Gregg

Jacob, sorry, my view is unchanged. I think it's stretching things too much to say that Paul is including Apollos among the "wise" who regard the cross as "folly."

"...to us who are being saved..." (1:18)

"This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (4:1)

"As for our brother Apollos, I encouraged him to visit you with the other brethren, but it was not at all his will (RSV footnote: or God's will for him) to come now. He will come when he has opportunity."

I think Paul is very clearly including Apollos among "us." How could he regard Apollos as "being saved" or as a "servant of Christ and steward of the mysteries of God" if Apollos did not have correct doctrine?

Furthermore, Paul encouraged Apollos to visit the Corinthians. Why would he want Apollos visiting the Corinthians if he disagreed with Apollos' preaching?

If there is any truth in the story in Acts, it would seem that this letter was written at a point after Apollos was fully instructed in "Pauline" doctrine.

Finally, the fact that Apollos had apparently been away from Corinth for some time suggests that there is no parallel between "I planted, Apollos watered" (3:6) and "...I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it" (3:10). Apollos was not there to be teaching incorrect doctrine. I believe that here Paul is referring to the Corinthians themselves, as receivers of the gospel. They must take Paul's teaching and go from there--they must build themselves up as "new creations" on the foundation laid by Paul.

I just don't see Paul dictating this letter and working in this subtle, basically unnoticeable in my view, dig at Apollos. To get that out of it you practically DO have to be saying you can read his mind (something Doherty is often accused of, unjustifiably in every other case I believe--HJers are guilty of Pauline mind-reading far more frequently, IMO).

Moreoever, Paul doesn't appear to have even associated with Christians whose gospel was radically different from his, yet here he is calling Apollos a "brother" and a fellow "servant of Christ and steward of the mysteries of God."

Yes, there were many Christians preaching a different doctrine than Paul. I just don't agree that Apollos was one of them.

Regards,

Gregg

Vorkosigan

No, just a Jesus agnostic.

Bernard, Doherty goes on for several pages about this, more than once. You cannot claim that Doherty "drifts" (implying he is not focused) and then is "obsessive" (implying he is over-focused). Choose one.

But let's see...is Doherty oblique, obsessive, or drifting?

On top of p84 are 6 paragraphs that explain how the paragraph in Paul works and why "son of David" cannot mean a historical reference. Again we note that Paul simply had to say that Jesus was the son of Joseph descendent of David, and clear up any misconceptions. After all, he knew Mary and James, according to the historicist paradigm.

There are of course other discussions. But I wonder -- it seems Doherty cannot win with you, Bernard. If he goes into great detail, he is "obsessive." If he drops a note on the way to another point, he is "drifting."

Bernard, I have two responses. First, it is very nice that you assert this. Now can you demonstrate it with an argument that is not an emotional appeal? "Makes no sense" is a value judgment that requires context and evidence, neither of which you supply. So, support!

My second response is to note that in the OT there are instances of persons receiving bogus ancestry so that they could carry out a priestly function. And in the Gospels and Hebrews Jesus is "my only begotten son" whom "today I have begotten you." The whole adoptionist perspective, Bernard, is the giving of bogus divine ancestry to a human being. Clearly ancestry was fungible.

But Doherty's point is not that a divine being received human ancestry. It is that Paul deduced this not from history, but from scripture. The key point you need to respond to here is not "Is Jesus a human?" but "How did Paul know about Jesus' ancestry?" All indications are that it was found in scripture. If you can demonstrate that Paul got it out of some historical knowledge, by all means put it on the table. The fact is that you are refuting the wrong point.

You do! I admire rhetorical skills.

It is not. But unfortunately you misunderstood the key passage, and thus your "evidence" turn out to be vapor.

You are labeling, not arguing, again. Can we have a clear demonstration of the "weakness" and "non-existence" of Doherty's arguments?

The answer is that he never links Jesus to the mortal sphere.

