Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 12-18-2003, 07:55 AM

Conclusion:

Quote:

Doherty's attempt to interpret "born of a descendent of David according to the flesh" to mean that Jesus was never born but was instead a purely spiritual figure who never came to earth is unavailing. He completely fails to offer any comparable pagan savior parallels that were so described. In fact, his own example contradicts his theory because it involves a being who lived on earth and had a biological mother. It is much more reasonable to understand this verse in light of its plain meaning and its Jewish background--Paul thought Jesus was born of a descendent of David and this marked him as qualified to be the Messiah. But even less persuasive is Doherty's attempt to equate "according to the flesh" with the demon realm of the lower celestial realm. Neither of the authorities he cites supports his interpretation. In fact, they directly contradict it. Moreover, the most important evidence of all--Paul's own writings--reveals that Doherty's interpretation is unreasonable and unsupported. Accordingly, Romans 1:3-4 stands as a clear reference by Paul to the human life of Jesus.

You can read the full article here:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price7.htm

Layman · 12-20-2003, 08:21 AM

Hmm, this dropped like a stone.

I thought the review of Paul's uses of "according to the flesh" and "according to the spirit" was especially relevant.

Perhaps it is just the holidays. I'll be gone myself for about a week.

NOGO · 12-20-2003, 07:02 PM

Romans 1
3: Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

If coming forth from the seed of David according to the flesh means a human birth then Jesus was born a man and was made Son of God when he resurrected.

Since we know that Pauil also says that Yahweh created the world through Jesus then the above interpretation is clearly wrong.

Jesus was a heavenly God who created the world and came forth into the world through the seed of David. This however does not necessarily mean a human birth. Paul is not trying to say David's genetic patterns are part of the heavenly God who created the world.

GJohn for example has a Jesus receiving the heavenly messiah at his baptism and not his birth. The two entities exist and speak from the same physical body but are clearly separate being. So one may say that the Word of God in John has come forth into the world through the seed of David. According to the flash because the spoken words in question are of this world.

As Doherty says GJohn is an attempt at reconciling the two views of Christianity. That is the heavenly messiah and the human messiah. But in doing so the author of John has create a major flaw. I will explain the problem as this thread evolves.

Layman · 12-20-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
[B]Romans 1
3: Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

If coming forth from the seed of David according to the flesh means a human birth then Jesus was born a man and was made Son of God when he resurrected.

So what?

And you are wrong. It does not say "made" it says "declared." This means that though Jesus lowered himself to be human and suffered a disgraceful death, God declared Him acceptable by resurrecting Him.

Are you going to even attempt a response to the article?

joedad · 12-20-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Layman:
Hmm, this dropped like a stone.

I think it's your tone. Your response to NOGO makes me certain. Lighten up, Dude. Tomorrow's the solstice. Time for merrymaking.

Layman · 12-20-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad
I think it's your tone. Your response to NOGO makes me certain. Lighten up, Dude. Tomorrow's the solstice. Time for merrymaking.

Since they've swarmed all over my posts in other threads while shouting things like "shut the hell up," I doubt they find me all that intimidating.

What's more likely is that they have not figured out a response yet and/or are waiting for Doherty to email them back.

And I do not celebrate the "solsitice."

joedad · 12-20-2003, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Since they've swarmed all over my posts in other threads while shouting things like "shut the hell up," I doubt they find me all that intimidating.

I'm certain no one feels intimidated.

Quote:

What's more likely is that they have not figured out a response yet and/or are waiting for Doherty to email them back.

Possibly � on both counts. There are other possibilities.

Quote:

And I do not celebrate the "solsitice."

You've just made me aware of another spelling. Decent!

Sorry I can't add anything more substantial, amigo. This whole MJ/HJ thing is extremely interesting but the difficulties appear intractable.

Why is it so important to be dissimilar with paganism on this issue?

Layman · 12-20-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad
You've just made me aware of another spelling. Decent!

You complain about my tone but drop in to insult me for typos?

Quote:

Sorry I can't add anything more substantial, amigo.

Me too.

Quote:

This whole MJ/HJ thing is extremely interesting but the difficulties appear intractable.

If you have nothing substantive to offer, I doubt you've fully assessed the evidence.

Quote:

Why is it so important to be dissimilar with paganism on this issue?

Which issue?

joedad · 12-20-2003, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Layman
You complain about my tone but drop in to insult me for typos?

No. Your spelling actually comes up on Google. I checked.

Quote:

Which issue?

Aren't you arguing that this Jesus supposedly has a human lineage and that there is no such pagan parallel?

Layman · 12-20-2003, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad
Aren't you arguing that this Jesus supposedly has a human lineage and that there is no such pagan parallels?

The article is clear about what it is arguing. That born of a desecendant of David according to the flesh is a reference to a human birth and lineage.

Can we get back to the topic? Why I may or may not like pagan parallels is hardly relevant.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2003, 08:21 AM	#2
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Hmm, this dropped like a stone. I thought the review of Paul's uses of "according to the flesh" and "according to the spirit" was especially relevant. Perhaps it is just the holidays. I'll be gone myself for about a week.

12-20-2003, 07:02 PM	#3
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Romans 1 3: Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: If coming forth from the seed of David according to the flesh means a human birth then Jesus was born a man and was made Son of God when he resurrected. Since we know that Pauil also says that Yahweh created the world through Jesus then the above interpretation is clearly wrong. Jesus was a heavenly God who created the world and came forth into the world through the seed of David. This however does not necessarily mean a human birth. Paul is not trying to say David's genetic patterns are part of the heavenly God who created the world. GJohn for example has a Jesus receiving the heavenly messiah at his baptism and not his birth. The two entities exist and speak from the same physical body but are clearly separate being. So one may say that the Word of God in John has come forth into the world through the seed of David. According to the flash because the spoken words in question are of this world. As Doherty says GJohn is an attempt at reconciling the two views of Christianity. That is the heavenly messiah and the human messiah. But in doing so the author of John has create a major flaw. I will explain the problem as this thread evolves.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.