Steven Carr

The 2 main passages are Romans 1 and Philippians 2

1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Clearly Paul thought of Jesus as becoming the son of god at the resurrection.

But did Paul think of Jesus as existing in a spirit realm before moving to the world of flesh?

Philippians 2 is the key text here
'7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.'

Does 'being made in human likeness' mean being a human, or only appearing to be a human? But in any case, Paul thought of Jesus existing before the incarnation and moving to the realm of flesh.

As for Romans 1, 'kata sarka' is the key phrase -

http://tinyurl.com/7hbks clearly says that kata with the accusative means 'of motion downwards,.....'

So did Paul think Jesus moved downwards towards flesh? I would say 'yes'.

But the phrase in Romans 1 can also mean 'in relation to'. which fits more neatly with Paul's use of the phrase in Romans 9:3.

On the other hand, just to confuse we non-Greek experts more, 2 John 1:7 uses 'en sarki' to mean 'come in the flesh'.

1 Peter 4:1 also uses 'en sarki' to mean 'in the flesh'. Paul himself uses it in Philippians 1:22 to mean 'in the flesh', as well as Romans 8:8 and 8:9.

Why doesn't Paul use that phrase in Romans 1 as well?

Paul also uses 'kata sarka' in Galatians 4:23 to mean somebody who was a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham, and contrasts the 'kata sarka' birth with someone who was *also* a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham.

If 'kata sarka' means 'flesh and blood descendant', why does Paul want to deny that Isaac was not a 'kata sarka' decendant?

Why does Paul stress that Jesus was descended 'kata sarka' in Romans 1, and claim in Galatians that a kata sarka descent was in itself a bad thing?

Any Greek experts willing to venture what Paul meant , by using both 'kata sarka' and 'en sarki'? What differences was he trying to express by using 2 different terms?

Mountain Man

Since the bible is mythology, and the gods in question are not real, I'd say no to the question you posed as the title of the thread.

jgibson000

May we please once and for all get clear not only that the entry on KATA in LSJ that you site demonstrates that in Classical Greek KATA with the accusative was frequently and commonly used to signify something other than, and wholly different and conceptually apart from, motion;

It also, and most importantly, shows that when KATA was used with the accusative to signify motion, it was never used, as is continually being claimed on this List, to signify vertical motion.

To say that LSJ does show that KATA with the accusative signified vertical motion is not only to misread and misrepresent the text of the first sentence of Section B. I of that entry -- which NB has the word "downward" in italics, thereby specifying that it is not an adverb attached to and/or modifying the word "motion, but is something that, like the similarly italicized expressions in that sentence (i.e. "down (i.e. with) the wind" and "to leeward), is to be read apart from the expression "of motion".

It is also to ignore the fact that all of the particular instances from Greek literature that are cited there as illustrations of the particular type "downward" motion referred to (i.e., Od.14.254, Il.12.33; Hdt.2.96; Id.1.194, Pl.Phdr.229a; A.Th.690, S.Tr.468; Arist.HA535a19, 560b13, Dsc.4.153) show that the this motion is "horizontal".

So not only does LSJ not "clearly" say that KATA with the accusative signifies or means "'motion downwards". It both denies the claim and offers clear evidence against it.

So too, by the way, does what is stated about KATA in the work that Richard Carrier himself has deemed "the definitive reference work in ancient Greek grammar", i.e., Herbert Weir Smyth's Greek Grammar. Here is what we find there:

In other words, what we find in Smyth regarding KATA and the accusative not only stands in sharp contradiction to what many have here alleged KATA with the accusative signifies. It shows that the claim is without grounding or merit.

Jeffrey

yalla

Steven Carr:
"Paul also uses 'kata sarka' in Galatians 4:23 to mean somebody who was a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham, and contrasts the 'kata sarka' birth with someone who was *also* a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham.

If 'kata sarka' means 'flesh and blood descendant', why does Paul want to deny that Isaac was not a 'kata sarka' decendant?"

I posted about this in another thread but it drew no attention.
Basically I reckon Paul uses this term not as a description of "humanness'' in body terms but as a moral/religious term.