Start with the opening line. "Is this a piece of historical information? If so, it is the only one Paul ever gives us." There is no other historical information Paul. That should make us suspicious about this. Further, Doherty then gives us the source, scripture, where Paul also tells us he read about Jesus. So, is this a piece of historical information? No. You can't demonstrate using Paul that Paul has any knowledge of the historical Jesus. All of Paul's knowledge comes from either direct revelation or scripture. At no time does he ever say he knows anything concrete about Jesus, although he was from Palestine, had persecuted Christians, and knew all the major figures of Christian legend personally, at least according to the historicist paradigm.

Further on, page 85, Doherty points out that Paul does not say Jesus is god's son because of his ancestry. He claims that god himself appointed him, citing Psalm 2, (also cited in Hebrews and elsewhere). Thus, no historical birth is known to Paul -- everything happens in the mythical sphere, discovered in scripture or through revelation.

Bernard, when Zeus sits on Olympus, is it in the likeness of a man, or does he have some other shape? Does not god himself have "hinder parts" and a face? "Likeness" can be interpreted either way. If you back-read the gospels into Paul, you can interpret it in a historicist way. But that is the wrong way to approach it. You can't use the gospels as a key to unlock what Paul is saying. You have to read Paul. And Paul nowhere explicitly says that Jesus came down to earth and lived and died there, among people that Paul knew.

Bernard, in Romans 4:13 Paul is clearly talking about ABRAHAM. The grammar of the passage is clear:

• 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
  13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
  16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[3]

"heir of the world" is Abraham. Paul reinforces this in verse 17, in case you missed his point in 13 "I have made you father of many nations." Who is the heir here?! This is the key passage that you have misunderstood, Bernard.

In Romans 4 Paul is actually using a nifty bit of logic to argue that Abraham had faith PRIOR TO circumcision and was accepted by God. Therefore, the key thing about god-belief is not some empty ritual act like circumcision, but FAITH in god. Almost the whole first half of the passage is taken up with this argument.

Bernard, the passage does not say that they are "heirs of the world" but "heirs to Jesus' sonship of god." Look at 15-17:

• 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[7] And by him we cry, "Abba,[8] Father." 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Clearly, this heirship here is different from the one granted Abraham in Romans 4. Never mind that 4:17 names Abraham as the heir!

I am glad that you take Hebrews to explain Romans -- two different letters written decades apart by two different authors. That might be an acceptable methodology somewhere, but I am a little weird that way, Bernard. I simply read what Paul wrote. And in Romans 4, the heir is Abrahm.

No, Bernard, I did something even more revolutionary and exciting: I read and understood the syntax of the passage, which discusses Abraham and the promise in excrutiating detail and names Abraham as the heir in verse 17.

I don't blame you at all!

Good luck

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Can I take from this that you are suggesting that you cannot dismiss the possibility that Paul may have had in mind an earthly incarnation at some unknown or unspecified time in the past?

That, perhaps, Paul assumed one of the nameless hundreds (thousands?) of Jews who had been crucified in the previous two centuries was secretly the Son of God and that knowledge of this was only discovered/revealed in Paul's lifetime?

Bernard Muller

SNIPPED
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BM replies: It's difficult to answer when Doherty is very oblique and only once treat on this subject directly: Son of David does not mean a human Jesus. "drifts" and "obsessively" is warranted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard, Doherty goes on for several pages about this, more than once. You cannot claim that Doherty "drifts" (implying he is not focused) and then is "obsessive" (implying he is over-focused). Choose one.

But let's see... is Doherty oblique, obsessive, or drifting?

BM: Several pages! Quantity of words is not what matters. Actually I am very doubful about those who are using deluge of wording to make a point, and even more so about the validity of their conclusion. I used "obsessive" regarding Earl's "kata sarka" meaning that lower heaven. He does that along his book and web site. I just added a note on my page:
"Note: the translation as "in the sphere of the flesh" is according to Doherty "a suggestion put forward by C. K. Barrett." He adds "Such a translation is, in fact, quite useful and possibly accurate." No doubt! Doherty is treating that "possibly accurate" "suggestion" as a piece of primary evidence."

