avi

Thank you Steve, many thanks Jiri, both thoughtful comments.

Steve, I think you mean that "according to his flesh" refers to Jesus, not David, right? That's why you insert in contrast with Kata pneuma, correct? But, not to beat a dead horse or anything (where's spin's icon, which he saves when trying to explain anything to me), why couldn't kata sarka modify the verb 'to be made', with the idea that it was 'in the flesh' David, offering sperm to Mary. Allow me to rewrite it:
"...his son, (i.e. Jesus,) who was made from the flesh of David..." In other words, David is Jesus' biological father.

Quite right.

Yeah, I woke up in the middle of the night, a week ago, wondering the same thing....Makes absolutely no sense, does it???

avi

Solo

But 2 Cr 5:16 says Paul does not consider Christ (or anyone else for that matter) kata sarka. Paul did not believe in the messiah kata sarka.

Regards,
Jiri

spin

Relax. When you're dealing with literature and not the real world, your concern is not necessary. After all, we just have a body of literature.


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

Where does any notion of belief appear in 2 Cor 5:16? And what on earth would believing in the Messiah (or anyone for that matter) kata sarka entail?

Jeffrey

sschlichter

I was not attempting to translate, just convey the idea that I think is expressed. I guess by the seed of David according to the flesh would be better. I may not argue that it would be impossible to translate it as you say but it is a drastic one-off. I suppose you could argue that it means Jesus had a suit made out of David's skin and was wearing that (ala Silence of the Lambs) but the question is whether there is any reason to interpret it that way.

The context is referring to promises made before hand concerning the offspring of David. Our notion of sperm comes from this word, not the other way around. the word is used more often to mean something else other than seminal fluid.

Gen 9:9 My covenant is with you and your spermati after you.
Rom 11:1 ek spermatos Abraham (Paul claims to be issued from Abraham)

I see the rom 1:3 in reference to the flesh as a contrast to a reference to the Spirit as is implied in Son-of-God-in-power.

Why leap over this most obvious meaning to yours?

~steve

spin

Solo: Tell me the truth.
2 Cr 5:16: OK, OK, anything, but don't hurt me again.
Solo: Tell me the truth.
2 Cr 5:16: OK, OK, what have I got to say?
Solo: You know what it is.
2 Cr 5:16: OK, alright, but refresh my memory.
Solo: How many times do I have to tell you? You say that Jesus isn't κατα σαρκα. Now remember that. Ready? Tell me the truth.
2 Cr 5:16: OK, umm, well, ahh, Jesus, yes, Jesus is ahh, capo sarto. No, wait. Umm, Jesus is, is. Hell, I can't think under these conditions. I know, Jesus is Carterhaugh, no. Carter... I know... it's κατα σαρκα.
Solo: Not!
2 Cr 5:16: Jesus is not κατα σαρκα. Not κατα σαρκα.
Solo: Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
:deadhorse:


spin

Solo

Have a Merry Christmas, Jeffrey.

Jiri

Solo

Honestly folks: I am not responsible for this. :huh:

Jiri

spin

icardfacepalm:


spin

avi

Thanks Steve, perhaps my translation of Romans 1:3 is as bizarre, as you have suggested.

I am simply seeking to find, in the written Greek, some reasonable explanation for Jesus' supposed relationship to David, that's all.

Luke writes that David is Jesus' father, and I think that it ought to be possible to gain that same interpretation from this passage, Romans 1:3. I am curious, Steve, to learn which verb you think κατα σαρκα modifies, and also, what purpose Paul had in placing the idiom in this verse? Couldn't you, as a devout Christian, accept Romans 1:3, if it had been written exactly the same, but without κατα σαρκα? In other words, if κατα σαρκα modifies the verb explaining conception ("of the sperma of David"), yet has nothing to do mechanically with David, then, how would its omission change the meaning of the verse? "...his son, made of genetic material of David, (concerning the flesh)? If we simply ignore "concerning the flesh", then, Steve, has the meaning of this verse changed, according to your thinking?

For my part, I deny that omission of κατα σαρκα alters the meaning even one iota, for the orthodox interpretation, i.e. juxtaposed to kata pneuma, it "has" to relate to Jesus, not David, in this particular passage. In the same vein, I believe that its omission from Romans 1:3 results in a devastating consequence to my supposition that κατα σαρκα refers not to Jesus, directly, but to David: "...sperma David, kata sarka", meaning, David participated in the construction project, to bring Jesus into this world, and the "real flesh" here, in this scenario, is David's, as proof that David actually participated in Jesus' conception.

avi