John Kesler

I think that you mean Romans 14:14 for the latter reference.

This basically summarizes my belief, too. You may be interested in reading an exchange that I had about this topic on another list. One such post is here.

TedM

Here are some references to flesh by Paul

Romans 1:3 - the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Romans 4:1 - What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?

Romans 7:5 - While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.

Romans 8:3 - For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Romans 8:4 - in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:8 - and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Romans 8:9 - But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Romans 8:13 - for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.

Romans 9:5 - to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 9:8 - This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

2 Corinthians 4:11 - For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

Galatians 4:23 - But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.

Galatians 4:29 - But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.

Galatians 5:16 - But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Galatians 5:17 - For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.

Galatians 5:19 - Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,

Galatians 5:24 - And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Ephesians 2:15 - by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Colossians 1:22 - he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,

Colossians 1:24 - Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

1 Timothy 3:16 - Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Philemon 1:16 - no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.


I simply don't see any special distinctions being made between Jesus' flesh and others Paul writes about--Abraham, himself, and believers.., do you?

ted

TedM

Interesting point. I guess it depends on whether a brief reference to James as being "the Lord's brother" is seen as anything significant beyond a simple qualifyer or identifyer.

ted

Amaleq13

Once seems sufficient especially given the point you brought up about the limited amount of Pauline letters.

I don't know how you could obtain that notion from anything I've written. The resurrection has to be preceded by a sacrifice which obviously requires a death. What I'm suggesting is that the manner of death, prior to Paul's emphasis, was essentially ignored in favor of a total focus on the resurrection. Even Paul primarily focuses on that "fact" and only secondarily brings in the significance of the cross. He seems to have really liked the extreme nature of the contrast between the holy glory of the Son and the utter degradation of death by crucifixion.

I guess that depends on whether you believe in divine relevations or, at least, whether you assume that Paul genuinely believed in them. I consider them to originate from nowhere but the mind of the individual but I have no reason to assume Paul didn't honestly believe he was relating information from the risen Christ.

I assume because someone in one of his churches asked a question and he prayed about it.

Or just a late attribution of the material to Jesus.

I don't consider the Pastorals to have been written by Paul so I'll ignore those examples.

Sounds like revealed knowledge from the risen Lord Jesus to me. I think anything less than an explicit reference to teachings from a living Jesus will be problematic to establish because the author of Mark seems to me to be familiar with Paul and used him as a source for his story.

I don't think this even suggests revealed information. It seems more like an admonition that everyone get on the same page with regard to their preaching of the gospel of the risen Christ.

Nothing offered to specify but "Lord" suggests to me revealed knowledge and I'm starting with the known revelation of the eucharist. The fact that Paul differentiates between that and his own opinion supports my assumption that he honestly believes he has obtained information from the risen Christ.

The welcome of Christ is a spiritual welcome in their hearts. Becoming a "servant to the circumcised" repeats his assertion of being Jewish which is required but not necessarily literally confirmed if he assumes the Son to have also been the Messiah.

The forgiveness of the Lord is spiritual and post-resurrection. The "word of Christ" is the gospel Paul preaches.

All of the passages where you note Paul fails to mention the living Jesus spoke them are, IMO, clear examples of Mark's author using Paul to create speech for the Jesus character in his story.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to find something similar elsewhere. When has anyone felt compelled to assert a birth from a woman when discussing an individual or individuals known to be human?

I encourage you to start a thread on the subject. If people like Vorkosigan or neilgodfrey choose to participate, I think you will learn that none of these alleged clues can be considered reliable indicators of historicity.

If it is more threatening, we should expect a really damn good reason for him to include it. There doesn't appear to be anything compelling Paul to make a more threatening admission. Therefore, it cannot be more threatening. The logic seems sound to me.

Referring to a literal brother implies much more than that. It implies a family and a childhood, etc. but those are things that Paul never alludes to anywhere else. Why would he feel compelled to do so here and in a way that clearly brings the focus on the specific relationship with James? It makes no sense.

It isn't my problem but that I think Paul would not consider it at all relevant, would not choose to identify James by it and certainly would not refer to him as somehow continuing to be the brother of the risen Christ. I think he would consider that child to be no more related to Christ than he was.

I'm talking about what you have already acknowledged. The reference has less to do with asserting the relationship as it does with specifically identifying the 'James' being mentioned.

No it is not. I thought I've been pretty clear in stating that it is central to my objection. I see no good reason for Paul to ever make any such reference.

Hence my alternate suggestions which completely avoid the problems inherent in the extant phrase.

