Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 09-20-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't think that's a particularly good example for you. On the face of it, it doesn't mention Jesus at all. It mentions 'Christ', but that's a title, not the name of an individual. There are other texts in which the title 'Christ' is applied to Jesus, but we can't get that just from the passage you cite.

Yes, I agree. Fair point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Given the origins of the word and the title 'Christ', what we have on the face of the text you cite is the author referring to an otherwise unidentified Israelite designated (by an anointing, which might be literal or metaphorical) for some special role in relation to the Israelites. On the face of the text, the 'flesh-and-blood' human (and Israelite) status of the individual referred to is being emphasised, the author wishing this not to be completely obscured by the more important point of the supernaturally designated role.

A striking feature on the face of the text is the use of the phrase 'according to the flesh' twice in such a short space. On the face of it, it's being used to emphasise a physical connection with the Israelites, of the author in the first instance and of the otherwise unidentified Christ figure in the second. Speculation about why the author is so concerned with that emphasis in the first instance interests me, but is probably beyond the scope of what's on the face of the text.

Sounds good. Would the face reading be appearing to say that this Christ's physical connection is as a descendent of the Israelites? Would we say the same about Paul's physical connection?

On the face of it, the nature of the connection is obscured for a modern English-speaking reader because 'according to the flesh' is not a natural idiom in modern English. To this English-speaker's mind it seems closest to suggesting a connection by biological relationship, but even on the face of it I would not be surprised to learn that in the original writer's language it had some other significance.

Using the same idiom both times does point to the nature of both connections being the same, though.

gurugeorge · 09-20-2011, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

I'm not sure that anyone needs to explain why the Christ referred in the passage above is regarded by Paul as someone historical.

Not "someone who is historical", like an ordinary Joshua - an entity who is "over all" - i.e. DIVINE - who is historical to the Christians, and who has some sort of human aspect or component.

That's what all the "documentary evidence" is about - that entity.

Was there a man behind that entity? Maybe, maybe not, probably not.

Once again, people keep slipping and sliding between two things.

Sure, for early Christians, there was a "historical Jesus" - they thought that a divine being either possessed a man, or magically took on a human body, or appeared to have flesh, or some other kludge. For centuries, it was thought that the NT Canon was good enough evidence of the historical existence of that divine being, a one-shot avatar of the Divine on earth.

With the rise of rationalism, it became obvious that the NT Canon couldn't possibly be good enough evidence of that kind of entity. So rational people thought that perhaps there was some sort of ordinary human being behind the pseudo-historical myth.

That is a hypothesis. But a hypothesis like that needs a different kind of evidence. The extent evidence is purportedly evidence for a divine being in fleshy form/appearance.

If there's any evidence for a man in there, it has to be extracted, it can't just be read off the documentary evidence for the god-man by insouciantly stripping away the woo-woo bits.

J-D · 09-20-2011, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

I'm not sure that anyone needs to explain why the Christ referred in the passage above is regarded by Paul as someone historical.

Not "someone who is historical", like an ordinary Joshua - an entity who is "over all" - i.e. DIVINE - who is historical to the Christians, and who has some sort of human aspect or component.

'Divine' is not a synonym for 'over all'.

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

'Paul' has no more credibility than old Jake or any other religiously infected person who invents such tales and convinces himself of them.

Whether that is true or not, we can still look at the prima facie meaning of certain passages by 'Paul'.

What are the possible prima facie meaning of the following passage from 'Paul'?:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

archibald · 09-21-2011, 05:48 AM

Gakuseidon,

It's so simple really. Just try to think of a parsimonious answer. It's as easy as falling off a desert.

Like, for example, he obviously means different things by kata sarka, even though he uses the phrase twice in a row.

Or, somebody inserted one of the kata sarkas but not the other one.

Just remember the guiding principle of the methodology: the more references to an earthly figure, the more interpolations and/or suitably mythicist interpretations there are likely to be. Simple. :]

Sometimes, I even think there are, suspiciously perhaps, almost toooo many references. :constern01:

Sheshbazzar · 09-21-2011, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

'Paul' has no more credibility than old Jake or any other religiously infected person who invents such tales and convinces himself of them.

Whether that is true or not, we can still look at the prima facie meaning of certain passages by 'Paul'.

