Toto

The link in the OP is about Romans, and why the "seed of David" is a likely interpolation. The argument is primarily based on the particular structure of Romans and textual criticism matters, not on the likelihood of Paul describing Jesus as the seed of some Biblical patriarch.

The argument draws from Detering, who also believes that Galatians (where Jesus is described as the seed of Abraham) is a late forgery by Marcion.

You asked "Jesus came in sinful flesh but couldn't be Son of David according to the flesh?"

But if Jesus only came in the likeness of sinful flesh, then he might not have been the actual Son of David, unless that term is metaphorical.

Have a nice weekend, or whatever it is on your side of the planet.

avi

Hi Steve,

I surely know not all the evidence, but there is one piece of "evidence" that I view as tainted, or, unreliable, or, downright phony baloney, and I would welcome your comment explaining how I err for this particular piece of "evidence".

I am referring to the TF, of Josephus.

So, yes, I do dismiss this particular piece of evidence as a fabrication. I am eager to learn from you, why you do not hold this particular bit of "evidence" at arm's length....

avi

spin

The structural argument has little weight when it is considered that Paul has apparently never been to Rome as the time of the writing of the letter and therefore needs to introduce himself, ie try to sell himself and his calling in order to sell his wares. In the other cases of short introduction, he is writing to a group who already knows him.

As I pointed out in my discussion with Earl Doherty, coming "in the likeness of sinful flesh" is not the same as "in the likeness of flesh". Also pointed out was the issue of whether something could be metaphorical: there needs to be textual clues for not taking a lexical item as having a natural significance. You need a sign around the beast's neck saying "I'm a metaphor". There is no such indicator with regard to Jesus being the seed of David. Besides, not really being the son of David is tantamount to say that he was not really the messiah, which would have been a bad move trying to communicate with the apparently Jewish savvy Romans, don't you think?

What is stunningly interesting is the fact that Jesus was determined/declared to be the son of god by the fact that he was resurrected from the dead. This is not a proto-orthodox position.

Kapyong

Gday,

Oh please !
Paul says gentiles are the "seed of Abraham".

Does that mean all gentiles were actually descended from Abraham? Of course not.

Neither does "seed of David" have to be literal.


Kapyong

spin

That is so far not particularly useful. We are back with the same problem I have frequently tried to make clear as non-functional. Consider the following in order to say if they are should be taken literally or not:

[T2]Rom 4:1 What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh?

Rom 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 Cor 11:22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.[/T2]
I would say there are no reasons to consider that these should be taken as anything but literally.

Yet when we come to Gal 3:6-7, we have no problem knowing that it is not literal:

[T2]Just as Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham.[/T2]

Paul can happily distinguish between literal and non-literal usages. It is wholly unjustified to try to project a non-literal usage on instances that don't show any signs that they should be taken non-literally.

While you are correct in theory, you need to have a reason from the context to say that it isn't literal. And you don't have one.

judge

Maybe, maybe not.
Or..sure on the surface yes. But the question then is what did Paul mean by "son of god"? Why could the resurrection make one the son of god?

It seems if we look at the other parts of Paul then "son of god" means an immortal man incorruptible living in the heavens.
But the gospels can't mean the same thing when they talk of the "son of god" , can they?

spin

Perhaps you can see then that it is stunningly interesting.

judge

Yes but Im not sure how to slice it up.

Some parts of the gospels seem to have jesus as son due to a virgin birth, which doesn't seem to be what paul has in mind by the term.
So if they are after paul then where did they get their ideas?

One thing is that , to me, paul sees the resurrection as some sort of indication that the sacrifice was..er...kosher.
The sinless man, substitutes, undergoes death, and then resurrects, and its the resurrection that shows that he was in fact sinless.

Hence paul says "if christ be not raised ye are still in your sins"

So the point is that paul may see the resurrection as some kind of declaration or demonstration of the quality of the man.

So the different ideas are in the texts long before "orthodoxy" tries to unite them in an effort, ironically to return things that are against the the very ideas in pauls writings, those being that, we dont need a priesthood in order to access the highest and best in each of us, and that mankind is to step onto the next stage and put our differences aside .
Id be interested to hear what you think it means though.

spin

One of the things which I intimated in my first comment here was that the view is not orthodox, hence it's unlikely to be part of some "orthodoxizing" interpolation. That's one reason why I remain unconvinced that it was in fact an interpolation.

One subject that I have frequently put before the forum is the accretion of traditions. It's the result of a sophisticated example of chinese whispers. It's intrinsic to tradition. One of my major interests has been the change from ναζαρηνος to ναζωραιος, from ναζαρα to ναζαρετ, prime examples of the fact that traditions left unfettered mutate. It's only when a large structure takes control of the tradition, large enough to work consistently across the whole of the tradition that the tradition becomes stable.

(And those who have died in christ have perished. All follows: christ must have been raised. See, christ is sinless. Very manipulative. Makes great propaganda.)

I don't really know where this is going now. I don't think that the passage is not Pauline.

Maybe I've already said something above....

hjalti

Nothing in the OP appears sound?

I don't understand your point regarding Abraham.