Go back and read my previous posts. There are several examples of what I've clearly identified as good reasons for Paul NOT to mention it. Some of them were actually suggested by you, though not for that purpose, and the most recent was suggested by GakuseiDon, again not for that purpose. There are numerous reasons for Paul NOT to make such a reference and, as far as I can tell, not one credible reason for him to do so.

Amaleq13

I think you should look into the full range of meaning available to the Greek phrase kata sarka that is typically translated "according to the flesh" in most versions of Paul's letters. As I've said repeatedly, it is my understanding, from those knowledgeable of the language on both sides of the debate, that this is not the most unambiguous choice of wording that Paul could have used.

What he really meant by this phrase is not understood.

If you are truly interested in understanding the opposing arguments, follow my suggestion and read up on it at Doherty's website. You might also find this earlier discussion of the subject interesting:

According to the Flesh

Clivedurdle

(From eucharist and cross thread)

Sorry Andrew! I would be very cautious about any references to crosses! (and flesh, blood, brothers....!)

GakuseiDon

All that was needed for what? I'm assuming that Paul isn't trying to prove that Christ was incarnated on earth.

The passages from around Gal 3 onwards are showing the split between "born of flesh/born of Spirit", and "natural inheritence/inheritence via adoption". "Born of a woman, born under the law" contrasts to those non-Jewish Christians who were considered to be under the law (Gal 4:5), but not by being born into it. The non-Jewish Christians were under the law, but NOT "born of a woman, born under the law".

Anyway, even if you feel it's redundant, what do you conclude from that?

"Jesus Jewishness" in regards to Jesus complying to Mosaic law, e.g. Jesus being circumsized, Jesus following dietary considerations, sacrificing at the Temple. Merely mentioning that he had a brother wouldn't have stressed his Jewishness in that regard.

As Paul was trying to say that he had the support of the Jerusalem Church itself, saying that his gospel message was approved by the "brother of the Lord" himself would have been useful.

Amaleq13

To make the point you say he is trying to make:

"Paul is saying that Christ was "born under the Law" and contrasting it with Gentiles who WEREN'T "born under the Law".

See? There is no need to mention being "born from a woman" at all so your explanation really doesn't explain the inclusion of the phrase.

The only contrast is obtained from the reference to being "born under the Law". If they are all involved were born from women, it offers no contrast and does nothing to help make the point. If all Paul meant was the Jesus was literally born just like every other human, why didn't he choose the most unambiguous verb to do so (ie the one that means "to give birth")?

I conclude that we have no real idea what Paul intended by his peculiar choice of words.

You seem to be ignoring the rather significant factor that James apparently had quite a reputation as a supremely righteous Jew prior to his conversion. What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying identifying someone as "the brother of Malcom X" doesn't stress the fact that the individual was black. I consider that suggestion ridiculous.

I agree that establishing he had the support of the group in Jerusalem was his intent but I've already addressed that he could quite easily have identified James without any reference to a sibling relationship with Jesus and that Paul seems to have had good reason to want to avoid any such reference.

If he wrote it, and I'm not sure that he did, we don't know what he meant but a literal meaning seems to be the least likely as far as I can see.

TedM

I'm going to try and summarize our position on some of the issues, and then move on.. Please correct anything that doesn’t seem right.


Death of the Messiah by crucifixion:

Me: It would be more likely to be inspired by a real crucifixion than made up for 2 reasons:
1. Jews would be offended, so it is less likely they would choose this method over some other one
2. Paul, who usually supports Messiac references with the OT, only does this once, and it is a stretch in reasoning.
There is no evidence that Paul came up with this method. If had I’d expect more than one defense by him. And, I'd expect the method of death to have been determined by pre-Paul Christians due to basic curiousity.

You:
Jews were offended, yet it still took hold
Paul may have come up with the idea himself for 3 reasons:
1. It made for a strong contrast to compare the suffering with the glory of resurrection
2. He did provide an explanation by saying it illustrated the curse of the law
3. It wasn’t important prior to Paul, nor much afterwards, so Paul could have slipped it in


Paul’s definition of “Lord� as applied to Jesus

Me: There is no evidence that Paul wouldn’t refer to the earthly Jesus as Lord as all 4 gospels writers do.
Paul himself does refer to a pre-risen Jesus as Lord since he says “they crucified the Lord�
Phillipians 2:9-10 does not say that Jesus is given the name Lord or that he is only able to be called Lord after he was risen.

