rlogan

With completely different meaning.

Let us use a different word from the same arena.

Vork quoted a passage "walk according to the flesh"

Now, does this mean litelally walk as opposed to run or stay stationary?

It doesn't mean anything of the kind. And if you clung to the idea that you were supposed to walk for God we would say you are being equally silly.


Pretty clear to me. You are not supposed to use Christ to get rich or bang the hot chicks. darn! We are to "know" him in a spiritual way, not by our carnal desires.

I agree completely with ichabod's statement about "fleshy" desires vs. spiritual desires.

The problem is that both of you wish to take that out of context and assert that is a distinction between myth and reality.

Taking your world view, Robinson Crusoe is real. He had the "of the flesh" problems of feeding himself, clothing himself, and constructing shelter.

Bugs bunny is real because he eats carrots.


The son of David part is exceedingly simple. The Prophesy says he must be so. Its a bald faced fabrication that becomes "Backed up" by three different fake lineages in the new testament.

dado

need to be careful here - there are numerous "messiahs", there is only one "The Messiah" - HaMashiak. JMaccabbe may have been a regular messiah, but he was not HaMashiak - and the oft-quoted Davidic lineage only applies to HaMashiak.

technically, the Davidic lineage is misrepresented as the specification is considerably more detailed than just "of David". none of the various lineages shown in the canonical gospels qualify. interestingly i am told at least one of the non-canonical gospels does in fact list an acceptable lineage for Joseph, but i haven't verified that for myself.

this thread is a fount of information, but i have to admit it is getting difficult to follow due to the number of posts and the length of the posts....

dado

it appears whoever inserted the lineages thought the same, but it's actually not that simple - there are Davidic lines excluded from Messiahship. but i don't think that has anything to do with the OP(?) so maybe another thread is in order.

Magdlyn

Yes, it is a confusing thread, but I am glad you showed up with your perspectives.

rlogan

Sure.

I am only commenting that the gospel perps got their Jesus material by diving in the dumpster of the Hebrw Bible.

Dumpster divin' for Jesus!

GakuseiDon

I also agree with ichabod's statement. "Flesh" has shades of meanings, which we all agreed (see my link to the dictionary earlier). Trying to claim one as THE literal meaning, so that the others must be non-literal, is simply wrong. But it doesn't really impact on Vork's nor my argument, AFAICS.

The real problem is trying to get a consistent meaning of the phrase "kata sarka". Let's look at some other examples.

Romans has quite a few uses of this. Using the NIV again:

Romans 1
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

Romans 4
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

NLT - same passage: Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What were his experiences concerning this question of being saved by faith?

Romans 9
1I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit-- 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!

There are lots of other examples confirming Jesus's historicity as well! So, unless Vork wants to say that the NIV is correct only in his example, I'd say "case closed".

rlogan

[QUOTE=GakuseiDon]I also agree with ichabod's statement. "Flesh" has shades of meanings, which we all agreed (see my link to the dictionary earlier). Trying to claim one as THE literal meaning, so that the others must be non-literal, is simply wrong. But it doesn't really impact on Vork's nor my argument, AFAICS. [quote]

Reasonable thing to say. We have to look at each use in context.


I'm using the blue letter bible and the greek concordance for this. it is Kata sarka, yes. Here he is asserting an HB prophesy. No choice in the matter.

In this case, our father kata sarka. As opposed to heavenly father.

Yes, humanly speaking as opposed to God the father. (Common reference: God the father)


Also the same mandatory prophesy issue.


Oh geez. Then I guess Thoth, Asclepius and Hermes are also historical. They have lineages. Established schools. Did other worldy things. And they're also Gods.

Moreover, the Iliad has two earthly sons of Asclepius at the siege of Troy. So there can be no doubt that these Gods are real...

Now. Back to the passages in Romans establishing the histroricity of Jesus. his Mother and Father. Hometown. Surviving relatives. That sort of thing.

?

GakuseiDon

Yes, exactly. Elsewhere Paul gives us an earthly side to Jesus, but only so far as necessary to establish Christ's link to Abraham and David.

So, Paul regarded Abraham as non-historical?

rlogan, to pursue this line, you'd have to show that the Greeks thought that:
(1) regarded these stories as true AND
(2) regarded that these things happened on a "fleshy" non-earthly sphere.

Can you show this? Doherty can't.

Even if they were there, didn't the Greek gods have most of these things?

Magdlyn

Again I would like to rec The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, which includes the incredible shrinking John the B (cousin of Christ?, more likely a competing cult leader, mythical or otherwise), James and Joses (ditto), Mary Virgin, "sisters," Joseph.

No archeological evidence of a 30 CE Nazareth. "The Nazorean" (Jewish sect) was Christ, not of Nazareth (OT: same "mistake" made with the Mary called Magdalene).

And the convenient uncle Joseph of Arimathea? Just a cardboard cutout, to include a Joseph at the end (callback to the Torah Joseph), to bookend J's Dad at the beginning. A Joseph at the womb cave and the tomb cave. Neat! ---Fiction!

rlogan

Also an HB prophesy of being laid in a rich man's tomb. I've cited this elsewhere.

Well, the seige of Troy has been confirmed archaeologically. I would submit that the Greeks thought of the siege as real. Can't speak for the Iliad as a whole.

The Greek Gods did have "fleshy" things like sons and daughters and lusts and such. They have "human" children of Gods, marriage between gods and humans and Gods moving between the world and the heavens.

I am unsure how to answer you in terms of what people did or did not think of as real. I don't have survey data.

That they spoke of "earthly" vs. "heavenly" things is independent of whether they are myths or not.

Wimpy was obsessed with hamburgers. Popeye ate spinache. There wasn't a spiritual dimension to these characters at all. 100% fleshy.

Casper is a ghost and interacts with humans in a fleshy way. There isn't a "spiritual" side to casper in the biblical sense despite him being a ghost.

My parents lied about the easter bunny and santa clause. But they were portrayed as real.

We can't use the evidence of Kata Sarka therefore as a "proof" of historicity.