Amaleq13

It reminds of how you ignored the, IMO, obvious possibility that the non-response of Carrier's advisor was "telling" you he was not interested in continuing the discussion rather than he did not agree with Richard. So how about you and Earl make a sincere effort to avoid encouraging a continuation of this sort of irrelevant nonsense and, as I clearly requested, try to stick to the evidence? Is it really too much to ask that somebody in this goddamn discussion take it upon themselves to be the "better man" and ignore any previous insults in the hopes that a rational argument can be made that will establish one view as more likely than the other? I look forward to seeing both of you choosing the high road in the future and, just to be clear, fully intend to remove any further irrelevant comments.

I am in total agreement, however, with the sentiments of your second paragraph. I, too, would like to have that issue resolved in a rational and professional manner.

Let the rational discussion begin. Starting now.

John Kesler

Freudian slip, perhaps?

Chris Weimer

No, simply a recognition of my divine ability. :angel:

Amaleq13

Not to de-sanctify Chris but those typing habits are hard to break. You should see how many times I've typed "Josephus" while writing a psych report on kids named "Joseph" or "disciples" instead of "discipline". The previous chair of the Special Ed dept. is a former Lutheran minister and he was particularly amused by both errors.

Ben C Smith

I have a project supervisor on my job named Chris D. I cannot tell you how many times I have tried to email Christ D.

Ben.

krosero

That would be a sufficient description of someone who is just a descendant of David, or primarily presented as a descendant of David. Someone who is a descendent from God (from other spheres), and primarily presented as that, but also a descendent from David (in our own spheres), is another story. For such a figure you say, God's son, who was, however, descended from David when it comes to his fleshly lineage (or: descended from David in our sphere, or however you want to translate "descended from David KATA SARKA").

That is my explanation of it. It's a little like saying "F.D.R., president of the United States, who is known as Frankie around these parts." Or "F.D.R., that servant of the American people; but around here we know him as a son of Hyde Park, NY." This parallel is not exact, and none ever will be; but that's what I would say.

The basic fact is that Paul uses this phrase, KATA SARKA, even when discussing his kinsmen, in Romans 9:3, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh[KATA SARKA]". So my question to you would be, why does he say, "My kinsmen according to the flesh," or "My kinsmen in the sphere of the flesh," or "My kinsmen in conformity with the flesh"? All he has to do is say, "My kinsmen."

rlogan

What kind of response is this? How do I know ispie-dipshit isn't how they say howdy-do?

You aren't supplying any information here. I am obviously asking a question. To "answer" it with some kind of backhanded way of saying I'm a dipshit in greek is very odd.

I've explained to you already that I am a rank amateur. So I don't know what you think you've accomplished here.

*yawn*

No, I tinker on snowmachines. Fly supercubs. Hunt Caribou. Stuff like that. I'm not going to learn Greek.

Why not just put forth what I've asked for instead of this incessant "you're an ignoramus" stuff?



pffft. This is not much more than some kind of snobbish appeal to authority. "See how much I've read and you've not".

What is so difficult about taking specific passages out of something (Josephus would be great, for example) and showing me what are the conventions for referring to a blood descendant of someone?


Is that really so hard? I have an open mind. Calling me stupid is just unproductive.

rlogan

That is merely an assertion. Of course, that is what you make up if you are wanting to front the idea.

I am asking for evidence. And it needs to come from historical sources.


That is exactly the evidence convincing me that what Clivedurdle has said above, and what I have elsewhere proposed.

The use above does not at all mean blood relatives.

krosero

I carefully worded my interpretation NOT to assert an earthly existence. If you notice what I say above, though it is not exactly the words Doherty would use, he also says that Paul is indicating that Christ, in the sphere of flesh, was descended from David; that Christ had a fleshly lineage of some kind related to David. It's just that he interprets "flesh" and descents and spheres, in this verse, to be unearthly. Your question was, why not just point to a descent from David, and why add on this KATA SARKA phrase indicating something mysterious about the descent from David? I said that Paul thought of Christ as descending from two spheres: from the sphere of God's throne (descending from the father, as the son); and somehow (Doherty thinks in an unearthly way) descended from David in what I called "our sphere," which Doherty takes to mean the whole sublunar realm. And this is not made up: Paul tells us that Christ is God's son and, somehow, David's descendent. He tells us plainly that Christ is descended (exactly how is the point of contention) from THAT realm and from OUR realm. So in the historicist or the mythicist model, whichever you prefer, he's merely specifying that Christ, who was God's son, was descended, nevertheless, from David's seed (whatever that means). Paul is always speaking about what belongs to this realm or to that realm; it's characteristic of him to say how things are related, whether in spirit or in the flesh, or in this world or in that world, etc. There is nothing strange that I can see about his emphasizing that Christ's relationship to David pertained to this fleshly sphere in which human beings lived (which for Doherty means the whole sublunar realm).

You are referring to Paul's reference to "my kinsmen KATA SARKA" (Rom 9:3). I'm not sure how this leads to what you proposed, mostly because you have not given me the connection in your thought. What do you mean? And of course, Paul is not referring to his blood relatives in the sense of his family, but to his Israelite kinsmen: all of Israel. We don't disagree on that. (But as an aside, did not all Jews go back to Abraham, in the world of the flesh, according to Paul's thought?)

And how does it matter that Paul is referring to his nation as a whole? He is referring to somebody, and saying to what sphere that relationship pertains. That is the evidence I was presenting: it shows his characteristic way of saying what spheres any relationship belongs to: and in 9:3 he does that with the words KATA SARKA. So his use of the phrase there just adds to the sense that when he identifies, in 1:3, what sphere the relationship between Christ and David belonged to, and says KATA SARKA, he is just using vocabulary that he uses about people generally, even when these people are indisputedly earthly human beings. There is nothing strange about his use of KATA SARKA in 1:3, in either the mythicist or the historicist model.

Actually, given his penchant for using KATA SARKA of human beings, it is odd in the MJ model that he should choose to use this very same phrase, unmodified, of an unearthly being.