Vork: On top of p84 are 6 paragraphs that explain how the paragraph in Paul works and why "son of David" cannot mean a historical reference. Again we note that Paul simply had to say that Jesus was the son of Joseph descendent of David, and clear up any misconceptions. After all, he knew Mary and James, according to the historicist paradigm.

BM: Argument from silence again. Why would Paul digress on that into his flamboyant introduction of 'Romans'. Only if there was a mythicist issue then. Furthermore, according to my studies, I do not think James and company considered HJ as "Son of David". It's explained all over my HJ website and I will not go into that here.

Vork: There are of course other discussions. But I wonder -- it seems Doherty cannot win with you, Bernard. If he goes into great detail, he is "obsessive." If he drops a note on the way to another point, he is "drifting."

BM: Plenty of discussions to go around the bush and against straight forward evidence!
I already explained the "obsessive" on "kata sarka". Here is more about it:
"Even for 'en sarki' ("in flesh") (1Timothy3:16), Doherty claims it "can be translated in the sphere of the flesh" (with the sphere being that material lower heaven!)."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And YES, it does not make sense to claim earthly ancestors for a heavenly entity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard, I have two responses. First, it is very nice that you assert this. Now can you demonstrate it with an argument that is not an emotional appeal? "Makes no sense" is a value judgment that requires context and evidence, neither of which you supply. So, support!

BM: I am just using my sanity here. I think the onus is on you to prove otherwise. Doherty does not answer this argument directly (so "oblique" and "drifting"), may be you can.

Vork: My second response is to note that in the OT there are instances of persons receiving bogus ancestry so that they could carry out a priestly function. And in the Gospels and Hebrews Jesus is "my only begotten son" whom "today I have begotten you." The whole adoptionist perspective, Bernard, is the giving of bogus divine ancestry to a human being. Clearly ancestry was fungible.

BM: I do not think Paul had Jesus as a priest. However my point is not to defend that David was an ancestor of HJ. As a matter of fact, in these days, that could not be proven (but not disproven either), only claimed (and wishful thinking!). And it is likely Jewish Messianists would claim just that. Some humans in antiquity were given divine status after their death. "Adoptionism" is a very good effective theory when you are dealing with a human you want to be divinized. "I, the LORD GOD, adopt you as my begotten Son". De Facto, a common Jew becomes godly. Neat!

Vork: But Doherty's point is not that a divine being received human ancestry. It is that Paul deduced this not from history, but from scripture.

BM: Sure, on the first point !!!
On the last point, "history" is out of question, I explained that already. Now it's time to look at the intro of Romans:

Ro1:1-6 "Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, [a] called apostle, separated to God's glad tidings,
2 which he had before promised by his prophets in holy writings,
3 concerning his Son come of David's seed according to flesh,
4 marked out Son of God in power, according to [the] Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead) Jesus Christ our Lord;
5 by whom we have received grace and apostleship in behalf of his name, for obedience of faith among all the nations,
6 among whom are *ye* also [the] called of Jesus Christ"

I took the "()" out because it is not in the Greek (so the punctuation!).
Doherty finds that obscure; so do I (but that's the rule with Paul's writings!).
What is in the scriptures are prophetic writings about the promised good tidings (Paul's gospels). It is not clear verse 3 is included in these good news, more so about the Son of David part. Furthermore, "come of David's seed" is followed immediately by "according to flesh". That would supersedes the reference to scriptures written way earlier. And I do not think any scripture specifies "according to flesh" for any descendance of David in the future.
Does that really matter that the Son is a descendant of David, regarding Paul's gospel? Not much, or not at all, because it is only here that "fact" is mentioned in all his epistles. Then, in the rest of Romans, he did not go back to that at all, except in Ro15:12, where he quoted the OT (out of context) to make a point:
Ro15:11-12 "And again, Praise the Lord, all [ye] nations, and let all the peoples laud him.
12 And again, Esaias says, There shall be the root of Jesse, and one that arises, to rule over [the] nations: in him shall [the] nations hope."
Of course in 'Isaiah', that refer to Jesse's son, David, not Jesus.

