NOGO

There are two elements in the above verses which seem to concur with the Gospels.

1) Jesus came from the seed of David
2) Jesus is the Son of God.

However there are also two elements which tell us that Paul is totally ignorant of the Gospel Jesus.

One is that Paul begins by telling us the source of his information and it is not apostolic tradition.

The second is that Paul is saying that Jesus became "Son of God" after he died and resurrected.

When read along with Hebrews 1, this statement about the Son of God is clearly something that happened in heaven, upon Jesus' return from death.

This is certainly not an historical event yet the Gospel writers go out of their way to make it an historical event

In particular Luke says that Jesus will be called Son of God because Mary was a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. There is also many other instances where Jesus is called Son of God by various demons, Peter, and also the Father at Jesus' baptism.

We therefore have a clear case where Paul has an event take place in heaven and the Gospels have it as earthly history.

Why then should we believe that the reference to the "seed of David" must mean what the Gospels make it to mean. Particularly when Paul introduces the subject not from an historical perspective but from an OT prophetic perspective.

Boomeister

Exactly!
I think Paul was trying to make Jesus into some kind of "messiah" (in the OT prophetic sense, like you had mentioned) by saying he was from the seed of David. However, he missed the point the gospels were saying about Jesus having no earthly father (at least as depicted in Matthew and Luke). Of course, remember, Paul's writings were before the gospels.
If you look at it from a chronicalogical order, Jesus' story becomes more fantastic through the years. Paul sees him as a man, who becomes God after his death; Mark sees Jesus as man, who becomes God after his baptism; Matthew and Luke sees Jesus as becoming God because of his virgin birth; and John sees him as God from the beginning of time. From what I've read, that is the order they were written: Paul's letters, Mark, Matthew and Luke (not sure which one came first between those two), and then John. It makes sense to me that the legend grows...much like the guy who catches the fish that's this big, no it's this big...
Much like how gossip and rumors become exaggerated.

Boomeister

sodium

If you go just buy Romans, the story makes internal sense. A man (and heir to David) was sacrificed, brought back to live eternally at the right hand of God. He became a kind of adopted Son of God. Romans style Christians could look forward to a similar elevation after their deaths, also becoming God's children and living eternally with God.

Hebrews takes a slightly different view. In Hebrews, the Son is firstborn of creation and is used by God to create everything else. He has become a much more literal Son of God. But he is still a descendant of Judah. This could possibly be explained as a statement about race.

The Gospels merge these views, and also interpret the idea of Jesus being resurrected in a more physical way (at least in the later ones). Jesus is both the heir of David, and the literal son of God. And at the end, he gets resurrected, only to walk around for a while on earth before heading up to heaven.

To me, the gospel version isn't the kind of thing you'd come up with starting from scratch. It's the kind of story you get when you combine contradictory points of dogma.

Layman

The notion that Paul says he learned that Jesus was born of a descendent of David from the Old Testament is erroneous. This is standard Jewish stuff, believing historical events were foretold by the Old Testament. Indeed, believing that such important events must have had some Old Testament support.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price6.htm

The notion that Paul is not refering to a literal human relationship between Jesus and David is likewise erroneous. In fact, Paul's usage of the phrases "according to the flesh" and "according to the spirit" leave no doubt that he means that Jesus was literally a human descendent of King David.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price7.htm

And I'm not sure you intend to simply attempt to point out a contradiction between Luke and Paul, but Paul saying Jesus was 'declared' the Son of God by his being raised from the dead is not the same thing as saying Jesus was not the Son of God until the resurrection. Of course, it's possible they had different ideas about the subject without implying any support for the Jesus Myth.

Vorkosigan

Nonsense. That is back-reading from the gospels into Paul. Paul has no knowledge of any historical Jesus as presented in the fictional gospels. Paul's meaning of "through the flesh" is clarified in Galatians 4

• Darby Gal4: 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons; one of the maid servant, and one of the free woman.
  23 But he [that was] of the maid servant was born according to flesh, and he [that was] of the free woman through the promise.
  24 Which things have an allegorical sense; for these are two covenants:"

As you can see, the two women both had kids that pop out of the birth canal engendered via normal intercourse, but curiously only one is born according to the flesh. Therefore, being born "according to the flesh" has some spiritual or allegorical meaning.

Paul clearly means "flesh" to oppose something else, symbolically, a relationship to faith and promises. When he says Jesus was born according to the flesh, he is talking about Jesus' relationship to the Law, Judaism, and Abraham. He does not mean that Jesus popped out of some woman's womb.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Paul died and resurrected with Jesus. Therefore Jesus, like Paul, was a flesh and blood man and his resurrection and death were physical too.

