GakuseiDon

From what I understand of Middle Platonist views, demons and angels had bodies (soma) but not flesh (sarx). The only exception, as noted by TDNT, were angels who came to earth to visit Lot (the angels are described as having "strange flesh").

Those humans who ascend above the firmament into Heaven permanently need to give up their "garments of flesh" for "garments stored up in heaven". As per AoI, Ch 9:8:

And there I saw Enoch and all who were with him, stript of the garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory.

Paul using "flesh" to describe Christ seems (at least to me) to be a "case-closed" proof against Doherty's current interpretation. But I stress that I don't know ancient Greek at all, so I would be interested in someone who knows more about this than me.

Clivedurdle

3:24 - link of fire and life - compare tongues of fire in Acts (Holy Spirit) and I have come to give you life.

6.4 - Is this a reference to the greek gods, heracles et al?

I was taught that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the old - Jesus is the new Adam etc.

There is a complete logic, a wholeness to the classic christian message - sin comes into the world and we are redeemed through a blood sacrifice.

The message is there - it is not only a continuing accretion of ideas.

The weaknesses are to do with the world views - there are more than four elements in relation to each other, there are not strange types of flesh, an ecology of demons and ghouls and angels and gods is literally fantastic.

There is no need for an alchemic blood sacrifice for this strange entity called sin that includes stuff like mixing fibres and putting meat and milk together - maybe there is a complete logic to those and many other rules once the underlying assumptions about how the world works are clear.

Ted Hoffman

Having been soundly thumped here, Jeffrey has ran to seek support from BiblicalStudies list. He is still using the vague word "cooked" in his accusation of Doherty and Carrier. What is interesting is that, for a man who claims to have God-like command of Greek, he has to go soliciting other people's opinions to help him frame his argument. Is he doubting himself, or has he simply realized that everything he thought was solid is actually hollow?
In his appeal, he claims he would like to know "how others [t]here would demonstrate what is wrong in Carrier's 'argument'" Why would he want to know how others would demonstrate the alleged fault in Carrier's argument? Is not Jeffrey's demonstration sufficient? What is the cause of this sudden feeling of inadequacy? Is this the same quest for social support we see when NT scholars have been unseated on academic grounds?

His appeal is two days cold now without nary a response. Maybe nobody wants to be buried with him?

S.C.Carlson

It appears you gave a link to your personal email account.

Stephen

Chris Weimer

From the lists that I have, it's XTalk and Corpus Paulinum, but having talked to Gibson privately and having evaluated the situation for myself I can hardly call his claims hallow. There is nothing wrong for soliciting ideas - isn't that what these forums and lists are for?

Amaleq13

Are you referring to the specific claim that Carrier has cooked his reading of LSJ?

Chris Weimer

From what I've seen, it appears as Carriers has a) used the LSJ and b) stretched it to fit this instance.

Toto

I have never seen anyone doubt that Carrier has used the LSJ, among other sources. I think he has give an adequate defense of his reasons. You may disagree, but I don't see any reason to assume that he had some evil motive for his conclusions.

Ted Hoffman

What extra material has he illegitimately added to LSJ?

jakejonesiv

"... a distinct tendency to cook and misrepresent the evidence.."

Let's not dance around the issue. Jeffrey Gibson is accusing Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier of lying and cheating.

That is simply not acceptable. :angry:

Jake Jones IV