Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:10 am
to Giuseppe,
just as Mithras comes from Persians. The Christ kata sarka is the crucified Christ. Not a lived Christ.
Mithras is not Jesus.
I have mentioned Mithras as example of the provenance of a mythological being from a particular people on the earth.
How do you know 'kata sarka' (according to the flesh) in Ro 1:3 means Christ crucified?
Because the only thing made by Jesus ''in the flesh'' was to be crucified. Period.
Ro 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"
"made of the seed of David, Christ crucified". Really?
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.
What about:
Ro 4:1 "What shall we say then that Abraham our father according to flesh ['kata sarka'] has found?"
Does here 'kata sarka' means Christ (or Abraham) crucified?
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.
(as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)),
anti-marcionite interpolation.
Easier said than proven. Where is the evidence showing that they are anti-marcionite interpolations?
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?
"the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)),
spiritual Brothers.
How do you know that? Certainly Josephus did not have James as a spiritual brother of Jesus.
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.
And then, Paul never called members of the church of Jerusalem "brothers" (as fellow Christians).
The attribute "brothers of the Lord" is reserved for a few, Peter/Cephas not included; but James is one of them.
1 Co 9:5 "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas"
That is an interpolation. Please read
here.
If Jesus "emptied himself", then he was already adult before the descending. Logical corollary.
It is also logical that Jesus is implied abandoning his status as heavenly deity in order to become a simple human and start as a baby.
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).
I do not know where do you get Jesus" was already adult before the descending" from "Jesus "emptied himself"".
from the hymn to Philippians. He assumes the appearance of a servant, not of a child. A child can't serve, an adult can.