Horatio Parker

IIRC the OP was about a Prima Facie reading. There it is, and to my mind it doesn't support a HJ(nor is it ruled out). The flesh of God is not the same thing as the flesh of the Jews, duh.

It does not say "someone" was god and man. It says that Paul is to the Jews as Christ is to God. And that as the laws are from God, and so is Christ.

archibald

No actually, what it says is that Paul's Israeli countrymen were kata sarka, and that Christ was too.

This thread is turning into a classic.

Horatio Parker

Yes, but kata sarka with whom?

Paul was kata sarka of the Jews and Christ kata sarka of God.

Seems clear to me: Paul is to the Jews as Christ is to God.

And the laws, covenant are from God to the Jews and therefore Christ should be also.

archibald

I'm not sure which version you're reading. Mine says 'Fathers' plural.

Not even sure it matters. They're both kata sarka in any case.

Horatio Parker

Greens Literal translation where "fathers" appears to be possessive:

" I tell the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that my grief is great, and a never ceasing pain is in my heart, 3 for I myself was wishing to be a curse from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to flesh, 4 who are Israelites, whose are the adoption and the glory, and the covenants, and the Lawgiving, and the service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen."

Adoption, glory etc are the fathers. Possessive.

The argument IMO is that the Jews should accept Christ because Christ is according to the flesh of the Father with whom the Jews have their covenant.

archibald

Now you've gone back to father singular? I'm confused.

Could you just do your translation, into modern english, so that I can see what you mean?

aa5874

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a ZOMBIE but God Incarnate in the Pauline writings.

What authority would "Paul" have if he claimed he got his gospel from a ZOMBIE?

The supposed apostles BEFORE him would LAUGH in his face.

"Paul" LIED and claim he was a WITNESS to the resurrected Jesus.

In the NT, the Pauline writer was a FALSE WITNESS for the Glory of God.

aa5874

Clement cannot be established or corroborated to be an early witness. No source OUTSIDE of apologetics can account for Clement

You cannot start by PRESUMING Clement was an early witness.

You have to START with established and CORROBORATED sources of antiquity such as Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus.

Philo and Josephus were supposed to be CONTEMPORARIES of "Paul" and did NOT write about a character who was claimed to be the END of the LAW all over the Roman Empire by a PHARISEE.

That "Paul" was a JEW and a PHARISEE it would have been quite incredible and extra-ordinary that he would claim that the Name of Jesus Christ, a JEWISH MESSIAH, was FAR SUPERIOR to the all other names in the Roman Empire and that even the Deified Emperors of Rome should BOW before the name of Jesus.

It is JUST a Pack of lies that a Jew and a Pharisee would have been allowed for OVER 20 years to Preach all over the Roman EMPIRE that a Jewish Man was FAR SUPERIOR to the DEFIED Emperors of Rome.

[Philippians 2....... When was the Pauline Jesus given a name above every name and when did every tongue have to confess that Jesus was LORD?

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, the Roman Emperor and the Senate did NOT bow to the name of Jesus based on Justin Martyr.

The Pauline writings cannot be accounted for by non-apologetic sources in the 1st century.

Now, Clement mentioned "Paul" but which "Paul" was that?

aa5874

HE also says to the ALIEN tribe he was NOT the Apostle of a man and did NOT get his gospel from man but from a "resurrected Jesus Christ".

(NOT FROM MAN= FROM MYTH).

Iskander

It is Romans 9:3-5 , first reading we have been asked to comment on. But if I am allowed I will take your point.

Paul means that by the grace of god, Jesus Christ, he now understands the meaning of Jesus’ life, his teaching and death. He knew all about that before the experience on the road to Damascus because he had been prosecuting his followers.


He seems to describe a ‘religious’ experience not too uncommon in his time. Mohamed was visited by an angel...


His statement means nothing much to me because I don’t accept resurrection, apparitions, angels, gods..., but the experience he relates meant a change for him; a new way to behave, and this is important because men and women create the reality in which we live in the world we found.


Paul says that his new found friendship between him and his god is exclusively a matter between him and god without any contribution from any man—it is a beautiful idea and the only way I could ever consider accepting a god. It is also of political importance, many years later the reformation took it up from there: sola scripture, sola fide: salvation a gift of god to mankind.

Paul on the road of Damascus says that man /woman has all what is needed to befriend god without the help of pompous, greedy officers.