GakuseiDon

Ignatius: "Jesus Christ, was... conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David... according to the flesh"

Barnabas: "Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him?... because He was to be manifested in flesh, and to sojourn among us..."

Paul: "Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

If you look at those statements without mythicist glasses, what do you think Paul is saying that is different to Ignatius and 'Barnabas'?

Well, that's what Doherty wants you to believe.

I'm referring to the question of the details. No-one, not even the historicists, seemed concerned with the lack of details.

NOGO

You are definitely reading into this.

Read the words: "from now on"
Paul is not saying from the resurrection on etc.
Paul is talking about a personal thing. A personal perception.
We have known Christ from our fleshy perception but from now on
we know him in the spirit.
So what has changed is the person. It is not Christ which has gone from flesh to non-flesh which is what you are implying. Anyway the Gospels say that Jesus resurrected with the same body, wounds and all, as the one he died with.

Paul realizes that conversion is not instantaneous and that people need time to get everything right.

NOGO

You are dead wrong on this one.

I do not disagree with your translation issue.
What you need to understand is that for Paul's Jesus is the WORD OF GOD who created the world. So when the Father communicates he does it through Jesus his Son.

gurugeorge

Looking at the three quotes without any glasses other than reading glasses, the third quote doesn't look to me like an unambiguous statement of belief, either direct or en passant, but rather seems to be an exhortation of some kind, an exortation in which the meaning of "we have known" is ambiguous.

It didn't take much for him to persuade me, since it's what I'd expect anyway - or is there something else you'd expect in an apology other than a presentation of a faith, and an argument for it, in relation to stated queries or criticisms?

As I said, never mind the details, an unambiguous reference would be just fine! Yet (again) the unambiguous references are to rather odd stuff (as in the Paul quote you've given), not at all like the Jesus Christ we are all familiar with.

NOGO

You have made similar statements before.
To you it is a matter of style.
To me it is because even among those who thought of Jesus as a man there was absolutely nothing known about him beyong that which came from scriptures.

I am preparing something and would appreaciate your thoughts.
... in a couple of days.

Regards

spin

Gak, I think you are simply mistaken in your understanding of the Pauline statement. Plainly, Paul's readers never had any experience of the Christ that Paul was raving about, so they couldn't have known this Christ in any fleshy sense. But then how does kata sarka attach to the context? It refers to nothing about this Christ but about the reading audience and Paul himself. This "according to the flesh" is obviously not the way to know this Christ and with Paul's ministry the audience comes to know Christ differently, ie no longer "according to the flesh".

Perhaps you should use are more convincing Pauline citation..


spin

TedM

The statement does seem subject to various interpretations, but one would seem to me to be that they knew "of" Christ in the flesh. Since Paul (and Josephus too) uses kata sarka to refer to actual men in flesh on earth, his use of it here too can refer to a Jesus on earth. So, I wouldn't rule it out, but as you say there are other references that could be used.

ted

spin

Don't just give your opinion, TedM. Try and make it work in the given citation. I don't think you can.


spin

TedM

Young's Literal:
This speaks of having known people, and also Christ, 'according to the flesh' before becoming 'one in Christ', and not knowing people, and Christ, 'according to the flesh' after becoming 'one in Christ.'

The question is 'what does it mean to know someone 'according to the flesh'. Does it mean to see them through our own fleshly, sinful hearts? I think that is what the passage means. However, what does it mean to see someone through the flesh, and through sinful hearts? Could that not mean we see them as flesh only, a reflection of our own flesh, and not as spirits who reflect the spirit of God? As such, this passage may be saying that until Paul and others became 'one in Christ' they too saw Jesus as just another human being, and not as a reflection of God's message of reconciliation that Paul goes on to talk about in the following verses.

ted

spin

Basically agreed, though I wouldn't lean on the "know" at all.

This doesn't change the fact that the cited text says nothing about a real honest to god flesh and blood Jesus, participant in this historical and mundane world we do.


spin