Rick Sumner

As a somewhat ironic aside (which, oddly, didn't occur to me until just now), the entire debate about the nature of Paul's "gospel", which has been wholly tangential to this thread, can be brought back home--my description of Paul's gospel as "God's eschatological plan to save Israel" is, almost verbatim, copped from the Bishop of Durham himself.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

"seed of David according to the flesh."

• 22
  For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the freeborn woman.
  23
  The son of the slave woman was born naturally, the son of the freeborn through a promise.
  24
  Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar.
  25
  Hagar represents Sinai, 15 a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children.
  26
  But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother.
  27
  For it is written: "Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children; break forth and shout, you who were not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the deserted one than of her who has a husband." 16
  28
  Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise.
  29
  But just as then the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the spirit, it is the same now.
  30
  But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the freeborn.
  31
  Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman.

Note in Romans 1 the identical themes of slavery, flesh, and spirit:

• 1
  1 2 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God,
  2
  which he promised previously through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
  3
  3 the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh,
  4
  but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Don, David Trobisch has a great page on how to read an ancient letter collection:

http://www.bts.edu/faculty/Publicati...ollections.htm

If you want to know what Paul meant by "seed of David according to the flesh" in a passage where the spirit and flesh are set off against each other, you need to follow the rule Trobisch lays down:

• Remember: If there is more than one possible answer to a specific question, choose the answer given by another letter of the same collection.

The Paulines were a collection intended to be read together, and one letter answers the problems of another. If you want to know what "seed of David according to the Flesh" means, you have to look in another Pauline letter. Galatians tells us how we should regard Romans. When Paul writes of the flesh and David, he is making a metaphorical statement about the relationship between Jesus and the Law.

krosero

To Magdlyn:

I've been watching the debate between Don and Earl for a little while now, and a few brief points have to be made.

Earl speaks of Don presenting the ancient evidence with overconfidence, as if Don thought he knew everything about the period, but you will find that Don has consistently highlighted only what he knows and has always allowed that there may be counter-indications to his position; in fact he has always invited a more thorough review of the documentary record.

More seriously, Earl still thinks that Don's objections to his theory are based on what Don thinks is reasonable for a person, or someone from antiquity, to believe. Quite to the contrary, Don has always held that the ancients believed things that most moderns would not believe. Rightly he is simply setting aside our notions of what is rational and trying to survey what the ancients believed. On top of that he has consistently allowed that there is no straightjacket on what any single ancient author might have believed: he might well have believed something not elsewhere attested in the documentary record. Don has said that so many times that I wonder why Earl still bases so much of his rebuttals to Don on the idea that Don merely rejects the rationality of a sublunar realm or sublunar crucifixion. This is one of the longest-running misunderstandings I have ever seen, and the debate on this matter is being hobbled and delayed because of it.

Kevin Rosero

Ted Hoffman

I think its a form of provisional exaltation whose framework entails the idea of superimposed spheres. I bet it is related to the Phillipians hymn where Jesus descends and then upon ascending, is exalted by being named Christ/Jesus. K Schubert says that "Son of David seems to denote a provisional stage of exaltation" K. Schubert in Zwei Messiasse aus dem Regelbuch von Chirbet Qumran, Judaica, 11,1955, p.234. The TDNT says "Son of David seems to denote a provisional stage of exaltation. There is a remote analogy in the subordination of the Davidic messiah to the high-priestly messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls" The TDNT (p.417. R.1:3) also notes that "The formula originally contains a Christology according to which Jesus is instituted as the son of God only by exaltation"

Superimposed Spheres
Paul and co. envisioned a layered universe. And stuff was happening in the upper layer in synchrony with what was happening here below. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament explains:

TDNT, Vol VI, p.416

At any rate, what is your explanation? That Joseph had Davidic Pedigree? Which genealogy are you relying on? Luke traces Jesus back to the lineage of David's son Nathan while Matthew traces Jesus back to David's son, Solomon. In addition, Luke has 41 people between David and Jesus, while Matthew has only 26. Which genealogy?

GakuseiDon

What does that mean? That Jesus wasn't considered as really the descendent of David?

... And so?

Trying to reconcile the genealogies is only slightly more appealing to me than trying to poke both my eyes out with a sharp stick.

GakuseiDon

Thanks for the link, Vork, I'll have a look.

EarlDoherty

Are you serious? As an example, Don is constantly demanding evidence in the pagan record of the 'fact' that pagans regarded the myths of the savior gods as taking place in the sublunar region. I have time and time again said that there is no such clear statement, and tried to explain why that is. I have constantly said that we cannot impute uniformity of views about the structure of the heavens and what can go on in it, and have given evidence of that non-uniformity and the Ascension's direct evidence of what can go on it. Yet Don continues to demand that evidence, and continues to insist on a uniformity in order to rule out any such thing in the sublunar region.

And you accuse me of hobbling and delaying?

Yes, Don, that's another thing I can't get across to you. That we cannot take Romans 1:3 as necessarily referring to something literal by our standards. Vork suggests it was metaphorical (a good suggestion), and I've suggested, among other things, that Paul simply took it from scripture without understanding it, or applying it in a literal sense. Your incredulity, which I can hear in the quote above, shows that you still don't get it.

And Kevin accuses me of hobbling and delaying?

Earl Doherty

Ted Hoffman

GDon,
First, do you accept the argument that seed of David was a provisional form of exaltation as some scholars have argued?

If you agree that this was a formulaic expression, then you know that it is not to be taken literally. If you dont agree, then you have to confront the arguments by those scholars. Exaltation means the expression is purely honorific, not historical. For example, Hillary cannot be exalted to be Bill Clinton's wife: it is a fact.

So, show us how you reconcile them. You cant just lie down and do nothing and claim that you will one day try. Show us now how you reconcile them without having the egg on your face. You have to do the work if you want to be taken seriously.

GakuseiDon

C'mon Earl, that isn't what Kevin is saying there. He is referring to your post above, where you wrote:
"And note the imposition of modern scientifically-enlightened views on the thinking of the first century. You’ll find he does this a lot. We don’t believe these nonsensical things, so therefore they didn’t believe them either."

Where have I ever HINTED at such a thing? I have ALWAYS made the claim that we have to go with the evidence from the literature of the time IF you want to claim that Paul had beliefs similar to concepts that were "in the air" at the time.

So, can you quote me where I have even hinted that "we don't believe these nonsensical things, so therefore they didn't believe them either"? If you can't, please stop misrepresenting me.

Again, I DON'T insist on uniformity, merely examples from the literature of the time IF you or anyone else are claiming that people had such beliefs, or similar. The problem is that people come onto this board believing that your views DO have such evidence.

If there is no evidence for your ideas on what the people of that time believed, AND there is evidence in the literature AGAINST your ideas on what the people of that time believed, then this surely should be noted.

I apologise for asking the question. :huh: So, you believe that Paul simply took it from scripture without understanding it, or applying it in a literal sense. I (and I'm sure others) would be interested in hearing your reasons for this. Can you expand on this point, please?

GakuseiDon

It is interesting, and I'd like to read more about it.

Please watch me while I lie down and do nothing on this topic. You've seen my posts here over the last few years -- why on earth do you think that I would even try?