Chili

So what is wrong with that Ben? The point is that if you cannot write your own Gospel you are well advised not to read someone elses because there will not be a match = prior to us by nature.

dog-on

...but that is the whole point. If and that's a pretty big if, Paul actually wrote these passages in the original letters, he may have believed the "Jesus was a Jew and a descendant of David". Since he doesn't actually, physically place this "Jesus" anywhere on earth, or more importantly, at any specific time, the specifics of his belief are at best, conjecture. The point remains that "Jesus was a Jew and a descendant of David" because the scriptures said so. Paul didn't need to question whether or not it was true because God told him it was so. In other words, it was the Christ Jesus Axiom. What is so hard to understand about that? Religious people, even today, do the exact same type of mental compartimentalizations regarding their own supernatural beliefs...


...but that is fairly vague and could mean a lot of things. It only has any clarity when tied in with the Acts story, which is, in my mind, fantasy...

Amaleq13

You're still avoiding actually answering the question. Do you see that the words appear to indicate that Paul believed Jesus was a Jew and a descendant of David?

Considering what Paul's source might have been is only relevant to arguing that the words mean something other than their face value meaning which is entirely irrelevant to Ben's OP.

Paul's failure to explicitly place Jesus in a specific time and place has no relevance to whether you see that the words appear to indicate that Paul believed Jesus was a Jew and a descendant of David. Referring to that failure on his part is how one argues that the words mean something other than they appear to mean at face value which is the opposite of what Ben is asking.

That "point" continues to be irrelevant to Ben's question because the source continues to be irrelevant to the apparent meaning of the words.

Whether Paul obtained the information from divine revelation or by reinterpreting Scripture or by hearing members of the assembly of God talking about it is irrelevant to concluding what the words appear to mean at face value.

Ben is specifically asking for other examples where the face value of a description appearing to be references to a life on earth is actually the opposite of what was intended by the author.

No, he explicitly states he persecuted the assembly of God and explicitly states that others were apostles before him. There is nothing vague about it and one need not read Acts to reach the conclusion that Paul joined an already existing religious movement.

andrewcriddle

How much of the Talmudic ideas about seven heavens goes back to the time of Paul is not clear. Our earliest relevant sources like 2nd (Slavonic) Enoch are IMHO later than 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty

Just a quick reply here, since that’s all I have time for. I think there are other ways to deal with the 3 key passages:

“born of woman”. Since reading “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (or via: amazon.co.uk)” I am leaning toward regarding this phrase as a scribal interpolation. Not because that’s “easier,” but because in view of Ehrman’s research, it makes a lot of sense. It’s supported to some extent by the fact that Marcion’s reconstructed Galatians does not contain this phrase, or “born under the Law”.

If, on the other hand, Paul did write this phrase, it may have been solely under the influence of Isaiah 7:14. He simply trusted that God understood what He had written in scripture, even if Paul didn’t.

“of the seed of David”. It doesn’t matter if there are no analogous comparisons, or what the general outlook on the “mythical dimension” in ancient thought. Paul (or whoever he is quoting) said this because they read their Christ out of scripture, and scripture said Christ was of the seed of David. They didn’t have to have a clue about how this translated into some kind of spiritual ‘reality’.

Romans 9:5. This one is less straightforward, but if you look at the context, Paul is enumerating a series of characteristics about “the people of Israel”, you could say, things that ‘belong’ to them. Finally: “kai ex wn ho Xristos kata sarka. Translations that make this “and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ” are reading into the text much more than is really there, an interpretation actually. I think it could be read in the sense of Christ ‘belongs to’ the Jews, or is part of their heritage, as in the preceding items of the list. In any case, this is really just another expression of “the seed of David”, only it’s the seed of Israel, and is equally derivable from scripture.

