EarlDoherty

This discussion is becoming like a bad dream that one can't wake up from!

We must have gone through very different educational systems. I thoroughly agree with the above quote, but what are you understanding from it? If the children of the promise are like actual descendants of Abraham, does that make them actual descendants of Abraham? If I add the word "like" then I am defining it as not the actual thing! The fact that they enjoy certain benefits as though they were Abraham's descendants does not make them Abraham's descendants. How can anyone claim that? Have I fallen into the Twilight Zone?

Yes, and that's exactly where he's wrong, which makes you wrong, too. I agreed with him that the "apple" was a reference to a literal apple. That's not the point. It's the thing that the apple is being compared to that is not an apple. If your girlfriend's cheeks are like apples, you can choose to polish them and even nibble on them if you like, but that doesn't make them literal apples! You can treat the children of the promise as though they are descendants of Abraham, but that doesn't make them actual descendants of Abraham!

Just as being/treated/regarded like the "seed" of Abraham and enjoying the same benefits doesn't make someone the literal seed of Abraham!

.

I've already agreed to that. In both cases you are applying both your elements to only one side of the equation.

Your cheeks [are regarded as / like] apples. Yes the apples are actual apples. But what are your cheeks? Are they actual apples, too?

Children of the promise [are regarded as / like] seed of Abraham. Yes "the seed (of Abraham)" refers to actual descendants. But what are the children of the promise? That's the question. The presence of a word such as "like" would in fact rule that out, because the word "like" (in any dictionary I've seen) does not mean "being the actual thing itself".

Ben is entitled to argue about Paul's train of thought through verses 6-8a (which is anything but clear, and I talked about it in my "Eisenbaum" post). But he cannot argue as he has on the basis of the wording of verse 8b, which is what you are trying to do as well. If "children of the promise" does not a priori refer to physical descendants of Abraham (and how can it, if we take into account what Paul everywhere says about such "children", which includes being gentiles and anyone who has faith in Christ?--"We are all one, Jew and Greek": are they all actual descendants of Abraham?), then the linkage with "the seed (of Abraham)" in 8b, whether it's a simile ("like") or a metaphor, does not turn such children into actual literal descendants of Abraham. If that were what Paul was trying to convey here, then he had a very obscure way of expressing it and was being totally contradictory with everything else he says.

Earl Doherty

storytime

Bad dream? :huh: What about Esau? Does Paul address this son of perdition?

"But what are the children of the promise?" The one seed in Isaac called Jacob-Israel. These are the children of Abraham in circumcision as required by covenant. There was no other seed, even though there were many seeds in Abraham's house. Ishmael had already received the promise in his own house (nation) as also other sons of Abraham, so the promise of blessing went forward to Isaac in Jacob and the promise of blessing was based on loyalty to the covenant of circumcision.

Why is esau excluded as the hated? Even though Esau is Jacobs brother he is not the seed of promise. God made a difference between the two; " I have loved Jacob and hated Esau forever, and laid his land waste?"

Does Paul address this "son of perdition", Esau?

Amaleq13

I don't know about that but I had no trouble accurately understanding Ben's point.

I think I made that pretty clear in my previous post. What I am understanding is what Ben was trying to explain (ie that "seed" in Romans 9:8 is a literal reference to descendants just as the "apple" is a literal reference to a specific fruit).

Obviously not but I thought I made it very clear that this was not what Ben was claiming.

Tell me about it. Nobody has made this claim, Earl. That should have been clear after you read my post.

I assume that you mean Ben's focus is wrong rather than the statement, itself, since you appear to agree that Paul was referring to the literal descendants of Abraham.

How I could be wrong by correctly pointing out Ben's focus is a subject that is, fortunately, irrelevant to this discussion.

That might not be your point but it was Ben's.

.

That side of the equation was the focus of his argument, Earl.

When did that become the question? Please reread Ben's post #57. Note his explicit and exclusive focus on "seed" and whether it literally refers to Abraham's descendants. Note also that identifying the "children of the promise" has not one thing to do with his point.

Specifically note his rather explicit statement:

Doug

Ben C Smith

As I said before, once you take away the obvious meaning, this is what we are left with. The shrugging of shoulders and the shaking of heads.

Christ was literally of the seed of David... but in some heavenly fashion? How is descent from David literal if only heavenly and not physical? Are you by chance using the term literal nonliterally?

It sounds like you are saying that seed of David according to the flesh is neither a simile nor a metaphor in Romans 1.3. Is that correct?

