Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AlexBP" data-source="post: 57169805" data-attributes="member: 261211"><p>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.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: darkred">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</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black">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?</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>"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.)</p><p> </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>What exactly was that evidence? I don't recall you presenting any such evidence, despite many requests that you do so.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>How many instances of ancient Greek can you show me in which "kata sarx" means "in his life on Mars as a space traveler"?</p><p> </p><p>Given your answer to the previous question, why should I view this as anything other than desperate, nonsensical flailing around on your part?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>It sounds like somebody realizes that his arguments are growing mighty thin. Previously I posted these two links:</p><p><a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/price4.htm" target="_blank">Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition</a></p><p><a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/price7.htm" target="_blank">Doherty on 'According to the Flesh'</a></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AlexBP, post: 57169805, member: 261211"] 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. [COLOR=darkred]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[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]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?[/COLOR] "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.) 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. What exactly was that evidence? I don't recall you presenting any such evidence, despite many requests that you do so. 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. 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? 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? 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? It sounds like somebody realizes that his arguments are growing mighty thin. Previously I posted these two links: [URL="http://www.bede.org.uk/price4.htm"]Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition[/URL] [URL="http://www.bede.org.uk/price7.htm"]Doherty on 'According to the Flesh'[/URL] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
Top
Bottom