Rick Sumner

First and foremost, as I've discussed previously, I do not think kata sarka refers to actual physical flesh. That doesn't make your statement above any less circular.

Paul wasn't writing for you, for me, for anybody else not alive 2000 years or so ago. That we might find it ambiguous is irrelevant. Paul doubtlessly knew what he meant, we should reasonably expect (given that Paul provides no furthur elaboration on the term) that his audience knew exactly what he meant. There is no evidence to suggest that Paul's terminology on this point was thought ambiguous by anyone contemporary to him, and thus there is no reason to presume that Paul was using "ambiguous" terminology in any sense of the word pertinent to establishing his meaning of the phrase.

By way of analogy, someone speaking a different language might be puzzled by why I would be "on pins and needles." But you wouldn't, and you certainly wouldn't find the phrase ambiguous.

One could, just as easily, suggest that Greek had perfectly good words for a less ambigous "sphere of the flesh," and that--since he didn't use them--that indicates it isn't what he meant.

It's a rhetorical weapon. It has a lot of style, but alas, no substance.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Rick,

I think you've completely misunderstood what I've written though I'm not sure how. I'm not saying, nor can I see where I've ever implied, that Paul's phrasing was ambiguous to himself or even anyone who read his letters at the time. I'm sure they knew what he meant but that doesn't really help explain it for us. I've consistently and repeatedly stated that, contrary to Ted's apparent certainty that Paul meant physical flesh, the phrase Paul chose is not that obvious in its intended meaning.

But I would be justified in suggesting to someone who insisted it was clearly intended literally that there is a real possibility that something else was meant, right? That's really all I'm doing here.

If you read through the entire discussion (your inaccurate response suggests you haven't), I think you will find that I don't make the parallel to the above. I'm not arguing that, since Paul didn't use a more explicit phrase he couldn't have meant physical flesh. I'm arguing against Ted's apparent certainty that the phrase could mean nothing else.

Since you seem to agree with that point, I can only assume you posted this response without fully understanding what it is I've been arguing. (ETA: Actually, now that I check, you really only needed to read what I've written on this same page to have an accurate understanding of my position. Specifically, this post. Ironically enough, your stated views in the thread I linked were what I specifically had in mind for Ted to obtain a better understanding.)

To make it very clear for you, my position is that we really don't know what Paul meant by this phrase.

Rick Sumner

You suggested that, had Paul meant literal flesh, he could have chosen a less ambiguous term. This is false, because, whatever Paul meant, to him and his audience he did choose an un-ambiguous term.

And I have read the rest of this thread, which is why I opened my post with a qualifier on my general position--to make it clear that I was disagreeing with a specific point raised in a specific post, rather than disagreeing with a general position.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

GakuseiDon

Yet that is what Paul is doing. Here are the two verses:

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

"Born of a woman" contrasts with "adoption as sons". One is a natural inheritance, the other an inheritance of "promise". He is using it to make the contrast stronger. Maybe Paul could have expressed it another way, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in the context that it is given. That part of Gal is all about comparisons, between the flesh and the promise. He stresses adoption with natural birth in Gal 4:4.

As a rhetoric device, to link Christ's birth with his idea of Gentiles inheriting via adoption:

Gal 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become [ginomai] a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"*), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon [ginomai] the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born [ginomai] of a woman, born [ginomai] under the law

Using the same word throughout links the idea of Christ's birth and the blessing of Abraham applying to the Gentiles.

I suggest that the most reasonable explanation is that Paul is saying that Christ really was "born of a woman", and he is using it to make a point on how this affected Gentiles.

Not at all, the reverse in fact. Paul was arguing against Judaizers on the requirements of Jewish law. This is what Paul says:

Gal 2:9: and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

If a supremely righteous Jew approved Paul's message to the Gentiles, that would be a strong endorsement indeed for Paul's fight against the Judaizers. That's why Paul would have every incentive to refer to James's relationship to Christ, if that's what he is doing by using "the Lord's brother".

No, quite the reverse, for reasons given above.

TedM

Ok, thanks for the clarification on your position for Gal 4:4.

I read through the first 20 or so posts on the linked thread looking for an answer to my question and not seeing it. It's really a simple point: Even if Paul could have used a clearer phrase (to us--maybe to people then too) than "according to the flesh", the fact is he used what looks to me like the exact same phrase to apply to people that Paul believed weren't incarnated but were born as human beings: Abraham, himself, his readers, Abraham's slave's son. I can't imagine how ANY logic can be applied to its possible meaning without having to apply it to these others. As such, the hypothesis (it means something other than being a human) is disproven.

Does the link or Doherty address this issue? If not, I see no reason to read them further.

ted

Amaleq13

Your misinterpretation of my implied suggestion notwithstanding I clearly and explicitly stated (in bold type no less) that we do not know what Paul meant. I also clearly stated that I tend to think Paul did believe Jesus incarnated on earth rather than in a spiritual sphere but seems to have known nothing much specific about him beyond that.

It is my understanding that Paul had available to him at least one other choice that would have made his intent quite clear to us and entirely consistent with Ted's interpretation that physical flesh was meant but it isn't kata sarka.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Amaleq13

I didn't realize the same verb was used there. That looks like a valid point to me. I have no idea how Doherty or his supporters would reply but it does appear to invalidate the argument from the book.

With regard to "brother of the Lord", it still seems to me a very unlikely way for Paul to describe a flesh-and-blood relationship between James and the incarnation of the Son. Perhaps that will change once I've read more about Paul but it seems completely at odds with his veneration of the risen Christ, his expressed views of the flesh and his implied disregard for the incarnated Jesus beyond allowing himself to be executed.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure but I think I should have clarified earlier, as I understand it, the phrase kata sarka can be used to refer to literal flesh but does not require that interpretation. You seemed to think that it could only mean physical flesh.

Here is the quote from Carrier that I mentioned earlier:

We've got a few very well-informed Doherty supporters here who might be better able to directly address your question but I haven't seen them posting lately. Maybe they are enjoying the summer? I'll PM a couple to see if they want to weigh in.

Clivedurdle

Isn't the most reasonable explanation that these are all faith, liturgical statements? They were not written as rational explanations!

The classic contrast in Romans between being born of flesh - of sin, under the law, and being born again of the spirit is exactly making this point - it is all allegory, examples, never intended to be anything but rhetoric and religious language!

Is it a peculiar choice of words if you see him attempting to describe his vision and to explain this central idea of God becoming human to save us? Emmanuel, God with us!

This contrast between heaven and earth, and the bringing together of these worlds is exactly what has inspired this religion, its art, its churches, its evangelism, its glories and its horrors.

None of it is real, it is all attempts to resolve our basic human experience, we know we die but we all dream. It is all a wonderful thought experiment.

GakuseiDon

It's certainly possible, but how can we tell? They might be liturgical statements but still meant to be taken literally, for example. Other than assuming it a priori, how can we tell, IYO?