doubtingmerle said:
(I took the liberty of removing the commas which we agree were not in the original.)
The original was in Greek. We're looking at an English translation. That English translation was in the NASB, which you have already agreed to be reliable. So if we want to know how the translators of the NASB interpreted this passage, we should look at the version with the commas.
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh
From reading that the results are immediately clear. First, the translators of the NASB obviously think that the "gospel" Paul in refering to is the one that concerns the Son, who is Jesus Christ. Second, the translators of the NASB obviously think that Paul believed Jesus to be a flesh-and-blood descendant of David. Now let me remind you that you've already said that you use the NASB because it's reliable. Are you then willing to follow their interpretation of this particular passage? If not, why not?
What does Paul learn from the scriptures about this son? Among other things, this Son was described as being a descendent of David. This could simply be a reference to a heavenly son being metaphorically born as David's heir in the metaphorical realm of flesh.
"Metaphorical realm of flesh"? What's that, if you don't mind me asking? How many examples can you come up with in which anybody in the first century refered to a "metaphorical realm of flesh"? (Please don't try a circular reasoning argument that we know Paul believed in a metaphorical realm of flesh because Paul believed in a metaphorical realm of flesh.)
I don't believe the phrase "born of a descendant of David" in the NASB is supported by the Greek text. The original said the "seed of David".
By the way, Strong's Concordance offers the following outline of Biblical usage of the Greek word "sperma" (seed).
1) from which a plant germinates
a) the seed i.e. the grain or kernel which contains within itself the germ of the future plants
1) of the grains or kernels sown
b) metaph. a seed i.e. a residue, or a few survivors reserved as the germ of the next generation (just as seed is kept from the harvest for the sowing)
2) the sperm virile
a) the product of this sperm, seed, children, offspring, progeny
b) family, tribe, posterity
c) whatever possesses vital force or life giving power
1) of divine energy of the Holy Spirit operating within the soul by which we are regenerated
(Bold emphasis was added.)
So yes, the word seed (sperma) can sometimes be used metaphorically.
In fact the mere reference to a person as the
sperma of David is in itself metaphorical, for it literally mean the "plant's seed of David".
This argument is utterly desperate even by your standards. Are you honestly expecting that anyone is going to believe that Paul was saying that Jesus was a plant that grew from a seed? I'm assuming you're not. One of the definitions for "sperma" that you just quoted is "the product of this sperm, seed, children, offspring, progeny". Common sense dictates that this is the definition that Paul was using in Romans 1:1-3, and not any other.
Romans 1 may describe Jesus as a physical descendent, in spite of all the evidence that Paul thought otherwise,
What exactly was that evidence? I don't recall you presenting any such evidence, despite many requests that you do so.
As I explained to you before, ancestry is sometimes metaphorical. For instance:
Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
So why can not these verses mean that Paul interpreted the Bible as saying that God's son would metaphorically be David's heir? Why must everything be literal?
Well, I've already answered this many times, but since you apparently missed the answer those times, I'll repeat it. Here are the reasons why we know that this passage is literal. First, it says that Jesus was descended from David "according to the flesh". What does the phrase "according to the flesh" mean? I've already explained, but since you have ignored my explanation, let me quote Dr. Ronald Williamson: "The phrase is a common expression for human nature. The rabbis use it chiefly where the corruptible nature of man is compared with the eternity and omnipotence of God, but the usage is older than the rabbinic literature and the idea of mortality and creature lines is bound up with it from the outset". So that's what the phrase meant at the time Paul used it (and still means). Second, Paul refers to Jesus as an earthly human being on dozens of occasions throughout his letters. Thus we know that Paul believed Jesus to be an earthly human being. Third, Paul believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, and all first-century Jews believed that the Jewish messiah would be a flesh-and-blood human being.
Your argument that Romans 1:3 is metaphorical because Gal 3:7 is metaphorical won't convince anybody for reasons that should be obvious. Consider this analogy. Bob writes in a letter "I own a rabbit, it lives in a cage, and I feed it a carrot every day." Several years later, in a different letter, to a different recipient, on a different topic, Bob writes "It's raining cats and dogs." The later statement is metaphorical. However, only a desperate person would argue that since Paul made a metaphorical statement involving animals in the second later, we can then safely conclude that the first reference to the rabbit must also be metaphorical. That would be a ridiculous argument that would only make its proponent look stupid. A smart person would instead say that Bob's statement about the rabbit is clearly phrased in such a way as to be obviously literal. Similarly, Paul's statement in Romans 1:1-4 is phrased in such a way as to be obviously literal. He uses phrases such as "in the flesh" that were never used metaphorically. He deliberately avoids phrases that were often used metaphorically.
OK, so we agree that the words "earthly" and "life" did not appear in the original, but the translators used them because they thought these words meant the same thing as "according to the flesh"? How did they make that decision? Does it not come from the fact that, in their theology, they thought that Jesus had lived a life on earth?
Everybody who's taken seriously in the scholarly community believes that Jesus lived a life on earth. Implying that the translators of the NIV are untrustworthy because they believe that is like implying that my history textbook is biased because they believe Abraham Lincoln to have been lived a life on earth. If you have some credentials in Bible study that makes you trustworthy than the translators of the NIV, please tell us what they are. If you don't, then why should I trust you over them and over every other serious Bible scholar on the planet?
Uh, no, "kata sarx" can have several meaning, including "in the realm of the flesh", or "in his life on Mars as a space traveler".
How many instances of ancient Greek can you show me in which "kata sarx" means "in his life on Mars as a space traveler"?
Given your answer to the previous question, why should I view this as anything other than desperate, nonsensical flailing around on your part?
The introduction to the NIV says that it is commited to a particular ideology. It appears that in some places their desire to maintain that ideology takes precedence over accuracy.
Can you name any such place and show me an argument written by a reputable Bible scholar which shows that the NIV translators put ideology over accuracy?
Yes, of course. But you insisted on hashing the same points over again after I offered several times that we could just agree to disagree.
It sounds like somebody realizes that his arguments are growing mighty thin. Previously I posted these two links:
Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition
Doherty on 'According to the Flesh'
You said that reading them would be "on your to-do list". Reading each will only take about five minutes. Why not respond to what they say?