What are the possible prima facie meaning of the following passage from 'Paul'?:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

Obviously Paul believed... (or someone writing, claiming to be 'Paul' wanted us to believe that this was what 'Paul' said..... debateable)
As 'Paul' admits that he had never met or laid eyes upon any Jebus the Christ as a living breathing person on earth, he is no actual witness to the existence any such individual as a living, breathing person.
At most he is here recounting some hearsay and putting his own particular religious spin on what he thinks was a person from the recent past.
That does not make anything he claims here valid. He has no first hand personal knowledge that any Christ has 'came' or is 'over all'. These are only expression of his religious interpretations and convictions and are founded solely upon his (and possibly others) -thoughts- relevant to what he has heard from unidentified outside sources, not from any personal real-world contact with this claimed Christ.

May as well have old Jake tell me how it went down, or what it all means.

gurugeorge · 09-21-2011, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

I'm not sure that anyone needs to explain why the Christ referred in the passage above is regarded by Paul as someone historical.

Not "someone who is historical", like an ordinary Joshua - an entity who is "over all" - i.e. DIVINE - who is historical to the Christians, and who has some sort of human aspect or component.

'Divine' is not a synonym for 'over all'.

So what does "X, who is over all" mean then?

Toto · 09-21-2011, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
But isn't that because a prima-facie reading of Paul and the Gospels gives that idea? I thought that everyone agreed that was the reason people thought that Jesus was historical?

No, that is not why people think that Jesus was historical. People think there was a historical Jesus because their doctrine tells them that Jesus was fully human as well as being fully divine, or because they have heard about the historical Jesus for so long that they assume it must be so; or they assume that Christianity had to have been started by someone like Jesus.

Quote:

For the following passage, what is the prima-facie conclusion about Jesus?

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is [God] over all

I'm not sure that anyone needs to explain why the Christ referred in the passage above is regarded by Paul as someone historical. That's simply the prima-facie reason.

Prima facie, that passage sounds like a mystical muddle. I had to read a different translation or 2 to find out what the first verse means - evidently it means that Paul would accept damnation himself to save his fellow Jews.

And you left the word "God" our of the last phrase. The verse says that Christ is God over all. This verse has been used to support Jesus = God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnes' Notes on the Bible

For I could wish ... - This passage has been greatly controverted. Some have proposed to translate it, "I did wish," as referring to a former state, when he renounced Christ, and sought to advance the interests of the nation by opposing and defying him. But to this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

(1) the object of the apostle is not to state his former feelings, but his present attachment to his countrymen, and willingness to suffer for them.

Otherwise, "Christ" [not Jesus Christ, not Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, purported son of Joseph] is an Israelite "kata sarka" or according to the flesh, a term that doesn't have a prima facie meaning in English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barns commentary

As concerning the flesh - So far as his human nature was concerned. The use of this language supposes that there was a higher nature in respect to which he was not of their nation; see the note at Romans 1:3.

Is this anything other than a theological conclusion that the Christ should come from the line of David, a conclusion derived from reading the Scriptures?

Quote:

Now, deeper inspection may cast doubt upon that conclusion. But that deeper inspection hasn't hit modern scholarship, for better or for worse. So to say that no-one can explain why the question of Jesus' historicity is settled is remarkable. It's what the evidence that we have tells us.

If the unreliable and often obscure theological writings that appear under the name of Paul were evidence of anything, it would be evidence. But it's not.

Quote:

Why don't we look at the Romans passage above and give a range of options on what it might mean, from a prima-facie perspective?

I'll go first: the prima-facie reading is that Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

What other prima-facie readings are there?

Clark's commentary

Quote:

Whose are the fathers - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, etc., etc., without controversy, the greatest and most eminent men that ever flourished under heaven. From these, is an uninterrupted and unpolluted line, the Jewish people had descended; and it was no small glory to be able to reckon, in their genealogy, persons of such incomparable merit and excellency.

And of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came - These ancestors were the more renowned, as being the progenitors of the human nature of the Messiah. Christ, the Messiah, κατα σαρκα, according to the flesh, sprang from them. But this Messiah was more than man, he is God over all; the very Being who gave them being, though he appeared to receive a being from them.

Here the apostle most distinctly points out the twofold nature of our Lord - his eternal Godhead and his humanity; and all the transpositions of particles, and alterations of points in the universe, will not explain away this doctrine. As this verse contains such an eminent proof of the deity of Christ, no wonder that the opposers of his divinity should strive with their utmost skill and cunning to destroy its force....

