Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 03-11-2004, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Vorkosigan:
The NIV is anxious to render all occurrences of "flesh" as "physical flesh" just in case believers actually do what believers never do, and read the actual words, and start thinking for themselves.

Actually, The NIV is well known not to follow the Greek word by word and instead use modern expressions. Not that I condone that, because the new wording invokes ideas possibly not intended by the original author.
In the case of 'kata sarta' "according to (the) flesh", the NIV translates that differently everywhere: there are no "according to (the) flesh" in the whole NIV (17 'kata sarka' show in the genuine Pauline epistles). Rejoice, that is obviously a smoking gun: there is something here to be hidden away !!! :notworthy

Mind you, many other (very HJist) bibles (including some new ones) have still "according to (the) flesh". Go figure! They did not see your point!

As far as your innovative interpretation is concerned, I think that "born according to flesh" means conception & birth not requiring God's intervention (that is 100% by human ways), "born under the promise", means that God helped somehow into the conception & the successful pregnancy (because that's what he promised, that is Isaac through Abraham's legitimate wife).
Keep on the good work! And I am sure the Josephan hypothesis will reveal everything for you!

Best regards, Bernard

GakuseiDon · 03-11-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
No, I don't think you've quite grasped that you and I are making the same point. By any count, the children were born the same natural way, popping out the birth canal. So why would Paul say "in the flesh" to refer to only one birth?

It is simple: to fit the allegory. Jews are likened to Hagar's son: born naturally into their inheritance. Ironically, Christians are the "children of the promise" here. Paul wants to stress how much more important the spiritual inheritance through Christ is to the natural inheritance of being born Jewish. If you read Gal, you can see why - his letter is addressed to the concerns of non-Jewish Christians.

Quote:

Gal 4 gives us a clear case of Paul using "through the flesh" or "in the flesh" in an allegorical way - indeed, to describe someone's relationship to the Law and History. So when Paul avers that Jesus was born "through the flesh" he could well be speaking in the same allegorical way -- describing Jesus' relationship to law and history.

That is simply silly. If, say, the word "stone" is used in an allegory, does that mean it should be treated allegorically each time it is used? No - it has to be case-by-case.

More importantly, let's apply the same logic you used above: why is Paul saying "in the flesh" to refer to only one birth? Are you saying that Sarah's son has no relationship to the Law and History? Or that her son does have that relationship, even though Paul doesn't state it? In that case, why doesn't Paul state it?

Quote:

If you don't believe that this usage represents a clear allegorical use of "flesh," check the NIV. Darby gives us a good rendering; the NIV removes the word "flesh."

NIV 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

You can see that "born the ordinary way" is c lear nonsense. The NIV eliminated "in the flesh" because this passage is extraordinarily dangerous for HJ proponents, it being a clear sample that Paul might very well mean something else besides physical incarnation when he refers to Jesus and flesh. The NIV, as we know, is an extremely tenditious translation with a clear theopolitical slant. The NIV was so concerned about the word "flesh" here they eliminated it twice (again in verse 29), even though the resultant "translation" is ugly and illogical (how could "born the ordinary way" ever oppose "born under a promise?" -- one is a process, the other a condition -- Paul is often obtuse, but he is rarely plain stupid) The NIV is anxious to render all occurrences of "flesh" as "physical flesh" just in case believers actually do what believers never do, and read the actual words, and start thinking for themselves.

Hope this is clearer.

Conspiracy theories now??? I think that last couple of sentences shows you aren't too serious about this argument.

rlogan · 03-12-2004, 11:47 PM

It would be odd to say "according to the flesh" when one intends "in the flesh".

But "according to" with the meaning Vork has ascribed would make sense.

Seems to me if one meant "born" in the ordinary sense, you do not add the terms "in the ordinary sense". You just say "born".

So indeed there is a reason to draw inference from the terms "according to".

But not an inference about an HJ.

GakuseiDon · 03-13-2004, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
It would be odd to say "according to the flesh" when one intends "in the flesh".

But "according to" with the meaning Vork has ascribed would make sense.

Seems to me if one meant "born" in the ordinary sense, you do not add the terms "in the ordinary sense". You just say "born".

So indeed there is a reason to draw inference from the terms "according to".

