GakuseiDon

Ichabod, there is the Ebionite heresy that Jesus wasn't divine at all, and the Marcion heresy that Christ was physical but merely had the appearance of flesh. Have you ever heard of any early Christian heresy that had Jesus not existing on Earth at all?

Magdlyn

Perhaps he is implying, once we expected a fleshly, militaristic Messiah. Now we know the real Messiah is within.

Vorkosigan

What about it? Our previous point of view was a worldly one. Now it is not.

How should I know? Paul does not give us that information, and his followers did not leave a paper trail. You can back read an HJ into his phraseology if you like, but there isn't one there if you read it without gospel presuppositions.

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

Magdlyn, I haven't read Price. Can you give a quick summary of his argument on "descended from David"?

I also gave an alternative interpretation which was straightforward.

The preceding verse says "in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit". When he refers to those who are "according to the flesh", he quite clearly means those who WALK according to the flesh; Paul often omits the verb in a phrase when he has just used it immediately before. So all he is saying is that "those who walk according to the flesh mind the things of the flesh" i.e. those who follow fleshly desires mind the body and its desires, and look out for them, focussing on them. Similarly for the spirit. That wasn't so hard, then, was it?

Welcome to my world!

Here is a better translation (the NASB) which renders it straightforwardly understandable on my view: "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace".

And here's the NRSV just to back it up:

To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.


Funny, by my count the number of times is zero.

It means that he had a physical nature. Flesh (sarx) = soma (body) = physical nature.

Although we've said this many times and you don't seem to get it, Paul is using a CONCRETE, LITERAL example (being born according to the flesh, naturally, or being born according to the promise, miraculously), and he is then building an allegory on top of that. That doesn't make flesh non-literal, anymore than it makes Abraham or Hagar or Mt. Sinai non-literal.

ichabod crane

No, I haven't. But on Doherty's view, Paul apparently held to just such a perspective. It's an all-new interpretation of Paul. That doesn't mean it's wrong; but it shouldn't be confused with gnosticism or Marcion, because they weren't that radical.

By the way, "heresy" is a pejorative term and should probably be avoided

GakuseiDon

So, if we look at it from a HJ perspective, it fits. But if we look at it from a MJ perspective, we don't know what it means. Is that right? If not, then tell me what that passage means from a MJ perspective.

GakuseiDon

I agree. Doherty believes he has evidence that this view existed until late into the 2nd C CE. I think that the lack of attacks against such a view in Ireneaus and Tertullian is strong evidence to the contrary.

I was using it in its most positive sense!

GakuseiDon

I think it is close to that, except it is linked to Christ's death. The passage first has Christ dying then rising, then Paul saying that "we knew Christ according to the flesh, but no longer". It fits perfectly with Paul shifting the emphasis from a human Jesus to a divine Jesus.

ichabod crane

Hey guys,

I've really enjoyed this debate and I've learned a lot from you all. Unfortunately I'm going to have to bail now though as I'm coming up to exams next week and if I don't stop posting altogether, I know I'll just keep procrastinating by posting. I hope to rejoin you on the discussion boards after my exams are over.

In the meantime, all the best! It's really been fun for me; hope it has for you guys also. At the end of the day if we learn from each other, that's all that really matters.

A somewhat gnostic, somewhat Christian, somewhat various other things,
Ichabod.

P.S. Feel free to lay into anything I've said above! I just won't be able to reply.

Magdlyn

He suggests, in the chapter Birth and Lineage, there was a tradition that the Messiah was not to be descended from David (Price is big on conflicting traditions that the gospels seek to harmonize).

He uses:
Mar 12:35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
Mar 12:36 David himself, inspired by the holy spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.'
Mar 12:37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?"...

And then Price goes on to list other "Messiahs" that were not Davidic. Judah Maccabee was descended from the Levites, for ex.

He lists the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs as backup here. Reuben 2:28-"Draw near to Levi ...that you may recieve a blessing...he shall bless Israel and Judah because the Lord has chosen him for king over all the nations...he shall be an eternal king..." Price says other passages say the role shall be split between Judah and Levi.

Geza Vermes, Qumran authority, is quoted as saying this kind of "tinkering" was used for Simon Bar-Kochba as well.

There is more, but I have not the energy to quote it all! And Ichabod is gone anyway.

And with that, I am a User!