Several other ‘kata sarka’ references, as I have often argued here, are even less straightforward, and have a vaguer meaning: as I suggested, they can be read in the direction of the idea of “in relation to the flesh,” in contact with, having an influence on, the fleshly realm or human beings, rather than a direct reference to Christ’s own flesh, whatever that might mean. I have also several times pointed to lexicon definitions that “flesh” of a different sort can be used of spiritual beings. All of this tends to go over the heads of certain people here, who simply insist that there can be no other meaning in mind for this word, including the phrase ‘kata sarka’ itself, than literal, human flesh. (This even overlooks examples like 2 Cor. 5:16, where the phrase refers to the act of “regarding” by humans like Paul, not to Christ himself.)

Sorry if I have ignored a few good things that others on this thread have said already.

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

I remember that. And I dealt with this sort of thing in the OP:

I wanted to see what the phrases themselves mean, regardless of who wrote them (Paul or some later editor).

I think this answers the main question on this thread nicely. Are there any ancient analogies for how Doherty imagines Paul to have written? Apparently not.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
I'd already given you an analogy here Ben which you choose to Ignore. This has become more common for you, denying or ignoring criticism, which is why I'm less interested in interacting with you now.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

I just reread your post to see what you are talking about, and I am not seeing it.

Just to be clear, when I speak of an analogy I am speaking of what I think Richard Carrier is speaking about, to wit, another (besides Paul) ancient example of someone claiming that somebody is of the seed of David (or whoever) but meaning something very different than the original meaning.

I do not find such an analogy in your post.

If you mean Marcion, I am not sure I understand the analogy. I believe (and please correct me here if I am mistaken) Marcion used the rhetorical question (who are my mother and brothers?) to flatly deny that Jesus had real siblings. This is not denying the ordinary force of the terms mother and brothers; to the contrary, this is affirming the usual meaning of those terms and then using the rhetorical question to slip an implied not into the text in front of them.

If you see Paul doing the same thing, affirming that seed of David (or whichever term or terms you had in mind) means just that but then slipping in some sort of denial, please show me what you mean.

I did not mean to ignore any point(s) you made. My apologies.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

For any interested, here are the relevant passages from Tertullian about this text.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.19.6 (text and translation based on those of Evans, available on the Tertullian Project):

Venimus ad constantissimum argumentum omnium qui domini nativitatem in controversiam deferunt. ipse, inquiunt, contestatur se non esse natum dicendo: Quae mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres? ita semper haeretici aut nudas et simplices voces coniecturis quo volunt rapiunt, aut rursus condicionales et rationales simplicitatis condicione dissolvunt, ut hoc in loco.

We now come to the most strenuously plied argument of all those who call in question the nativity of the Lord. They say that he himself testifies to his not having been born when he asks: Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage.

Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 7 (text and translation based on those of Evans, available on the Tertullian Project):

Sed quotiens de nativitate contenditur omnes qui respuunt eam ut praeiudicantem de carnis in Christo veritate ipsum dominum volunt negare esse [se] natum quia dixerit: Quae mihi mater et qui mihi fratres? audiat igitur et Apelles quid iam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo libello quo ad evangelium ipsius provocavimus, considerandam scilicet materiam pronuntiationis istius.

But as often as there is discussion of the nativity, all those who reject it, as prejudging the issue concerning the verity of the flesh in Christ, claim that the Lord himself denies having been born, on the ground that he asked: Who is my mother and who are my brothers? So let Apelles too hear what answer I have already given to Marcion in that work in which I have made appeal to the gospel which he accepts, namely that the background of that remark must be taken into consideration.

Ben.

stuart shepherd

Dear Ben,
You may want to look at EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History III xxvii 1
"""These the first Christians named Ebionites - appropriately, in view of their poor and mean opinions about Christ. they regarded him [Christ] as a plain, ordinary man, born of intercourse between a man and Mary, who gained righteousness through character growth. They observed every detail of the Law and did not think that they would be saved by faith in Christ alone and a corresponding life."" translation by Paul L. Maier

What is interesting is that Eusebius calls the Ebionites "first Christians" and that they do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

stuart shepherd