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible at the same url

Quote:

their descent from these fathers was a privilege, though they valued themselves too highly upon it; but what was the crown and glory of all, and which they took the least, though the apostle took the most notice of, is, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came; that is, either of the fathers, or of the Israelites, from whom Christ, according to his human nature, sprung; being a son of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of David, and the son of Mary; hence the Messiah is called , "the Messiah or Christ of Israel" (b): who is described as over all, angels and men, being the creator, upholder, and governor of them; and as having another nature, a divine one, being God, truly and properly God, blessed for evermore; in himself, and to be blessed and praised by all creatures.

So you are left with the mystical, divine Christ. Is this divine god evidence of the humans Jesus?

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
But isn't that because a prima-facie reading of Paul and the Gospels gives that idea? I thought that everyone agreed that was the reason people thought that Jesus was historical?

No, that is not why people think that Jesus was historical. People think there was a historical Jesus because their doctrine tells them that Jesus was fully human as well as being fully divine, or because they have heard about the historical Jesus for so long that they assume it must be so; or they assume that Christianity had to have been started by someone like Jesus.

Prima facie, that passage sounds like a mystical muddle. I had to read a different translation or 2 to find out what the first verse means - evidently it means that Paul would accept damnation himself to save his fellow Jews.

And you left the word "God" our of the last phrase. The verse says that Christ is God over all. This verse has been used to support Jesus = God.

Otherwise, "Christ" [not Jesus Christ, not Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, purported son of Joseph] is an Israelite "kata sarka" or according to the flesh, a term that doesn't have a prima facie meaning in English.

Is this anything other than a theological conclusion that the Christ should come from the line of David, a conclusion derived from reading the Scriptures?

If the unreliable and often obscure theological writings that appear under the name of Paul were evidence of anything, it would be evidence. But it's not.

Clark's commentary

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible at the same url

Quote:

their descent from these fathers was a privilege, though they valued themselves too highly upon it; but what was the crown and glory of all, and which they took the least, though the apostle took the most notice of, is, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came; that is, either of the fathers, or of the Israelites, from whom Christ, according to his human nature, sprung; being a son of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of David, and the son of Mary; hence the Messiah is called , "the Messiah or Christ of Israel" (b): who is described as over all, angels and men, being the creator, upholder, and governor of them; and as having another nature, a divine one, being God, truly and properly God, blessed for evermore; in himself, and to be blessed and praised by all creatures.

So you are left with the mystical, divine Christ. Is this divine god evidence of the humans Jesus?

:huh:

Toto, the question is simple. When we look at the passage, what are the various prima facie readings that are possible? What is YOUR take?

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Whether that is true or not, we can still look at the prima facie meaning of certain passages by 'Paul'.

What are the possible prima facie meaning of the following passage from 'Paul'?:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

Obviously Paul believed... (or someone writing, claiming to be 'Paul' wanted us to believe that this was what 'Paul' said..... debateable)
As 'Paul' admits that he had never met or laid eyes upon any Jebus the Christ as a living breathing person on earth, he is no actual witness to the existence any such individual as a living, breathing person.
At most he is here recounting some hearsay and putting his own particular religious spin on what he thinks was a person from the recent past.
That does not make anything he claims here valid. He has no first hand personal knowledge that any Christ has 'came' or is 'over all'. These are only expression of his religious interpretations and convictions and are founded solely upon his (and possibly others) -thoughts- relevant to what he has heard from unidentified outside sources, not from any personal real-world contact with this claimed Christ.

May as well have old Jake tell me how it went down, or what it all means.

All the above may be true, but it doesn't answer the question: When we look at the passage, what are the various prima facie readings that are possible? What is YOUR take? What is 'Paul' saying here?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-21-2011, 05:48 AM	#15
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	Gakuseidon, It's so simple really. Just try to think of a parsimonious answer. It's as easy as falling off a desert. Like, for example, he obviously means different things by kata sarka, even though he uses the phrase twice in a row. Or, somebody inserted one of the kata sarkas but not the other one. Just remember the guiding principle of the methodology: the more references to an earthly figure, the more interpolations and/or suitably mythicist interpretations there are likely to be. Simple. :] Sometimes, I even think there are, suspiciously perhaps, almost toooo many references. :constern01:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.