But not an inference about an HJ.

How if the term "according to the flesh" is used where the person is undoubtedly supposed to be historical? Read Romans 4:1-2:

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God."

This is what Doherty says: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp08.htm

Quote:

The term “in flesh�? (en sarki, or kata sarka) is also a stereotyped phrase in the early Christian epistles... it may simply have signified the entry of Christ “into the sphere of flesh,�? which included that lower celestial realm where Satan and the demon spirits dwelled and wreaked their havoc on the material world. (Again, see Supplementary Article No. 3.)

Was Abraham born into a lower celestial realm? Is there any reason to suppose Paul meant anything other than that Abraham was a forebearer by lineage?

Reread the Gal passage again. Is Paul saying that Hagar's son was born into a lower celestial realm? "Born according to the flesh" is used inside the allegory. It is actually "child of the promise" that is the odd one out. The focus of the allegory is on that term.

It is (frankly) typical Doherty: speculation, speculation, speculation. Not that I'm saying he is wrong, just that his case is built on speculation.

rlogan · 03-13-2004, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
How if the term "according to the flesh" is used where the person is undoubtedly supposed to be historical? Read Romans 4:1-2:

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God."

This is what Doherty says: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp08.htm

Was Abraham born into a lower celestial realm? Is there any reason to suppose Paul meant anything other than that Abraham was a forebearer by lineage?

Reread the Gal passage again. Is Paul saying that Hagar's son was born into a lower celestial realm? "Born according to the flesh" is used inside the allegory. It is actually "child of the promise" that is the odd one out. The focus of the allegory is on that term.

It is (frankly) typical Doherty: speculation, speculation, speculation. Not that I'm saying he is wrong, just that his case is built on speculation.

Theorem: I can find where this statement was used in reference to a person that might have been real. Therefore this statement is only used in reference to events that were real.

Against a backdrop of an ignorant superstitious culture we have a term separating spirit world from earthly world, but even the earthly world references can be complete fantasy. Fantasy on earth vs. fantasy in the spirit world.

Return again to the use in Romans Ch 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:

Point 1: Never in the history of all time has someone come back from the dead. If you believe this, then there is no point in discussing anything with you because you are delusional.

Point 2: Romans 1:4 is therefore a fantasy about a spirit world - but a world that these superstitious people believed was real.

Point 3: Prophesies are fantasy. People cannot see into the future. If you believe this then again you are delusional and it is not worth discussing anything logically with you.

Point 4: The Hebrew Bible ( defers to spin

) sets an important constraint on the earthly world fantasy by prophesy. He has to be from the line of David.

Point 4: The complete Romans 1:3-4 package involves a fantasy that has some "fantasy on earth" components and "fantasy in spirit world" components.

I submit to you without qualifications, but with an appeal to common sense that when an individual was introducing his brother to someone he would say "this is my brother Joe". He would not say "This is my brother according to the flesh Joe".

When you put on the ecclesiastical rhetorical garb you start talking gibberish about your goblins doing stuff on earth and stuff in the spirit world. It has nothing to do with what is real or not. The terms "according to the flesh" signals to me we have left reality and are listening to a camp-fire story about goblins.

In fact, the Romans did the same thing with their goblins. They did things in their spirit world and other things in their earthly world - including taking a human spouse in one case, I believe. Were the Roman goblins real because they did stuff in the earthly world?

NOGO already demonstrated moreover that this whole section was motivated by Hebrew Bible goblin scripture and not apostolic second-hand knowledge.

GakuseiDon · 03-13-2004, 07:09 PM

OK, thanks rlogan.

rlogan · 03-13-2004, 07:40 PM

GD, you are a gentleman.

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

03-12-2004, 11:47 PM	#13
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	It would be odd to say "according to the flesh" when one intends "in the flesh". But "according to" with the meaning Vork has ascribed would make sense. Seems to me if one meant "born" in the ordinary sense, you do not add the terms "in the ordinary sense". You just say "born". So indeed there is a reason to draw inference from the terms "according to". But not an inference about an HJ.

03-13-2004, 07:09 PM	#16
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	OK, thanks rlogan.

03-13-2004, 07:40 PM	#17
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	GD, you are a gentleman.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.