Doherty is very much in need of Ro1:1-6 in order to show "Son of David" comes from the scriptures and not because Jesus had been a human Jew. So he has Paul finding that, and initiating the whole thing. He is not even considering someone belonging to his ill-defined very Jewish "Jerusalem tradition" would have come up with it before Paul (which is most likely) and that would be already accepted by Christians. And this is what appears in the intro of Romans, because "Son of David" shows in passing, when it is not necessary for Paul's argumentation which follows. Actually, it is ignored next.

Vork: The key point you need to respond to here is not "Is Jesus a human?" but "How did Paul know about Jesus' ancestry?" All indications are that it was found in scripture. If you can demonstrate that Paul got it out of some historical knowledge, by all means put it on the table. The fact is that you are refuting the wrong point.

BM: Aren't you oblique here? My focus is on human (or not) Jesus. Why do you want me to go on some wild goose chase on other issues? Furthermore I already answered your questions.
The question remains: How could Paul invoke human ancestry for Jesus ("kata sarka", according to the flesh) if his audience was thinking about an entirely spiritual heavenly entity? How much confusion, debates, controversies would that bring?
Here is another example, in the same letter:
Ro9:3-5 "my brethren, my kinsmen, according to flesh;
4 who are Israelites; ...
5 whose [are] the fathers; and of whom, as according to flesh, [is] the Christ,"
So we have Paul and Christ descendants of Israelites, both of them "according to flesh".

And Paul is also from the seed of someone (fictional or not) thought and described to be an earthly human:
Ro11:1 Darby "I [Paul] say then, Has God cast away his people [Israel]? Far be the thought. For *I* also am an Israelite, of [the] seed of Abraham, of [the] tribe of Benjamin."
And again:
2Co11:22 NKJV "Are they [other apostles] Hebrews? So am I [Paul]. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I."

SNIPPED

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Paul would always & firmly link Jesus to the mortal sphere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The answer is that he never links Jesus to the mortal sphere.

BM: Jesus dies in a mortal sphere. Earth is a place where many, many people dies, may I remind you. And in antiquity, many were crucified there too. Furthermore that's where the seed of Abraham, Israelites and David were living and died.
Doherty created another mortal phere just for his own theories, as explained in:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp1.html

That's it for now.
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Back to the frey:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on what kind of strong arguments Doherty makes in pages 82-85?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vork: Start with the opening line. "Is this a piece of historical information? If so, it is the only one Paul ever gives us." There is no other historical information Paul. That should make us suspicious about this.

BM: Actually there are many other items about a human Jesus in Romans, which I covered on my page, from the top:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp2.html

Ya, your are right, that made me very suspicious!
Or maybe, Doherty has not the same definition of "historical" that I have. But that's no reason for him to overlook a lot of evidence against his theories.
Do you call that an argument? I don't.
And you should note I fully addressed that on this list and my aforementioned page.

Vork: Further, Doherty then gives us the source, scripture, where Paul also tells us he read about Jesus. So, is this a piece of historical information? No.

BM: Once again, I do not consider "come of the seed of David" as true, but mostly wishful thinking. Still, that does not answer the basic fact that have been formulated all along "All from David are earthly humans".
What you are stating is what I call oblique. And how can you be sure that all the info given by Paul about the human-like Jesus are from not eyewitnesses sources (allowing, for example, Jesus, to come from David), even if he is not fond to divulge much in his epistles.

Vork: Doherty can do that at will, about any mythical parts, revelation from above, scriptures. I am not the one to argue on that,

BM: Sure, I would agree with that. But I know many works of fiction, set (partly or wholly) into a historical past, to include true facts from this past. And I do not consider the existence of a particular Jew crucified as something, by definition, mythical.