It dont get funnier than that.

judge

Closer study of "hebrews" may give reason to see the same thing as in Romans.

Hebrew 7:15-16 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life

Jesus did not have the power of an indestructible life until after the resurrection. He died!

This is the same point that Paul alludes to in Romans IMHO

GakuseiDon

Vork, that doesn't make much sense. Is Paul saying that the son of Hagar wasn't a historical person? I don't think so.

"Born according to the flesh" is given an allegorical meaning there - it doesn't start with one. That is, it means "born into the world of flesh". The allegory that is given to that means "of the race of Israel".

This is the full cite for that passage:
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, Barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in labour; for more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband." And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 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 also.

Did Paul regard Isaac as a spiritual entity? Were the people persecuting Isaac who were born "according to the flesh" spiritual people?

What allegory is Paul trying to make, in your opinion? What is "according to the flesh" supposed to be inside the allegory?

Vorkosigan

No, I don't think you've quite grasped that you and I are making the same point. By any count, the children were born the same natural way, popping out the birth canal. So why would Paul say "in the flesh" to refer to only one birth? Gal 4 gives us a clear case of Paul using "through the flesh" or "in the flesh" in an allegorical way - indeed, to describe someone's relationship to the Law and History. So when Paul avers that Jesus was born "through the flesh" he could well be speaking in the same allegorical way -- describing Jesus' relationship to law and history. I mean, Paul knows the mother and brothers of Jesus, and other people who knew him. He's from Palestine, and persecuted Christians. It would be easy for him to give a concrete cast to Jesus' descent. But apparently, none of this made its way into the letters.

If you don't believe that this usage represents a clear allegorical use of "flesh," check the NIV. Darby gives us a good rendering; the NIV removes the word "flesh."

• NIV 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

You can see that "born the ordinary way" is c lear nonsense. The NIV eliminated "in the flesh" because this passage is extraordinarily dangerous for HJ proponents, it being a clear sample that Paul might very well mean something else besides physical incarnation when he refers to Jesus and flesh. The NIV, as we know, is an extremely tenditious translation with a clear theopolitical slant. The NIV was so concerned about the word "flesh" here they eliminated it twice (again in verse 29), even though the resultant "translation" is ugly and illogical (how could "born the ordinary way" ever oppose "born under a promise?" -- one is a process, the other a condition -- Paul is often obtuse, but he is rarely plain stupid) The NIV is anxious to render all occurrences of "flesh" as "physical flesh" just in case believers actually do what believers never do, and read the actual words, and start thinking for themselves.

Hope this is clearer.

Vorkosigan

Layman

• Darby Gal4: 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons; one of the maid servant, and one of the free woman.
  23 But he [that was] of the maid servant was born according to flesh, and he [that was] of the free woman through the promise.
  24 Which things have an allegorical sense; for these are two covenants:"

As you can see, the two women both had kids that pop out of the birth canal engendered via normal intercourse, but curiously only one is born according to the flesh. Therefore, being born "according to the flesh" has some spiritual or allegorical meaning.

Paul clearly means "flesh" to oppose something else, symbolically, a relationship to faith and promises. When he says Jesus was born according to the flesh, he is talking about Jesus' relationship to the Law, Judaism, and Abraham. He does not mean that Jesus popped out of some woman's womb.






The nonsense is in your selective approach to the issue. But since you will not follow the link, fair enough, I'll reproduce it here with my discussion of this verse in bold.

The facts are, that the Galatians verse contradicts the Jesus Myth idea and every other usage of the phrases "according to the flesh" and "accoridng to the spirit" bury it ten feet under.

_______________________________________________

B) Paul's Other Uses of "According to the Flesh"

I was surprised that, other than blandly asserting that Paul's use of the phrase is "frustratingly cryptic", Doherty fails to study how Paul uses this phrase in his many other references in the Pauline corpus. Perhaps he did, though, and simply did not like what he found. For every time that Paul uses the phrase "according to the flesh" in reference to lineage, he is referring to a literal descent of human lineage. Nowhere does Paul use the term to denote merely the characteristics of descent in a spiritual entity in a celestial realm. Furthermore, none of the non lineage uses of "according to the flesh" by Paul offer any support for Doherty's theory. And when he combines that phrase with "according to the Spirit", Paul is clearly affirming a normal human event or ability as compared to one caused or animated by the Spirit. Indeed, the Revised English Bible translates this phrase "in the ordinary course of nature." (as cited by James. DG Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, page 246). In short, Doherty's interpretation of the phrases is contradicted by the rest of the Pauline corpus.

