spin

The flesh is in fact not just having a physical body, but it entails having one.

I must say, I don't agree with this. Flesh is, well, you know... flesh. But it has implications:

Ga 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

They have emulated christ and renounced the body with its passions and desires. The notion of crucifixion is both real and metaphorized for Paul. For Paul Jesus was crucified physically. His flesh was hung upon a cross. Those who follow christ emulate that crucifixion.

Flesh and blood together underline physical nature:

1 Cor 15:50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Flesh and blood are perishable, physical in nature, corruptible, unable to go on to "greater things". But this also works metaphorically. Those characteristics of the flesh, those passions and desires, prevent one from obtaining the desired spiritual state.

The "flesh" then is both physical and metaphorical. But then, the spirit is also an entity (and presumably somehow physical):

1 Cor 5:4-5 When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Flesh is physical. Paul can say:

Rom 9:5 to them (ie the Jews/Israelites) [belong] the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, [comes] the Messiah,...

If flesh wasn't physical, this idea of the messiah coming from the Jews would have no sense. But, according to the flesh, the messiah comes from the patriarchs. And again the flesh implies this physical nature:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people (ie the Jews), my kindred according to the flesh.

Same issue: meaningless if flesh is not physical. Yet Paul has so suffused the term "flesh" with overtones:

2 Cor 4:11 For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh.

It's mortal flesh, underlining the physical nature, but Jesus may be made visible in it! These terms, "flesh" and "spirit", weave and squirm and morph, but never break away to purely the metaphorical. The physical is always just a wisp away from any reference to the flesh.

And christ coming from the Jews according to the flesh is not to be taken metaphorically. Christ for Paul is physical. This is also stressed by his being born of a woman, under the law. It is only humans who are under the law.

Remember 'flesh' means 'flesh' as in having a physical body, but it also entails all the implications, the weaknesses of having that body.

Kapyong

Gday,

Actually -
The record ALREADY shows that he DID explain it.

But -
you couldn't understand his simple explanation.


K.

judge

I know from your posts here you are a big fan of doherty's. I think you'll agree it's fair to say that. But perhpas you ate letting this get in the way of your objectivity.
Doherty wrote of references to "likeness if the flesh " AND similar phrases.

So this can only mean that there are references to "likeness of the flesh". Where is this phrase found.
One can't say that "likeness of the flesh" is ok because it is similar to the real quote. The way Earl has written it only the phrases are "similar" not tje first phrase.
It should say this. "there is a reference to "the likeness of sinful flesh" and similar phrases."
That statement is accurate and true , but it doesn't have the same force to support Doherty's theory.

spin

Logical fallacies can be simple. This one's called an illicit major. The only difficulty is that it contains an analytical term rather than a synthetic one, which makes people think than can overlook the defining nature of the adjective.

1. All bachelors are men
2. Brad Pitt is not a bachelor
3. Therefore Brad Pitt is not a man

Now let's use an analytical premise:

2a. Brad Pitt is not a married man
3a Therefore Brad Pitt is not a man

See the basic problem?

4. All sinners are human
5. Jesus is not a sinner
6. Therefore Jesus is not human

5a. Jesus is not a sinful human
6a. Therefore Jesus is not human

And specifically:

7. Jesus is like sinful flesh IMPLIES
8. Jesus is not sinful flesh
9. Therefore Jesus is not flesh

An adjective like "sinful" is not superfluous, Paul's generalizations notwithstanding.

judge

I see my last post. The reply to kapyong is probably hard to follow. I'm having to type this on an iPhone as my laptop died after my car was in a flashflood.

Doherty claims there were references to "likeness of flesh" and other similar phrases.
Problem is there is no reference to "likeness of flesh".
Now Toto and others seem to argue that it is ok to say this because "likeness of flesh" is similar to the genuine quote.
But doherty is not saying that "likeness of flesh" is similar to anything. Doherty is claiming that "likeness of flesh" is a reference and that there are other phrases similar to it.
To repeat my earlier point. Doherty should have said "there is one reference to "likeness of sinful flesh" and there also exist similar phases. "
How is it that on a free thought and rationalism forum doherty runs away from this and so many apologise for him?

TedM

I agree, even though I don't think it is significantly misleading, as you do.

aa5874

These are WORTHLESS strawman "premises".

No one EMPLOYS logical fallacies to determine the historicity of Brad Pitt. Once you KNOW or can show that BRAD PITT is a man then it is of ZERO value to introduce "logical fallacies".

There are DOCUMENTED sources that BRAD PITT is a man.

Again, there is NO need to INTRODUCE logical fallacies when there are ADDITIONAL DETAILS in the Pauline writings.

Look at Galatians 1.1 - The PAULINE JESUS was a GOD, the CREATOR of heaven and earth. What kind of flesh do Gods have?

1 Cor.

EarlDoherty

It might be significantly misleading if it were part of a Phd thesis (though even then, I doubt it). Being an off-the-cuff posting on FRDB in a rapid give-and-take exchange among several people, it's more a case of offering a desperate dissenter the chance to create a tempest in a teapot. Many of the postings on this board (including by that dissenter) can be all the way up to incoherent, simply because they are done on the fly, with no particular expectation that they will be dissected down to the atomic level. As I said earlier, "likeness of flesh" was more a reference to a motif and not any specific passage I had in mind. If I opened myself up to an obsessive semantic dismemberment by a fanatical opponent, it was inadvertent. (Though, of course, I guess I should know better.)

As for Romans 8:3, how about this analogy:

Doherty has stated: "I don't believe in superstitious religions."
To judge by Doherty's writings, he believes all religions are superstitious.
Therefore, there is no qualification inherent in Doherty's statement, and we cannot read into it that Doherty believes in a non-superstitious religion.

Earl Doherty

judge

Poor analogy. That wording is potentially ambiguous, thats all.

What you did, unconsciously perhaps, was to misquote Romans 8. You misquoted it, in a way which helps your theory.
If you weren't misquoting Romans 8 then the obvious question is where did you get that phrase from?

You claimed there there are references to "likeness of flesh". Where are these references?

I think what is demonstrates is that you unconsciously feel you need to change the wording In pauls writing to make your theory fly. Either that or you deliberately changed it.

EarlDoherty

I absolutely did not misquote Romans 8:3, consciously or unconsciously. That is a key passage on this topic, and if I could 'forget' the actual wording of it, my work wouldn't be worth anything.

Judge is essentially accusing me of dishonesty, of "cooking the books" in order to make a case for mythicism. That is not only a crass personal insult, it shows that he has no respect whatsoever for mythicism and those who propound it. In the presence of that kind of bare-assed prejudice and demonization (it certainly isn't based on any effective counter-case he has come up with), his stance against mythicism is worthless. Not that he hasn't already shown that by his shallow and amateur postings. (He can't even understand a legitimate analogy, let alone explain what he thinks is wrong with it.)

Mythicism has been around for two centuries, put forward by many scholars who deserve a lot more respect than a good number of mainstream workers in the biblical world. And a hell of a lot more respect than those who have made it their mindless mission to gibber and shout it down.

I suggest that we all ignore him, though I will continue to defend my own integrity.

Earl Doherty