Vork: that is You can't demonstrate using Paul that Paul has any knowledge of the historical Jesus. All of Paul's knowledge comes from either direct revelation or scripture. At no time does he ever say he knows anything concrete about Jesus, although he was from Palestine, had persecuted Christians, and knew all the major figures of Christian legend personally, at least according to the historicist paradigm.

BM: Actually Paul did write a few items about a human Jesus, all of which are attacked by mythicists, of course, like "James, brother of the Lord". All these items depict a humble Jew, dealing with other Jews, not important on his own, except, for Paul, the "Christ crucified" part. Just for thought (and more feedback!!!), this my part of my conclusion in my second page:

"Note: my HJ web site documents the claims in this paragraph.
It is obvious Paul and the author of 'Hebrews', in their letters, did not care about the earthly Jesus, except for him as "Christ crucified". They were emphasizing the heavenly Deity, who, after being "sent" by God, performed the "sacrifice" and went back to heaven as the Savior (when God's wrath was expected soon!). These "teachings" were attracting & keeping converts; and consequently, in the epistles, there was no incentive to digress on a humble (Php2:7-8) Jew (with a short "local" rural public life, benefiting & then victim of hysteria & flukes!). On the contrary! Therefore the "silences" about the "historical Jesus" are understandable (even necessary!).
Furthermore, these letters were "occasional", dealing about issues, disbeliefs and problems surfacing then. It just happened 'where Jesus lived & died' was never one of them. Why?
Uncontested acceptance of some proposed celestial fleshy realm (with in it Israelites, Jews, a woman, sinners, temptations, cross, supper, bread, cup!)?
Highly unrealistic and the "lower heaven" would have generated storms of controversy.
The solution can only be Jesus had been witnessed to live & die in real & earthly places, as gleaned from Paul, other competing apostles, etc. (& with no disagreement!). Let's not forget the epistles were addressed to Christians whom the authors (and other preachers!) already met in person (only some of them regarding the Romans): what shows in the letters is not necessarily all of what had been told before!

However, and despite their (aforementioned) inclinations, both writers clearly had Jesus as a mortal "flesh & blood" Jew and descendant of human earthly ancestors. Each one mentioned more details (rather casually, in passing), such as Jesus was poor (2Co8:9), an apostle heard speaking about salvation (Heb3:1,2:3), a minister to the Jews (Ro15:8) and had (blood) brothers (1Co8:5,Gal1:19). Paul even alluded the "sacrifice" was "out of Zion" (from Jerusalem) (Ro9:31-33,15:26-27)."

That will get me a lot of reactions !!!

Vork: Further on, page 85, Doherty points out that Paul does not say Jesus is god's son because of his ancestry. He claims that god himself appointed him, citing Psalm 2, (also cited in Hebrews and elsewhere). Thus, no historical birth is known to Paul -- everything happens in the mythical sphere, discovered in scripture or through revelation.

BM: What does the issue of God's Son has to do with the earthly Jesus? Of course Jesus is not God's Son because of human ancestry. Since Paul had him pre-existent way back, way before Abraham & David, from before the creation. But you bring a good point. The only way this kind of Deity could get human ancestry is through "incarnation", the old fashion way, including a human male and a woman, which, by the way, are mentioned (or implied) in Paul's epistles.

OOPs, lunch time.
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BM replies: Actually I did that one my first page: "And because the Son is an eternal heavenly entity for Paul, then expressions like "human likeness" and "human shape" would be expected in order to describe an incarnation as an abnormality. - See 4:2-3 of 'the Ascension of Isaiah' (quoted next in 2.5.1.2) where Beliar (Satan), from the firmament, comes down to earth as Nero (through an earthly mother!) "in the likeness of a man". - See Acts14:11-12 NKJV "Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker."
As far as I know, Nero, Paul & Barnabas were earthly men."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard, when Zeus sits on Olympus, is it in the likeness of a man, or does he have some other shape? Does not god himself have "hinder parts" and a face? "Likeness" can be interpreted either way.