1. Uses Discussing Lineage

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "Through Isaac your descendants will be named." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."

Romans 9:3-8

Here, Paul identifies himself as being "kinsman" to the Jews "according to the flesh." But not even Doherty imagines that Paul is describing himself as being a Jew only in the lower celestial realm. Obviously, Paul means what he says--he is a kinsman according to the flesh because he shares their ancestral lineage. Furthermore, Paul once again reiterates Jesus' physical lineage here by using the same exact phrase he had just applied to himself--that Jesus too is descended from Israelis "according to the flesh." That Paul would use the same phrase to describe completely different ideas right next to each other is untenable. Especially because to do so would completely undercut his point. Paul is arguing here that physical descent from Abraham is not enough to ensure salvation. To reinforce his point, Paul reiterates his own physical link to the Jews as well as Jesus' physical link to the Jews. Accordingly, it is by far more reasonable to understand the phrase "according to the flesh"--when used in reference to lineage--to mean actual human blood relationships. There is no hint here that these relationships only existed as an idea or a characteristic. Just the opposite is true. It is the idea, not the physical link, which makes people "the children of promise."

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God."

Romans 4:1-2

Again we see Paul uses the phrase "according to the flesh" in the context of physical lineage. Unless Doherty is willing to argue that Abraham was a purely spiritual being who never came to earth in Paul's thought, this scripture strongly undercuts his arguments.

"Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face. To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect anyone else is bold--I speak in foolishness--I am just as bold myself. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I."

2 Corinthians 11:18-22

By referring to boasting "according to the flesh" Paul does not mean boasting about demons or the demon realm of the "sphere of the flesh." He is obviously talking about human characteristics--strongly focusing on physical lineage. Note how Paul's boasting "according to the flesh" refers to his being a Hebrew, an Israelite, and a descendent of Abraham. Obviously, by "according to the flesh" Paul is stressing his actual physical lineage. He is not referring to a lower celestial realm, but to the fact that he is biologically a Hebrew, an Israelite, and a descendent of Abraham.

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, Barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in labour; for more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband." And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 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 also."

Galatians 4:22-29

Again we have Paul hitting home on his theme that it is the things accomplished by the promise, or by the Spirit, that are important. Things that are done "according to the flesh" are not demonic, they are physical. Yet they do not ensure salvation. Those who are born "according to the Spirit" are in God's will--they are Christians. Paul has juxtaposed the Israelites (descendants of Rebecca) with the descendants of Hagar. It is the Israelites who were now relying on their descent "according to the flesh" from Abraham for salvation and Christians who were relying on the power of God:

The child of Hagar is the child 'born according to the flesh'; but that corresponds, not to the descendants of Ishmael, but to the Jews, or at least those of them who relied on their physical ('according to the flesh') descent from Abraham.... In contrast, the son 'born according to the Spirit' corresponds not to the descendants of Isaac, but to those who received the Spirit. Isaac, in other words, represents a different kind or line of descent, one which stands in contrast to merely physical descent. Isaac represents those born through the power of divine promise, which is another way of saying, through the power of God's spirit.

James DG Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, page 257.

Professor Dunn goes on to note that here and in Romans Paul uses the "according to the flesh/according to the Spirit" in "explicit antithesis (Romans i.3-4; viii 4, 5, 12-13). His analysis is right on. Here, as in Romans 1, Paul is using "according to the flesh" to denote physical descent and using "according to the spirit" to denote through the power of God's spirit.

2. Uses Unrelated to Lineage

Having reviewed the uses of "according to the flesh," I will now examine the other uses Paul makes of the phrase "according to the flesh." None of them support Doherty's theory and many contradict it.

"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,"

Romans 8:3-6

Though the phrase "according to the flesh" here has a negative connotation, it certainly adds no support to Doherty's unique interpretation. Paul is here using "according to the flesh" to refer to being lead by the frail, fallen human part of our nature as opposed to being lead "according to the spirit." Furthermore, there is no hint that the meaning here that Paul is referring to the lower celestial realm. These passages are interesting, however, in that they set up the "according to the flesh"/"according to the spirit" dichotomy we saw in Romans 1. Just as in Romans 1, the difference is not between the lower and upper celestial realms, but the difference between normal humanity and God's influence and power.

