to Giuseppe,
Because the only thing made by Jesus ''in the flesh'' was to be crucified. Period.
Just because Paul stressed Christ crucified, that does not mean that was the only thing happening in Jesus' life.
If I say that this is a catholic anti-marcionite interpolation, then I don't mean in this way to imply that, if genuine, the only interpretation of the passage can be only historicist. If the being davidic is a mere exaltation (and corollary) of the being Christ - i.e., something that is made without second intentions or goals (as can be the case if the intention is to confute Marcion) , then the historical Paul could very well exalt candidly the his Christ by calling him ''davidic''. It is not still euhemerization per se, but merely a mere title that sounded apt for the Christ, even if for a celestial Christ.
Another complicated explanation. A celestial Christ does not have to be a Jew, nor a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David & Israelites, from the tribe of Judah, and born of a woman.
The flesh that is meant is the carnal lineage, here. But I can conclude so because I know that Paul lived an entire life (as opposed to only a short episode of it) to be descendant from Abraham. I don't know in advance that Jesus lived an entire life. I know that he was ''in the flesh'' only the necessary time to be crucified. Period. Hebrews talks only about ''the days of the his flesh''. "Days" are not months, not even years. In all that short period, Jesus suffered only. Therefore "during the days of the his flesh", Jesus could be only on the cross.
Descendant of Abraham starts their life as a baby, from a woman (and with semen from a man). Why Jesus' earthly origin should be different from Paul, who claimed to be also a descendant of Abraham?
Because Paul did not describe the life of Jesus before his crucifixion does not mean Jesus (in the flesh) was alive only a few days.
The Tertullian's silence about that construct, in the his polemic against Marcion, is strong. If you have a gun in the your hands, you use it to defend you from a mortal enemy. Or not?
Another argument from silence. Furthermore Tertullian commented only from the Marcionite gospel & epistles. Knowing about Marcion's preaching, it is rather certain any allusion to the humanity of Jesus through birth from human parents was not part of the Marcionite corpus. So the silence. But we have also from Marcion's gospel:
8:19 missing 8:20
Some people told him, “Your mother and your brothers stand outside, desiring to see you.” 21 (Jesus declaring)
Who is my mother and who are my brothers except these who hear my words and do them?
It's very hard to argue that mother (standing outside) is a Jesus' follower because "mother" indicating a mature female follower is very very unlikely. Rather she is better understood as the blood mother of Jesus as in GLuke (where the pericope, with verse 19, makes a lot of sense: Jesus' family want to see Jesus. But being not among his followers, Jesus disowns them and replace them by followers).
Note: that passage by Marcion reveals that he truncated something from GLuke. Certainly this awkward two verses could not have been written by an earlier original author. (Hello Ben Smith!)
That is an interpolation in Josephus. If it was not an interpolation, then it reflects simply the fact that James the Pillar was named ''my Brother'' by the Risen Christ (as it is attested in an apocryphal gospel). And in the same time, ''the Lord'' was already euhemerized by the time Josephus wrote. So do 2 + 2.
Oh, you invoke an apocryphal gospel in your defense! Again I see here speculations.
That is an interpolation. Please read here.
It's far from being certain. Ben Smith could not decide. These "brothers of the Lord" appears in Origen's writings and even in a papyrus (P46).
And if "brothers of the Lord" was not in 1 Corinthians, why would "Mark" invent these brothers, if not known from former testimonies.
No, it is not. Jesus emptied himself as an act of deliberate obedience. You have not more that deliberate obedience by Jesus if he ceases to be an adult and becomes a mere baby (notoriously, someone who is not able to decide alone).
The hymn in Philippians does not say Jesus appears as an adult. The deliberate act of obedience does not have to be the only thing during the lifetime of Jesus.
from the hymn to Philippians. He assumes the appearance of a servant, not of a child. A child can't serve, an adult can.
Even servant starts their life as a baby.
Just like: he assumed the appearance of a wealthy man. That does not mean the life of that man started only when he showed himself in the appearance of a wealthy man.
Cordially, Bernard