Vorkosigan

Yes, some of those are very impressive, Bernard.

But this does not, since the "fleshly" relationship is actually spiritual in nature.

Vorkosigan

Iasion

Greetings rick,

You know,
I think we are talking at cross purposes, or perhaps we interpret things differently.

I thought this phrase meant the
"LOWEST Sphere of all (in the heavenly scheme of things)"

but it seems you may mean
"the lowest of the Spheres which are HEAVENLY (i.e. not physical)"

i.e. I essentially glossed over "heavenly", while to you it was the key word?


Well,
this all goes back to "kata sarka", allow me to explain how I see it.

I interpret "kata sarka" to mean essentially the lowest dimension, the material world.

Doherty renders it as "in the sphere of the flesh".

But,
(confusingly),
this sphere of the flesh
INCLUDES
a lower celestial realm occupied by spiritual beings who rule the actual material world directly 'below'.

i.e. "kata sarka" does not just refer to the lowest of the the NON-physical planes,
but to BOTH
* that lower celestial realm which rules the physical,
and
* the actual physical plane itself.

This lower celestial realm is intermediate between the heavenly and the physical - it is occupied by non-physical daemons and spirits, yet is paradoxically within the "sphere of the flesh" (sometimes called the 'air' between the Moon and the Earth, or the "sub-lunar" realm, and perhaps equivalent to the modern Astral or Etheric, or the Qabalistic Yesod).

Doherty argues that Paul's Iesous Christos descended from heaven to this lower celestial realm of the daemons to be crucified within the "sphere of the flesh", BUT WITHOUT going as low as the physical plane itself (c.f. Ascension of Isaiah).

Have I misunderstood?

Iasion

Bernard Muller

The point is Abraham's seeds are earthly human beings. Why would "Christ", also as Abraham's seed, be otherwise, more so when you look, in the same letter, and part of the same Pauline argument:
Gal4:4b"[Jesus] come of a woman, come under law [as a Jew],"

I already explained about "come" on this thread. And I note that the other "woman" in Galatians (Hagar & Sarah) are described in the OT as being earthly.

And we also have:
Gal3:16 "But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ."
It seems here that the "many" are of the same species than "Christ".

And what is your interpretation of this, from Romans 9, YLT:
6 And it is not possible that the word of God hath failed; for not all who [are] of Israel are these Israel;
7 nor because they are seed of Abraham [are] all children, but -- `in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee;'
8 that is, the children of the flesh -- these [are] not children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed;

Here some of the seeds of Abraham are from Israel, that is Jews. And the children of the flesh look human.

And what do you make of this?
Romans 11:1 YLT
"I say then, Has God cast away his people? Far be the thought. For *I* also am an Israelite, of [the] seed of Abraham, of [the] tribe of Benjamin."
The seeds of Abraham are earthly humans, such as Paul (why would "Christ" be the exception?).

This is confirmed here, in 2 Corinthians 11:22 YLT:
"Are they Hebrews? *I* also. Are they Israelites? *I* also. Are they seed of Abraham? *I* also."

Seeds of Abraham are Jews, as Paul. And Jesus is described to have come as a Jew, according to Gal4:4, and "minister to the Jews" according to Romans 15:8 Darby:
"For I say that Jesus Christ became a minister of [the] circumcision for [the] truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers;"
(BTW, that is one occurence about a first coming happening in the past, that Doherty never found! Or maybe Jews had colonized the lowest heavens!)

Everything fits!

And the following becomes very understandable:

Ro9:4-5a "who are Israelites ... of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came ..."
and
Ro1:3 YLT "... concerning His Son, (who is **come** of the seed of David according to the flesh,"

Last time I checked the OT, David and Israelites are descendants of Abraham and described as earthly human beings.

You mythers are trying to pick on items, one by one, and not consider the bulk of the evidence altogether, which is at your disadvantage. And we would have to accept other myths, such as the lowest heaven as populated by flesh & blood Christ & Jews and also the home of demons, which is what Doherty created to back up his theories.

Best regards, Bernard

Rick Sumner

You haven't misunderstood Doherty, you have misunderstood my suggested caveat with Doherty's assessment, however.

We described some of your earlier quotes as "allegorical," which really wasn't apt--it connotes that "obscurist and mystical" feel that really isn't there. We know what it meant, the audience clearly knew what it meant, there are scores of examples of "judging according to the flesh" and the like, given without explanation.

So while allegory might be technically correct, it's connotations detract from what the saying really was. It's an idiom. One that, in all the quotes I've encountered, refers to the exact same thing--the standards of men.

So kata sarka means either literal flesh, or the idiomatic standards of men. I'm cool with that.

I still don't see "sphere of the flesh." In the vast majority of the verses outside of the verses referring to Jesus that I've seen, it would seem almost absurd to purport that that's what it refers to. It quite simply wasn't used like that, or if it was, I haven't seen it yet.

It's rather convenient for Doherty that the only time it had that connotation is when it refers to Jesus.

Regards,
Rick