Ben C Smith

I am sorry I missed your original post on this.

Unfortunately, I think you are quite mistaken.

1. The participle γεννωμενον can be neuter (either nominative or accusative, since in the neuter these two cases are identical in form). However, it can also be masculine accusative (but not nominative). And that is what it would be in the case of a substitution in Galatians 4.4.

2. The participle γεννωμενον is not perfect. It is present. The perfect participle would have the typical reduplication γε at the beginning. See John 3.6 for two of them.

To your credit, you were correct to probe a little.

Ben.

EarlDoherty

Boy, it just doesn't pay to be too polite, or too trusting. (Even when the other guy states it with such confidence!) I guess you've just gotta go with your instinct.

Thanks, Ben. Either your Greek books are more thorough than mine, or else you have a lot more brain capacity than I do!

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

Deriving it solely from scripture does not necessarily change its meaning.

Sure. Except that you have not yet given us any analogy for taking it in a way that is not the same, not in the same context, as how you and I would normally, or solely, take it.

I completely agree that, if Paul does not mean what we normally think of when we say born of a woman when he says born of a woman, there is no conflict. But that is the sticking point. How do you show that he meant something different? You as much as said that you were aware of no analogies.

I was picking up on your terminology. What I meant, naturally, is that you feel you understand him enough to claim that he does not believe in an historical Jesus. When you find a concept in Theophilus that is difficult to square away with the usual orthodox view, you use that concept to your advantage. Yet here, where the subject is what Paul meant, suddenly everything gets grey and shaded, shoulders start shrugging, and there is much humming and hawing.

I was not entirely sure what exactly you meant, which is why I covered my tail with the either/or. Turns out one of them was correct (the one about Paul not understanding), which is all that is required to make an either/or statement true. I certainly did not intend to stretch any statement of yours.

I think this means that from scripture Paul can safely draw conclusions both about fleshly (physical, earthly) things and about spiritual (ethereal, heavenly) things. What do you think it means?

This issue of the source (the scriptures) keeps coming up, and I do not understand why. I mentioned that I have personally heard preachers claim that Jesus was not a particularly good-looking man, since Isaiah 53 says that the suffering servant had no great majesty that we should behold him. This is taking the scriptures very much at their word, assuming that the suffering servant is Jesus and going from there. I think we can all agree that the preacher is thinking of an earthly Jesus, despite his only source for the statement being this Isaianic scripture.

This is why, when you go on about how Paul got the Davidic lineage solely from the scriptures, I fail to appreciate your point. So what if he got it from the scriptures? How does that change anything? If he was thinking of a purely spiritual savior (your view), then what he got from scripture he will naturally apply to a purely spiritual savior (if possible!). If he was thinking of a savior who was both spiritual and physical (my view), then what he got from scripture he will naturally apply to one or both of those aspects. Thus the source of the information seems to me to make no difference whatsoever.

Do you think Paul would say that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God according to the flesh?

Unless you can provide an analogy or some such to show otherwise, what choice do I have?

I have stated that it is possible that Paul meant something else. Of course it is possible.

I appreciate you playing along.

What do you think of the analogy with Augustus?

Ben.

Doug Shaver

Taking into consideration what we know of hellenistic thinking, do you agree that except for those two items, everything Paul says about the Christ seems to refer to a spirit entity rather than a man of history?

Solo

Paul explicitly says (1 Cr 5:16) that he once knew Christ after the flesh but knows him that way no longer which I interpret as meaning he does not care what HJ did or said or whence he came, or others say he did or said or whence he came. Rom 1:3 also clashes head on with the kernel of Paul's Christological "imitatio" schema of 1 Cr 1:18-30, and specifically with verses 26-28 of that passage. If the real Paul invokes Isaiah's "root of Jesse" in Rom 15:12., the conquest of Gentiles is by the power of Holy Spirit, not by Davidic martial prowess (cf. 2 Cr 10:1-3). The Davidic descent "kata sarka" has absolutely no meaning in Paul's theological blueprint. It likely originated in the opposite wing of the early church which believed in the "reality" of the pneumatic experience, and considered it the signs of the coming kingdom on earth, something Paul resolutely rejected.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

"CHAP. XXXV.

But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, to endeavour to persuade those who are unable to determine whether they ought to believe it or not, that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a virgin, because at his birth these words, "God with us," were uttered, let us make good our point from the words themselves. The Lord is related to have spoken to Ahaz thus: "Ask a sign for thyself from the LORD thy God, either in the depth or height above; " and afterwards the sign is given, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." What kind of sign, then, would that have been--a young woman who was not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., "God with us"),--whether a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at whose birth it is said, "God with us." And should he be so captious l as to say that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, "Ask for thyself a sign from the LORD thy God," we shall ask in return, who in the times of Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of, "Immanuel," i.e., "God with us?" And if no one can be found. then manifestly what was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written that the Saviour was born of the house of David according to the flesh; and this sign is said to be "in the depth or in the height," since "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things." And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with what meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future, or the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is an object of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers."

JW:
Yes, you are in Denial Ben. What you accuse Doherty of, not accepting the plain meaning of Paul's text in selected spots, is exactly the basis of your religion, not accepting the plain meaning of the Jewish Bible text in selected spots.

Do I really need to explain how the above answers your analogy challenge?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Chili

Don't be so stuck on words Ben, divine comedies are all the same in that they describe the metaphysics of metamorphosis.

ynquirer

Sorry, Earl. I ran into a pretty blunder, as Ben has shown (thanks). Did I say gennwmenon was perfect, passive, nominative neuter? It actually is present, middle, accusative, masculine. I can’t realize how I could commit so many mistakes in just one grammar analysis. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Enrique Viaña

ynquirer

I know that Paul doesn’t mention the Romans, and that possibly other peoples in the Middle East practiced crucifixion. Yet, this verse puzzles me:

I also know that Doherty believes these “rulers of this age” to be mythical entities. Being a cryptic phrase as it is, it might be interpreted that way. However, let me risk another blunder in Greek language. Is it not tou aiwnos toutou a clear reference to the writer’s present time or close nearby? And if so, wouldn’t the Romans be the most conspicuous rulers of Paul’s age?

Ben C Smith

I do not think so. I think this is just part of the Jewish conception of the two great ages. The present age is basically all of human history up to the parousia. (But this is not really an issue of Greek so much as of the culture and expectations of the day, since this same concept appears in Hebrew and Latin, as well.)

Ben.