James The Least

Romans 9:1-5
"I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs,and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."

So here we have the Pauline writer making an argument for "those of my own race," from whom is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah.

How does this support Doherty's thesis that the Pauline writers do not refer to an earthly Jesus? Doesn't it undermine that thesis?

Duvduv

Before getting there it's worth noting that the end of that passage has been incorrectly rendered into English to portray Jesus as God rather than to praise God.
Second, it is worth examining whether the chapter simply involves a composite of a pre-existing Jewish friendly monotheistic tract and insertions invoking the Christ, in which case it would have no relationship to the idea of a single coherent text representing a mythist belief.

Toto

The phrase that is inartfully translated as "human ancestry" in Rom 1:5 is the familiar "kata sarka."

You will find extensive discussions of what this phrase might mean if you search the archives and the web. The phrase is usually translated as "according to the flesh" or "in the fleshly realm." Doherty believes that it refers to a Platonic fleshly aspect of reality. Example - here:

tanya

No, friend. You are thinking of Rom 1:3

περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαυιδ κατα σαρκα

I acknowledge lacking sufficient neuronal connections, to comprehend Doherty's writing:
I have a completely different view, one which requires only arithmetic, not partial differential equations, to solve.

"Paul" is here writing that Jesus (Romans 1:3) was born a normal human, and kata sarka means explicitly that, refuting the idea that Jesus was some kind of apparition. No, Paul insists that Jesus had been born, in the customary fashion, as a genuine person, ordinary human, of flesh and blood, with a ghost providing paternal DNA.

But then, in Romans 1:4, the plot thickens, and "Paul" clarifies, that

του ορισθεντος υιου θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης εξ αναστασεως νεκρων ιησου χριστου του κυριου ημων

"the holy spirit" (kata pneuma agios) declared (oristhentos) that Jesus is the son of God (υιου θεου)--> in power (en dynami), by which, I assume, maybe incorrectly, that "Paul" here employs theos meaning YHWH. (So, Jesus is an ordinary human, but with superhuman powers/abilities, derived from his father, YHWH).

Now, we have a clear delineation, Jesus is NOT the same as YHWH, according to this passage, but rather, is YHWH's child, whose power is proven by Jesus' resurrection (anastaseos) from the dead (nekron).

I know and understand too little of Plato's writings to be able to comment on the idea that "Paul" does not mean what he writes, but rather something more grandiose, and more complex.

I understand "Paul", the way I imagine that I understand Marx. I do not understand either Plato or Hegel.

So, armed with that caveat, I would dispute both the OP, and Earl himself. I disagree that kata sarka here, in Romans 1:3, refers to anything other than the affirmation of Jesus as a living, breathing, ordinary human, "blessed" with supernatural powers, bestowed upon him, by his father, YHWH. Sorry, if that interpretation is too facile. I am a simple person.

Toto

Sorry - I wrote Rom 1:5, but meant Rom 9:5.

aa5874

It is most amazing how people isolate a single verse just to make erroneous claims about the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writing wrote Nothing of a human being. The Pauline Jesus was GOD incarnate.

We have many letters under the name of Paul and when taken as a whole we can understand clearly that they are NOT history.

A mythological God, a Non-existing being, Revealed his Son, a non-existing son, to Paul after he consulted Non-existing beings. See Galatians 1.

Doherty seem not to understand that Adam and Even were mythological even though they were created as human beings in Genesis.

Doherty does NOT seem to understand that it really does NOT matter that the NT claims Jesus was on earth and was crucified under Pilate because the very NT claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God the Creator.

After all the Pauline writings were used to argue Against Marcion.

The Pauline writings were used to claim Jesus was a God incarnate, NOT a Spirit.

Apologetic sources that used the Pauline writings also claimed Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a virgin and crucified under Pilate.

Chrysostom wrote Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans but the same Chrysostom claimed Jesus was boirn of a Ghost and a virgin and was crucified under Pilate.

Homily on Romans 9 by Chrysostom.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm

Homilies on gMatthew by Chrysostom
See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200105.htm

There is just no story at all that Jesus was crucified in the sub-lunar.

The Pauline writings are extremely easy to understand.

God sent his son to die for our sins and he was raised from the dead.

That is the Good News of the Pauline revelations.

John 3:16 KJV--For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

Galatians 2:20 KJV---I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

sotto voce

It has been translated indicating Jesus to be God. One must not impute motive to translators; in this case, anyway. Neither can it be said that this rendering is incorrect. It is unclear what the original meant, and is much disputed, and on rather subjective criteria. But if Paul here referred to Jesus as God, it is neither inconsistent with his other accredited works, nor with any other part of the Bible, OT or NT.

DCHindley

Duv,

I would bracket as interpolations the "in Christ" in vs 1 and "from Christ" in vs 3, and the middle part of vs 5.

9:1a I am speaking the truth
1b [...],
1c I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit,

2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.

3a For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off
3b [...]
3c for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.

4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;

5a to them belong the patriarchs,
5b [...].
5c God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

The middle part of vs 5 looks like a case of integration of the Christ figure of the interpolator with Jewish scripture.

5b and out of whom, according to the flesh, is the Christ. (adapting Ps 41:13).

5 ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

5 to them belong the patriarchs, and out of whom, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

DCH

sotto voce

What would we do without convenient interpolations?

The Spirit of Jesus, according to Paul and Luke.

Not since 70 CE.

So who interpolated?

Sheshbazzar

Key point. Waay too many.

And it is highly unlikely that any actual 'Paul', living in the first century CE, is responsible for the contents of any of them.
-at least not in the form that has been 'preserved' by Christianity.

People that quote 'Paul' are not quoting any Paul, but unknown church writers of unknown date.
And this church invented theological crap proves not one damn thing about what any real 'Paul' or what 1st century Christians may have believed.