TedM

Sorry I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I thought your point was that the term is 'preacher-speak' and limited to folks like Paul, so we can't conclude that it means something having to do with earth. As far as I can tell, every non-Paul reference to it that IS understood (preacher-speak or not) is talking about flesh on earth, so I think it reduces the likelihood that Paul's use is something else. It could be, but isn't likely.

ted

jgibson000

Here's the entry on SARX from BDAG.

Jeffrey

rlogan

Thank you Ted.

I apologize too - there was something that I was confused about and now I see more clearly.

I did not mean to give an impression that Paul was the first to use the expression ever.

I can think of many examples of expressions used in religion-speak that have uses elsewhere.

But if one is viewing what they think of as a "historical" piece, and comes across some kind of statement that is tantamount to "OK, we're stepping out of the fantasy for a moment" then the message should be that the piece is garbage to begin with - not that you should take whatever comes next as valid.

A historical text does not need to tell you when it is moving in and out of spirit-worlds and such. It doesn't have mystical terms for simply being born. Can you imagine? Josephus, born of a woman, attempted to defend Jerusalem against the Roman onslaughtaccording the flesh...

TedM

Yes, that would be an odd way to write a historical text. Once you get into discussing something that is not of the flesh, the words used pertaining to the flesh may be less clearly interpreted because of the mere fact that it is possibly used in a way that is unique to the subject

ted

Amaleq13

Availability of the individual and...?

The number of people agreeing on a speculation does not change the fact that it is speculative. No maybe about it.

I never said it was without merit. I'm just saying Carrier is the only one who can tell you if your guess is correct.

Do you intend to answer my request to be more specific in your allegations by drawing attention to the particular portions of LSJ you consider to be evidence of Carrier's manipulation of the data?

S.C.Carlson

Carrier's discussion nice tracks the ordering of the definitions in the full Liddell, Scott & Jones lexicon. The BAGD entry for KATA is arranged completely differently, and does not track his exposition of the meanings for KATA.

To determine if Carrier was using an abridgment, I checked the discussion with the Liddell & Scott's Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Though the entry for KATA is basically arranged in the same way for the Intermediate Lexicon as in the LSJ, it has "according to" instead of the words "fitness or conformity, in accordance with." So Carrier's explanation uses the words of the full LSJ lexicon, not the abridged LS.

This indicates that Carrier's source is, in all probability, the LSJ.

Stephen Carlson

Amaleq13

Can you tell whether Carrier was working from memory or selectively quoting from the open book sitting on his desk?

Do you understand the basis for Jeffrey's accusation?

If so, would you please point out what relevant portions of the entry Carrier has ignored? I've been getting nothing but dragged around the dance floor by Mr. Gibson and I'm exhausted.

Ted Hoffman

I feel embarrased for the members of this forum for the nonsense they have to put up with. First, Doherty was being harangued about a verb form being different from a verb . Now, it is about semantic range of kata and grandstanding about how superior one's command of Greek is, then speculating endlessly about the source Carrier may have used and twisting (Amaleq finds that he is being dragged around the dance floor to the point of exhaustion) and curving, tapping Carrier's interpretation with manicured scholastic fingertips, blowing important smoke and puffing regal hot air around it but stating nothing substantial about Carrier's interpretation of Pauline usage of kata sarka (I would really like to see the objections [assuming there are any] or criticisms to Carrier's interpretation, in point form: 1., 2., 3., etc).

Common sense dictates that when a word has a semantic range, the context dictates what meaning best fits. And it is in this sense that Carrier has concluded that the orthodox interpretation (according to the flesh), is "barely intelligible" in that context, and that Doherty's interpretation makes the best sense. Carrier notes:
I do not see any reason why Carrier should even squander his time bothering with the piffle I see here regarding kata sarka. The Lexicons are in conformity with Carrier's statements regarding kata sarka in the accusative. Of course the preposition kata has a semantic range. Every Lexicon shows that. And I have checked. Is Carrier supposed to list all the possible meanings of kata first? Plus, Carrier does *not* claim that the mythicist way is the only possible interpretation: it just makes the best sense.
Here is the LSJ that Jeffrey provided earlier about kata:
Carrier:
Where, in Jesus' Holy name is the problem?

Clivedurdle

That one sounds right - what about "Jesus came into the world of sin" as a paraphrase? No need for that to be real flesh at all! I think that the expression Jesus came into the world to save us from sin is actually used! What actually is the word for world by the way? Was its meaning inclusive of all four elements or what movement is described, between air and earth or what? How did the ancients split heaven and earth?

In the four element world, where was the world of sin? Sounds like a mixture of earth and air - the domains of humans and spirits - water is used as a first cleansing, fire as an eternal purifying.

Is Paul using an innovative concept of sin like a fifth element that needs the alchemy of a death and resurrection?

Ted Hoffman

May I be charitable enough as to remind you that the name "Gibson" is abrupt? and that its usage in reference to Mr. - uh, Jeffrey, automatically incurs Jeffrey's significant displeasure and be reminded that continuous use of this abrupt name will, in Mr. Jeffrey's opinion, mean that you are being "intentionally pugnacious and gratuitously hostile".

Take it as free advice from a benevolent saint who has come precariously close to suffering the, oh so terrible fate of being "intentionally pugnacious and gratuitously hostile".

In fact, using that name in a dance floor setting (where being fluid and flexible is of paramount importance, and being "abrupt" very, um, terrible?), may even elicit a tidalwave of displeasure. Maybe even rapture a raging bile duct .
Because, nothing is more memorable like irony when it is inadvertent.

<Attempts an off-tune staccato dance style for dramatic effect but fails miserably, because he is such a fluid and smooth dancer>