Layman

This is a false dichotamy. Early Christians and Jews, Paul included, often used OT themes and language to refer to real historical events. That he may do so hear in no way supports the idea that he invented the event from scripture. And it actually counts against the idea that he is referring to something in the "lower celestial realm."

See this discussion:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price6.htm

Layman

This thread has gotten really far afield. Does anyone have a defense of Doherty's interpertation of "according to the flesh"?

Amaleq13

Because Paul is apparently referring to the Psalm talking about a descent to Sheol rather than the actual act of placing a body in a hole.

Yes, and the "actual event" to which Paul is referring is apparently the descent of Jesus into Sheol for three days. This is not a "false dichotomy" but it is an example of avoiding the tendency to read Gospel details into the letters of Paul. Given this passage of Psalm as his reference, there is no apparent need to assume Paul also has in mind a literal burial.

Regarding Paul's meaning in using the phrase "according to the flesh", am I understanding you correctly that you're arguing him to have meant something like "in a physical sense" or "as far as physical things are concerned"? In other words, when Paul is trying to explain how the pre-existent Heavenly Messiah could be said to be Jewish, he says that "in the physical sense" he was a descendent of David?

Based on some of the Greek language discussion boards I visited, the actual meaning of kata sarka is apparently a hot topic of debate but I haven't seen anything approaching Doherty's offered interpretation yet.

Do you think Paul has deliberately chosen this phrase to avoid emphasizing the physical existence of Jesus to the detriment of the intended emphasis on the Risen Christ?

Toto

The issue of whether kurios = Jesus has been split to here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=71501

Layman

Assuming of course a radical disjunction between Paul here and in the rest of his writings, as well as with the rest of early Christianity--including the Gospels.

Perhaps you should read the article.

I'm not curious about how hotly debated the term is. I was curious if there was anyone willing to defend Doherty's interpretation. Especially in light of the examples I provide of Paul's usage elsewhere in his writings--including where he elsewhere contrasts it with "according to the spirit" or "by the spirit."

I think that Paul was emphasizing that while Yes, Jesus was literally descended in human form from King David, an even more powerful attestation as to His Lordship was the resurrection.

Layman

Great. Thanks.

If I don't appear over there for a while it's not because of a lack of interest, but because I will be out of town and have only limited computer access.

NOGO

No I wont try again simply because this is it.
You deny it but then again you will deny any evidence which is contrary to your faith.

So Layman, which Gospel is Paiul talking about here if it isn't 1 Cor 15 ?

NOGO

Yes I do but you don't want to hear it.

Layman

Perhaps someone will. Humor us.

And please respond to the points raised in my article.

Layman

Read this:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price4.htm#paul

It shows quite clearly that though Paul claimed apostolic authority for his Gospel, the teachings of his Gospel did not differ from that of the already existing Christian Church. Indeed, Paul even submitted his Gospel for approval before the leaders of the Jerusalem Church and they agreed that it was consistent with what they were already teaching.

So Paul did not mean that all the teachings and actions of Jesus were revealed to him by Jesus on one occassion. But that Jesus revealed Himself to Paul and the correctness of his Gospel is also true.

MB Thompson 'Tradition' in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, page 944.

See, you must deal with all of the Pauline evidence.