BM: Well, I do not know how they would look up there, but I agree, they seem very human. But I do not think Paul & Barnabas looked like Mercury and Jupiter, that is according to the statues (too much of a coincidence). And what about Satan from 'Ascension of Isaiah' going down and becoming Nero, who by the way was born of woman (who he had murdered later!)? So a change of state is implied here.
The Greek gods are described to change their appearance at will, not even necessarily in human forms, but also in animals, trees or plant (and back).
But for Jesus & God, Doherty thinks they would be ethereal in the Platonic heaven and therefore, somehow, the Son had to change state going down and becoming fleshy.
Related to that: If the whole purpose of the Son was to go some place to be crucified in the flesh, why not zap him into a human form right away! Angels could do that when coming on earth (Philo said so!) and even God (when walking in his earthly garden or when wrestling Job, and losing!) (Genesis). And there is nothing in the OT about God requiring a woman and a male ancestor in order to occasionally visit earth.
But Jesus needed those. Go figure! Except of course, if he had been witnessed to be a regular human. That would explain it.

Vork: If you back-read the gospels into Paul, you can interpret it in a historicist way. But that is the wrong way to approach it.

BM: I do not think I did that on the last item. Just that "likeness" can be very well explained in the case of a human Jesus, believed afterward to have been a pre-existing heavenly Deity. And here is a quote where Jesus is a man, with no likeness attached:
Ro5:15 Darby "... much rather has the grace of God, and the free gift in grace, which [is] by the one man Jesus Christ, abounded unto the many."

But who said that the gospels can only be thrown out as a whole (except Mythicists and Jesus agnostics)?
More so if GMark came only 15 years after Paul's epistles. More so if GMark shows many signs the author had to deal with against the grain testimonies, no corroborations from witnesses (even if present then) on many fictional/extraordinary items planted in the gospel and silences from the disciples on the most crucial theological bits. He had to react, use stratagems, compensate for those who persisted relating only to a small figure. All of that is of course explained on my HJ website.

VORK: You can't use the gospels as a key to unlock what Paul is saying. You have to read Paul. And Paul nowhere explicitly says that Jesus came down to earth and lived and died there, among people that Paul knew.

BM: I did not use the gospels to say that "likeness" does not take away the full humanity of Jesus. However I resent you telling me I cannot use the gospels. That's an attempt of censorship. Doherty, to get his "evidence", is looking at texts like the Odes of Solomon, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Shepherd of Hermas, Octavius of Minicius Felix (earliest 160), and up to some 4th century authors. The first three ones were written well in the second century according to most critical scholars, at the earliest, for some, very end of the 1st century.
On his "study" on the Ascension of Isaiah, Doherty does not even bother to give his dating on the parts he is using. Only at the end of the chapter, he sneakily implies that was written before GMark (and "Mark" knew about the work!).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BM replies: What do you have to corroborate Paul was thinking about Abraham as the heir of the world? How does that fit with Paul's christology/theology? Why would he mean that out of the blue
As far as I know, there is no such things in the Jewish scriptures, or the Christian ones about that. So you have to provide evidence for your claim here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard, in Romans 4:13 Paul is clearly talking about ABRAHAM. The grammar of the passage is clear:

12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[3]


"heir of the world" is Abraham. Paul reinforces this in verse 17, in case you missed his point in 13 "I have made you father of many nations." Who is the heir here?! This is the key passage that you have misunderstood, Bernard.

BM: I think you have a point here. I'll have to remove that from my page. Furthermore, Paul never saw the Son as the all encompassing ruler, successor of God.

SNIPPED

Finished!
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

I have two more examples about that likeness, appearance, or human shape thing relative to incarnation. From Philo of Alexandria (died 45-50):

A) 'On dreams', I, (238) "God at times assumes the likeness of the angels, as he sometimes assumes even that of men"
B) 'Questions and answers on Genesis', I, (92) "for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape [and then fathered children with mortal women!]"

Best regards, Bernard