Toto

judge's offense was to keep repeating the same point without engaging with anyone else, and in particular to fail to address the issue why 'likeness of flesh' is not similar to 'likeness of sinful flesh.'

spin

It had the likeness of a bad apple, but it tasted fine.

judge

1.If Jesus was said to be "in the likeness of flesh" then it seems clear he was not seen to be flesh. This would massively help Doherty's theory.

2. If Jesus was seen to be "in the likeness of sinful flesh" on the other hand, then it is possible for that to mean he was flesh but not sinful. So this phrase does not help Doherty.

Doherty takes an actual quote from Romans chapt 8, which reads "the likeness of sinful flesh" and removes the word sinful, thus leaving him with a phrase that helps him.

Now have close look at his actual wording.

The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament, encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,” and similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2, the Philippians hymn), with no sign that this is on earth; there are references to a “spiritual body” as in 1 Cor. 15:35f, and to “spiritual flesh” as in the Apocalypse of Elijah.

So Earl claims that the mythicist finds refernces to christ, taking on the "likeness of flesh"...AND....other phrases.


It could be but Earl is therefore assuming what he is trying to prove. He is assuming that he can. He must therefore and I mean must, be assuming that "likeness of sinful flesh" is equivalent to "likeness of flesh" becuase staright afterwards he alludes to Romans 8.

If one quote. the misquote of romans 8, helps his case greatly, and the other quotes does not, then it is disingenous to claim they are similar when arguing for mythicism. They are similar in that they contain mostly the same words but very dissimilar if one is trying to support mythicism.

If he wants to use the phrase "likeness of flesh", particualrly in the context he did then he needs to show how he came up with this phrase.
Having spent far longer redaing the dang bible than could possibly be any good for anyone, I immediately see what he is doing, but others who are not so familiar are more likely to be misled.

judge

Its not that hard to see is it? (its in post #13)

1."likeness of flesh", is pretty clearly not flesh.

2."likeness of sinful flesh" could still be flesh but just not sinful flesh.

So. Is there any reason in that very same letter, Romans, to think that paul saw Jesus as not sinful???

The answer, Toto, is yes!
In romans chapter 5 we read..

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.


Is that clear enough?

judge

Thank you!

So the apple is still an apple. So the likeness of sinful flesh would according to this still be flesh.

spin

To be clear, but still hopefully faithful to your original idea:

That which is in the likeness of sinful flesh may in fact still be flesh, while not sinful.

Toto

This is a strained reading. Paul thinks that all flesh is sinful.

Jesus is not sinful, but he took on the likeness of sinful flesh.

This says nothing about "flesh," sinful or otherwise.

judge

ok you said this before too but did not provide any evidence. Do you have any evidence or are we supposed to just believe it because you say it is so?



It contrasts Jesus as a person who Paul seems to say did not sin with the rest of humanity who did sin. Doesn't it?

judge

Just to clear this up are you claiming that Paul did not think Jesus was flesh. That's the only conclusion I can come to when reading this.

You also seem to accept Paul saw Jesus as a man as you did not dispute this when I posted from Romans chap. 5

So are you saying Paul thought Jesus was a man who was not flesh however.

Is that what you are saying ?

rizdek

I'm not confused. Although I do see judge's point later where judge posts that it might mean that Paul meant Jesus was in actual human but not sinful flesh. I would never think Paul meant that, so I'm not confused, but I can see the potential for confusion.

It would be interesting to hear what is behind this exchange. It seems there is more to it than whether the quotations EarlDoherty used meant he thought he was actually quoting the Bible or did he just mean to emphasizine a phrase. I have done this...put "quotes" around a word to draw attention and so I could then refer back to it later or to emphasize a point or to show that I meant it in a special way. It would really surprse me if a person of EarlDoherty's caliber actually misquoted the Bible in a book he wrote.

Is that what you want, judge, just to get Earl to admit a mistake...a misquote?