh. What the words mean in context.


Why don't you show me exactly where I did this. Quotes.

jgibson000

I may very well have misread you. If so I apologize.

In any case, what do you take to be the meaning of the KATA SARKA expressin in Rom 1:3?

Jeffrey

jgibson000

I have no idea what a religion of the four elements is, let alone what it "feels like". So I am sorry, but I cannot really answer your question.

I do think however that it is not on topic.

Yep. You are right.

Jeffrey

rlogan

If so? Why is this conditional on something that is a possibility? Maybe we need to revisit more detail on your attack:

I have not made a single claim where a lexicon would be necessary. Nor have I paraded around as if I had some kind of credentials. I have many times here stated my lack of knowledge and status as a rank amateur.

Would you care to make a non-qualified apology? What's so hard about that?



I have tried elsewhere to make this point, which I will try to phrase somewhat differently here. Should I expect a snooty response from you by making a sincere attempt to answer your question?

I try to approach what little I know in biblical matters with a comprehensive "argument of best explanation for the whole".

Trying to argue this passage as evidence for a real Jesus of the gospels is silly. There are uncountable examples of pure fiction with similar kinds of statements where we can isolate them out of the context they are written in - and make a specious argument that the character is real.

We are reading religious texts, not history. Without detailing ad nauseum my positons on Josephus, the Ignatia, and all manner of other topics we've been over the last few years here it is pretty clear to me we are contending with a legend that evolved over time.

That the legend has "earthly" features is no more significant than Beatle Baily answering to Sarge that he is answering his call "in the flesh". You don't use the statement to "prove" the comic strip is discussing history.

The requirement of credentialing the "savior" with Hebrew Bible prophecy medals means we hear he was born in Bethlehem, came out of Egypt, was a "naza-something-or-other", was a Galilean, rose up on the third day and etc.

We have a really important "Prohecy" that the savior will stem from the root of Jesse (House of David). But we have another matter of needing a virgin birth too.

So the completely contradictory legend has him being simultaneously both, along with appearing as a ghost and performing all manner of hocus-pocus.

I cannot in this context isolate these kinds of sentences as anything other than mystical gibberish moving in and out of certain planes I may not be sufficiently adroit to articulate - but that are definitely not history.

Spanky

There are many "duomi" in Italy. A "duomo" is pretty much the biggest church inside a particular city. The biggest, most beautiful, most blessed, whatever. A cathedral is "catedrale." A "duomo" is a "duomo." And a "chiesa" (church) is a church. There are many Duomo's in Italy. FYI

Clivedurdle

We are discussing "flesh" with reference to Aristotle. The Aristolean world view is that there are four elements - earth, air fire, water. Look at the New Testament - these concepts are all over the place - they are part of the structures of churches, duomi (!) and cathedrals.

Life was thought to be an intermingling between air fire earth and water - so the medical people you refer to would have used this as a background assumption, much as we now assume evolution, DNA etc.

Off topic? Sorry, I think this is getting to the "heart" of the matter!

Paul reads like an admixture of the four elements with this concept of sin and some alchemy of death, resurrection, wine into blood and bread into flesh. Is it a Jewish take on Greek thinking?

I cannot read Greek, but it is basic about the four elements, why are you pretending it isn't relevant and that you have no idea about it?

Clivedurdle

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/empedocl.htm