Okay, you are describing a literal relationship between a spiritual being and a human being. I can easily imagine a literal relationship between heavenly beings and humans; in fact, our extant literature has some notable examples of this kind of relationship. For example, in the myth of the watchers certain angelic beings had literal relationships with human women; these literal relationships produced literal children who literally walked the earth as giants or nephilim. When you talk about a literal relationship between a divinity and a human being, is that the sort of thing you are envisioning?

On my not all flesh thread you rebuked me for suggesting that you had ever said the flesh in Romans 1.3 was nonhuman flesh in any way. Okay, so forget about Romans 1.3 for a moment; you keep bringing up this point about angel flesh or divine flesh. Why? Does Paul mean divine flesh in some of his usages (even if not in Romans 1.3)? If so, which ones, and then why does 1 Corinthians 15.39 lack any mention of that kind of flesh? If not, then why is this like the fourth time you have brought up the point in connection with Pauline usage of the word flesh, and even more specifically in connection with Romans 1.3?

Not even remotely. It has never been my position that gentiles, according to Paul in Romans 9.8 or anywhere else, are the literal seed of Abraham.

Except for my very brief answer to the very last paragraph, I have taken this advice. Thanks.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Exactly. Insert any apparently literal reference to an earthly, physical entity and that same response "works" just as well. It isn't what it seems and can, therefore, be reinterpreted to be in agreement with the thesis. I don't, however, know what the difference is between that approach and circular reasoning. The conclusion doesn't follow from the text but precedes it and guides all subsequent interpretations.

That is why I believe you will never, ever find any passage that can deny the conclusion.

Paul certainly helps that effort by having little or no interest in the incarnated Christ beyond the fact that he was crucified regardless of whether he "lived" only in some sublunar realm or on the same earth upon which we live.

Thank you for taking my advice. It will help me deal with my Cassandra Complex.

EarlDoherty

Exactly, on both counts. What is important is what Ben was trying to do with or imply by that argument. Would he have bothered putting it forward if he thought it was totally irrelevant? By itself, it is. But he was trying to make it have some effect on Romans 1:3 and that's what this whole kerfuffle was about.

Is he willing to admit it was totally irrelevant?

As far as your involvement goes, why would you even bother to point out that the word "apples" in "your cheeks are like apples" referred to actual apples? Did you really think I was denying that, through all those postings when I clearly was not? If we were all in agreement, and that was the extent of things, why did we waste all that energy? My point is, that for Ben it was not the extent of things. He was trying to use that obvious meaning of "apples/seed" to affect something else.

Why would Ben bother explaining the obvious just for its own sake, unless he wanted it to be applied in further way, one that was less obvious and possibly invalid? Why would you?

Anyway, that's my final word on cheeks and apples, similes and metaphors. Hopefully, we’ve all woken up from this bad dream. I'll start another post to address Ben's further remarks.

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Just to clarify, there is only one Josephus quote on that page, and that quote is of War 2.8.11 §154-155. I have this single quote split up into two sections (§154 and §155, respectively) for convenience and for context. I am sorry if this division caused any confusion; I thought it was clear from my introduction to the quote (Josephus, War 2.8.11 §154-155, writing of the Essenes) that it was all one single text.

BTW, there are, by my count, some 51 non-Christian uses of the phrase according to the flesh in the extant Greek literature up through century III (including authors such as Porphyry, Galen, Hippocrates, and Aristotle). Out of curiosity, how many of those instances have you examined to see how odd a phrase it is in various contexts or meanings? What were your findings?

Ben.

Gamera

This is just poor linguistic analysis of the trope.

In the phrase, "regard as a brother," the word "brother" has to have a literal meaning or the phrase makes no sense. The meaning is "I consider you a literal brother (in terms of whatever the issue is at hand -- fealty or love or closeness) -- even though in fact you are not."

The verb "regard" cues us in that the object of the trope is not the literal brother of the reference.

Doherty's interpretation results in this opposite, absurd sense: "I consider you a symbolic brother (not a literal brother -- so bug off!)".

The point of the trope is to assert the relationship of a literal brother (even though no fraternal relationship exists), not to assert the relationship of symbolic brotherhood because no fraternal relationship exists.

In Doherty's interpretation Paul winds up praising the gentiles with faint damnation: they are just symbolic descendants of Abraham, and that's all they'll ever be!

Amaleq13

I was just correcting your misunderstanding of Ben's point.