FF Bruce notes that, in Romans, Paul uses "of the flesh'' in contrast to "of spirit'', ie the terms are 2 elements of a pair. A dichotomy.
He calls them "opposed terms"...."flesh and spirit wage incessant warfare...."
He reckons ''of the flesh'' is an ambiguous term meaning different things in different contexts eg weak human nature, mankind, human descent, old [human] nature.

From this I interpret that Paul uses "in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh'' Rom. 8.3 because it is necessary for Paul to have a bodily JC crucified etc but JC cannot be "weak/sinful" etc, or his divine status would be questionable.
So he only resembles "sinful flesh''. He is not really sinful, of course, that's unthinkable.

I think paul regards ''flesh'' as weak etc ie a negative state.
Obviously ''spirit'' is positive.
So in Galatians it suits his argument to give a negative [fleshly] qualityto the son of Abe/slave but a positive [spirit/promise] to the other son of Abe.
So the terms are not related to actual physical bodily birth or existence but are comparative and related to the presence or absence of negative /positive attributes.
So when applied to JC they do not mean that JC was actually physically born and possessed a human body etc but that the concept or abstract idea called JC had the qualities incorporated as above.

Now if the above, my speculations etc, have any validity at all at all then it is not necessary to place JC in either a heavenly or worldly location.
He can be [just] a concept or an idea.
A concept that is positive [numerous Pauline statements of how wonderful it is to be "in Christ"] and yet can appear [likeness] to have the negative [fleshly] qualities that are a prerequisite to being the sacrifice for all humanity at the crucifixion etc.

Really what it boils down to is that if JC were a real person in Paul's perception it would have been extremely simple and easy to say so instead of cloaking a concept in coats of various hues.

Do you see anything of value in the above?
yalla

Steven Carr

Could it be used to signifiy vertical motion in the sense of descending a family tree?

No vertical motion probably explains why Richard Carrier wrote 'The actual phrase used, kata sarka, is indeed odd if it is supposed to emphasize an earthly sojourn.'

After all, with no vertical motion , Jesus could not have got to earth.

Steven Carr

This seems reasonable to me. Why else would Paul say that somebody made of flesh , such as Isaac was, was not 'according to flesh'?

TedM

My bible doesn't say that Isaac was 'not according to the flesh'. It says he was born 'according to the Spirit', contrasted with the son of the slave, born 'according to the flesh'. Here, it appears that 'according to the flesh' means the cause was biological, and 'according to the Spirit' seems to imply a 'higher' cause for the birth--ie, God ordained. At least, thats how it looks to me.

ted

Steven Carr

But both were flesh and blood people, descendents of Abraham, which is what 'according to flesh', means , surely? Paul uses 'according to flesh' to denote a biological relationship between people (see Romans 9:3)

yalla

Paul also uses the phrase such that a single person can be both, ie 'of flesh' and 'of spirit/promise' at different times.
Namely before and after accepting JC.
From Bruce "Commentary on...Romans" Tyndale p.44
"To be 'in the flesh', is to be unregenerate, to be still in "Adam" to be in a state in which one cannot please god [Rom 8.8]. Believers WERE formerly 'in the flesh' [7.5] but NOW they are 'not in the flesh but in the spirit'',....[my emphasis]

So my take on this is that Paul is not equating 'in the flesh'' as we would, ie a physical corporal body, but a state of gracelessness, of sin, of NOT being "in'
or "with'' JC.
Hence there is no need, at least from these bits, to presume an HJ.

jakejonesiv

Hi yalla,

That makes sense. That is IMO the meaning of 2 Cor. 5:16. ymmv.

Consider Romans 8:3. "For (in order to do) what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do, God sent his own Son in a form that resembled sinful flesh, and for sin, and condemned sin in the flesh."

Why does the presumed Paul not simply say that God sent his Son in the flesh? How does Paul, arrive at such a strange connection between flesh and sin? There seems to be a docetic dualism behind these passages and Phil 2:6-7.

The Father could not send his son in flesh because it is sinful. It is part of the entire sinful creation. The realm of sarx is contrary to the revelation of
Christ. That is the Marconite bedrock of the Pauline material.

The mentions of Jesus "according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3; 9:5) and "born of a woman" are later catholic redactions in reaction to the more original doctrines. They do not occur in the Marconite layer.

Jake Jones IV