You: Phillipians 2:9-10 is evidence that when Paul uses the term “Lord� he is NEVER talking about Jesus on earth, but is referring to the risen Christ. Many scholars agree.


Pauls’ portrayal of Jesus’ earthly doings:

Me: Paul portrays certain specific things without providing OT support.
Some clearly say Jesus himself taught or commanded something.
Some are not clear as to whether Paul is agreeing with or even quoting Jesus or come from Paul
Some sound like direct revelation to Paul (ie not known via Jesus’ human life)

You: Those that sound most clear are from 1 Timothy, a book you reject as being authentic
Those that are not clear are not evidence for being from Jesus since they aren’t made explicit
Those that sound like direct revelation are evidence that the less clear ones are probably also revelation.
Mark just took Paul’s references via revelation to Jesus’ life and sayings and attributed them Jesus as part of his human ministry


References to Jesus as having lived on earth as a man

Me: There is no evidence that Paul believed Jesus didn’t live on earth
Paul references Jesus as a man many times.
Galations 4:4 clearly says he was a man
All of the references “according to the flesh� show that it means he was a man.
Paul applies the phrase "according to the flesh" to Jesus, Abraham, his readers, himself, and the son of Abraham's slave. I would be surprised to see how those that apply to Jesus are any LESS earthly than these others


You: The lack of evidence for Jesus living in another sphere is a weakness of the Doherty position, which is why you favor the idea that Paul believed in a human Jesus but knew virtually nothing about him
Galations 4:4 is a strange and unnecessary reference, so is probably an interpolation
Paul could have used clearer language about the flesh than he did. You suggest I read Doherty further for reasons why my claims are questionable.




Regarding James the brother of the Lord:

Me: The closest grammatical evidence in the way people talk now, and in the NT gospels and by Paul himself (1 Cor 9:5--I haven’t provided arguments yet for this one) supports Paul.
The grammatical evidence for figurative use of the “brother� is irrelevant since it is of different form.
We would expect Paul to explain a figurative use since the title is more exalted than ‘pillar’ and Paul is concerned with church heirachy, yet he doesn’t.
We would not expect Paul to explain a literal use since it can be a simple qualifier commonly known to others, and it is reasonable for Paul to distinguish this James from John’s brother James. I don’t have a problem with the use of the word “Lord� instead of Jesus because I think they are interchangeable.
A reference to Jesus having a brother would not be out of character for Paul because he does refer to him as a man who lived, was Jewish, had a human mother, etc..
Mentioning James as the brother of Jesus doesn’t exalt James anymore than is already known. Also, the disagreement was resolved by the time Paul wrote Galations, so there was no need to cover up anything.
Reference to a Jewish brother is no big deal. Paul states in the same epistle that Jesus was Jewish, so a brother who is Jewish adds nothing that hurts Paul. Paul already says James accepted his message so it doesn’t matter that if Paul draws attention to his Jewishness. That is made clear anyway.


You: The grammar isn’t close enough because “the Lord� is a theological title, not a name
We know of names in the OT than mean “Brother of Jehovah�, which is evidence for a figurative use
We would not expect Paul to explain a figurative use since the title could be commonly known by his readers.
There is no good reason for Paul to make a biological reference.
We would expect Paul to explain a literal use in this manner because it is NOT a simple qualifier: The use of the word “Lord� refers to the risen Jesus, so James would no longer be a biological brother at that point, and Paul would see no need to reference it even if he had been.
We would also expect Paul to explain why he would refer to a brother since that suggests an earthly life with family and a childhood--something Paul doesn’t allude to elsewhere.
“Brother of God� is no more threatening than “pillar� because if it were Paul would have had a reason to include it, yet we no of none..
We would not expect a literal reference because it exalts James and threatens Paul’s hope to be equal.
We would not expect a literal reference to a Jewish brother because that emphasizes Jesus’ Jewishness--something Paul’s theology doesn’t want to emphasize. This is made all the more significant because James was a righteous, law-abiding Jew.
The reference is more about identifying which James than asserting the relationship with God



I’ve read some of Vorkosigan’s work. I’m impressed with his knowledge, but need to look at more. From what I’ve seen many of his examples are more creative than makes sense to me, but maybe that is just me.

ted

Amaleq13

Not bad.

I would only change this portion:
I don't think Gal 4:4 is an interpolation. I think it is a strange reference and we do not clearly understand what Paul meant.

Paul could clearly have used more a more unambiguous phrase than kata sarka in describing the incarnation of the Son. I suggest you read Doherty and the linked earlier thread to understand why that phrase is more ambiguous than you think.