"So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

Romans 8:12-13

This passage reiterates the point made just above. Living "according to the flesh" is normal human life, whereas "by the Spirit" is being influenced and subject to the power of God. Once again, there is no hint of living in a lower celestial realm verses living in a higher celestial realm. By referring equating "according to the flesh" with the "deeds of the body" Paul is ruling out a meaning of the lower celestial realm and emphasizing that he is talking about normal humanity.

"For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God."

1 Corinthians 1:26-29

Though Paul does not here refer to "according to the Spirit" the dichotomy is present in this passage. The "many wise according to the flesh" is a reference to normal human wisdom. It is set up against God's own wisdom and how it will make the normal human wisdom foolish. Obviously, the "wise" here do not exist in the lower celestial realm. It is not the level of their existence that makes them foolish, but the fact of their humanity that does so.

"In this confidence I intended at first to come to you, so that you might twice receive a blessing; that is, to pass your way into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and by you to be helped on my journey to Judea. Therefore, I was not vacillating when I intended to do this, was I? Or what I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, so that with me there will be yes, yes and no, no at the same time? But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no."

2 Corinthians 1:15-18

Paul's use of "according to the flesh" here is not entirely clear, but appears to suggest human weakness. It offers no support for Doherty's interpretation of Romans 1.

"Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation."

2 Corinthians 5:16-19

There is some ambiguity in what Paul means here by "according to the flesh." But though Doherty usually attempts to twist any ambiguity to his advantage, he will find no shelter here in any of the reasonable alternatives. Some have argued that by knowing Christ "according to the flesh" that Paul is referring quite literally to having known Jesus during his ministry on earth. The preceding phrase "no one according to the flesh" makes this unlikely, and seems to point to an alternative meaning. But whatever the likelihood of such a meaning, it obviously would be inconsistent with Doherty's theory.

The more likely alternative is that Paul is speaking of knowing Jesus only by human understanding. That is, it is consistent with the previous verses that put human understanding and wisdom in a poor life. A Spirit empowered understanding of Jesus is the ideal way to know Jesus. Of course, this meaning provides no support for the idea that by "according to the flesh" that Paul meas the lower celestial realm. Far from it. He is obviously referring to normal human understanding.

I ask that when I am present I need not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.

2 Corinthians 10:2-4

This phrase strongly supports the traditional understanding of the phrase "according to the flesh" in Romans 1. By referring to walking "according to the flesh" Paul is referring to attempting a spiritual sojourn by human understanding. By referring to "in the flesh" though, Paul is obviously referring to physically walking as a human being. Paul goes on to discuss spiritual warfare, and excludes the idea that we are involved in warfare "according to the flesh." If Paul did see us at war somehow with the "sphere of the flesh"/"the lower celestial realm" of the demons, it is hard to imagine that he makes no connection with the enemy's existence there. It appears that all he means is that normal human effort will are not effective in a truly spiritual contest.

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

Ephesians 6:5-6

Here, the Letter to the Ephesians refers to a slave's master "according to the flesh." He is not referring to a demon master. Or a relationship conceived as having occurred in the lower celestial realm. The author is actually stressing a physical human relationship of a slave and its owner.

Conclusion
Doherty's attempt to interpret "born of a descendent of David according to the flesh" to mean that Jesus was never born but was instead a purely spiritual figure who never came to earth is unavailing. He completely fails to offer any comparable pagan savior parallels that were so described. In fact, his own example contradicts his theory because it involves a being who lived on earth and had a biological mother. It is much more reasonable to understand this verse in light of its plain meaning and its Jewish background--Paul thought Jesus was born of a descendent of David and this marked him as qualified to be the Messiah. But even less persuasive is Doherty's attempt to equate "according to the flesh" with the demon realm of the lower celestial realm. Neither of the authorities he cites supports his interpretation. In fact, they directly contradict it. Moreover, the most important evidence of all--Paul's own writings--reveals that Doherty's interpretation is unreasonable and unsupported. Accordingly, Romans 1:3-4 stands as a clear reference by Paul to the human life of Jesus.

___________________________________



Of course, your approach is nonsensical. How does Ishamael's birth represent a proper relationship to the Law, Judaism, and Abraham? He was born outside the law and outside Judaism. By saying Ishamael was born "according to the flesh" he is saying that Ishmael was born by ordinary human efforts. Isaac, on the other hand, was in accordance with the promise of God and in fulfillment of God's plans and spirit. Remember that Abraham's wife was too old to have children, which was why Abraham went to the younger Hagar.

James DG Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, pages 246-47.

So you see, being born "according to the flesh" is about relying on one's natural, literal descent from Abraham rather than on God's own power and plan.