GakuseiDon

I think I see what you are asking now.

I think we can say that it is one of the following:
(A) It is odd for the expression to be used about humans, but not odd to use it about non-earthly beings
(B) It is odd for the expression to be used about non-earthly beings, but not odd to use it about humans
(C) It is not odd for the expression to be used about either humans or non-earthly beings.

Chris Weimer gave the link to Ben's webpage, so I think we have evidence to question (A). What are needed now are examples of "fleshly" non-earthly beings. IF there are no examples, then (B) would be the strongest alternative.

I'm not aware of any such examples, so I would say that it is odd of Paul to use this about Christ if he believed that Christ was a non-earthly being.

Chris Weimer

Which, Don, isn't that what we've been arguing for all along?

GakuseiDon

True enough. I'm wondering if there are any mythicists who feel that we do in fact have examples of "fleshly" beings existing in some place other than earth; and if there is not, I wonder what they think this implies about Paul's comments. I certainly believe that Doherty's views are unsustainable, but then apparently I have a lack of imagination...

Amaleq13

Those examples suggest the phrase was used when depicting a contrast between something of flesh and something spiritual or metaphorical with the phrase specifically identifying the former. Yes?

Chris Weimer

No, you just don't twist and contort the Greek language to fit your hypothesis like Doherty does. What was the old phrase used? Cooking the evidence? The more I see from Doherty, the more that's obvious.

Amaleq13

Closer. I think I phrased my question as being of a general linguistic nature when it was supposed to be specific to Earl's thesis.

From Earl's thesis, it seems to me that we must assume Paul chose this "odd" phrase because of the nature unique nature of Christ's incarnated form. Paul didn't use a less odd (more explicitly physical?) phrase because it wouldn't have been appropriate for a spiritual entity that took on a fleshy appearance in the lowest spiritual realm above earth.

If Paul only used the phrase to refer to Jesus, that works. But he doesn't. He uses it for mundane descent and lineage as well.

Doesn't Paul's generalized use of the phrase indicate he didn't consider it odd or special or uniquely appropriate for the incarnation of Christ?

Or is my starting assumption mistaken?

Chris Weimer

As far as those phrases go, yes. I'm translating (as I'm sure Ben is too) some more examples. Time is limited, unfortunately...

Chris Weimer

Given that in other Greek works from that time and before (and after!) it's used to refer to human groups who're clearly human, then no, I don't think your assumption in mistaken.

Amaleq13

So the examples from Josephus suggest it was used to contrast physical with spiritual by emphasizing the former while Earl's interpretation suggests it was used by Paul to contrast between fleshy-on-earth (ie physical) and fleshy-yet-still-above-earth with the emphasis on the latter.

My starting assumption was that Paul chose the phrase because of the unique nature of Jesus but I think you are saying "yes" to my question above and denying my assumption.

EarlDoherty

You must have missed this in my posting of a few days ago, in which I offered a possible explanation:

“Yes, Paul does use this phrase in human contexts and that can compromise one of my points to some extent—about it being strange or woolly language. It still is strange and woolly, but at least Paul is being consistent. And yet, the very fact of that consistency and oddness of language can also work in my favor. When Paul uses "kata sarka" in the context of human descent (Romans 11:1 and 1 Cor. 10:18) we may ask why he chooses this phrase and does not put it more ‘naturally’. Would you yourself say, “I am an American according to the flesh”? Odd, to say the least. In what context might you choose, or fall into, such a way of expressing yourself? I would suggest it would be a context—one within which you are, let’s say, regularly writing and speaking—of living in a perceived multi-layered universe comprised of the realm of flesh and the realm of spirit, “kata sarka” and “kata pneuma”. Your theology operates within that world and you regularly express yourself within that way of thinking about your environment. Thus when you come to speak of your relationship to Americans, to human beings, especially in a letter where you make other reference to the two realms and relationships between them, you say “kata sarka”.

No wonder so much time is wasted here, Chris. This is what I asked for (note the bolded words):

Ben’s website quotes of Josephus do not answer this question. No “kata sarka” there refers to ethnic descent or being a member of a certain racial group, which is (allegedly) the case in the two passages of Paul. And has nobody noticed that the first quote doesn’t even use the word “sarx”, let alone “kata sarka”??? So we have no external evidence against which to compare Paul’s usages of “kata sarka”, which was my point. (And I’m the one accused of twisting language! At least I don’t claim a phrase is present where it is not.)

And maybe Ben is spending too much time looking up irrelevant passages and not enough time actually studying the ones we are examining. His last post, in which he argued about my contention on Romans 9:6-8, makes no sense.

Exactly. “Brother is being used in a non-literal way. But it is still being used. In the same way, the word “seed” at the end of the quoted passage above (Romans 9:6-8) is being used in a non-literal way. What did I say (see above)? “It is clear from this passage that Paul is applyng the word “seed” in a non-literal way.” Ben spends several paragraphs arguing against that and ends up saying exactly what I’ve said. Like I said, he is no longer making sense.

Let’s break down the passage:

1. Not all who are the seed of Israel [lit., descended from Israel] are to be considered Israel. (Only some of them are.)
2. Just as not all who are the seed of Abraham [here “seed” is used literally] are to be considered his children.
3. Only those who are descended through Isaac shall be reckoned as Abraham’s seed. (Right there, Paul applies “seed” to only some of the actual, literal seed of Abraham, so he has compromised its literal meaning.)
4. In other words, it is not “children of the flesh” [which is equivalent to literal “seed”] that are God’s children, but the children of the promise who are regarded as the seed (of Abraham).

So here Paul has progressed, through these 4 verses, from using “seed” in a literal way, all the way to a completely non-literal way. The final “seed” is the children of the promise who are not equated with Abraham’s literal seed. Despite what he says in verse 3, who are “the children of the promise”? Simply the Jewish descendants of Isaac? Hardly, if we know anything about Paul’s thinking throughout his letters, we know that his main application of such an idea is to his gentile converts. To them, as in Galatians 3, he applies the idea of Abraham’s “seed”. It is they who are Paul's "children of the promise." Which makes it hard to understand what he means in verse 3 above: the Jewish descendants of Isaac who have not, or do not, embrace faith in Christ—which of course includes all those who lived before the time of Paul—can hardly be included in Paul’s “children of the promise”.

So how can Ben possibly say "All of this supports the notion that phrases like children of the flesh or seed of Abraham mean physical descent"? I've just shown that Paul uses "seed of Abraham" at the end of that passage, which is what his argument has been leading to, to mean something other than simple physical descent.

Ben has done nothing against my argument but support it! I offered that Romans passage as illustrating that sometimes “seed” could be used in a non-literal way, and that is exactly what it does. I used this as an argument against those who insist that Romans 1:3’s “seed of David” has to be interpretable only in a strict, literal way.

Why am I bothering, if you guys can’t get your act together any better than this? (I’m not including Amaleq in this lament.)

Earl Doherty