If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

[arnoldo]

Now that I think, Paul denies that Jesus is davidic, by saying (Rom 1:3) that he is descendant of David kata sarka, "according to flesh", viz. only in the appearance, in the eyes of people. Not really davidic.

Well, perhaps Paul also denies that he is from the tribe of benjamin (Roman 11:1),viz, only appears to be a benjamite.

Romans 11:1
For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

[Giuseppe]

Now that I think, Paul denies that Jesus is davidic, by saying (Rom 1:3) that he is descendant of David kata sarka, "according to flesh", viz. only in the appearance, in the eyes of people. Not really davidic.

Well, perhaps Paul also denies that he is from the tribe of benjamin (Roman 11:1),viz, only appears to be a benjamite.

Romans 11:1
For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

What does the difference here is ''according to flesh''. Paul doesn't say about himself that he is from Benjamin ''according to flesh'', whereas he says that Jesus is davidic ''according to flesh''.

Given the pauline contempt for the flesh, given the mere appearance of flesh by Jesus (his not being really of flesh) , then the his davidic lineage is only what the people believe and think about the Christ. It is a mere human construction, not a true reality, for Paul. In nuce, kata sarka denies just the reality of the flesh of which the body of Jesus would be composed in the eyes of the hoi polloi.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

What does the difference here is ''according to flesh''. Paul doesn't say about himself that he is from Benjamin ''according to flesh'', whereas he says that Jesus is davidic ''according to flesh''.

But Paul wrote:
Ro 4:1 What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?

Reminders:
Ro 4:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Ro 9:4-5 "They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen"

Cordially, Bernard

[arnoldo]

Now that I think, Paul denies that Jesus is davidic, by saying (Rom 1:3) that he is descendant of David kata sarka, "according to flesh", viz. only in the appearance, in the eyes of people. Not really davidic.

Well, perhaps Paul also denies that he is from the tribe of benjamin (Roman 11:1),viz, only appears to be a benjamite.

Romans 11:1
For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

What does the difference here is ''according to flesh''. Paul doesn't say about himself that he is from Benjamin ''according to flesh'', whereas he says that Jesus is davidic ''according to flesh''. . .

No, he does say that he is "according to the flesh" kinsmen to his bretheren, the Israelites whom also the "flesh Christ came."

Romans 9:3-5 King James Version (KJV)
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

[Giuseppe]

I confess that Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4 are against the my mythicist view. But only them.

I don't like an earthly scenario for the mythical Jesus. So I should inquiry more that point. Whereas I am sure that Gal 4:4 is interpolated, Rom 1:3 continues to rise problems.

[Giuseppe]

Bernard,

I explain in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4912

...why even your humble , obscure, silent, earthly Jesus is a theological Jesus derived from OT scriptures.

So I should re-value the earthly scenario for the mythical Jesus of this kind.

I am partially sorry. I want that the mythical Jesus was died in the lower heavens. Not on this earth.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

I confess that Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4 are against the my mythicist view. But only them.

And why do you not consider also:
"Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27)?
To be added to that is Josephus (a contemporary of James and living in the same city: Jerusalem around 60 CE) in Antiquities 20. 9. 1 "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...".

I don't like an earthly scenario for the mythical Jesus. So I should inquiry more that point. Whereas I am sure that Gal 4:4 is interpolated, Rom 1:3 continues to rise problems.

Like or not like should not be consideration if you look for the truth. Why do you assume first hand that Jesus was completely mythical, and not, at some time before Paul's preaching, to have been existent on earth as a real human?

How do you know Gal 4:4 was interpolated?

I am partially sorry. I want that the mythical Jesus was died in the lower heavens. Not on this earth.

What you want or do not want should not be a basis for determining anything.

...why even your humble , obscure, silent, invisible earthly Jesus is a theological Jesus derived from OT scriptures.
So I should re-value the earthly scenario for the mythical Jesus of this kind.

How do you know an earthly Jesus was obscure and silent and invisible? Did Paul tell that? NO, only that Jesus was humble.

I feel sorry for you that you have to discard all these positive "historicist" bits in the Pauline epistles one way or another (interpolations, ignorance of some of them, tenuous mythicist interpretations, wild assumptions). Furthermore you have to interpret alleged "silence" and fabricate complicated & obscure arguments as positive evidence for your belief. And all of that for what you want (& like) to justify.
So many red flags screaming that your faith in a fully mythical Jesus is unjustified!

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

to Giuseppe,

I confess that Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4 are against the my mythicist view. But only them.

And why do you not consider also:
"Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27)?

it is no evidence of historicity. Jesus doesn't descend from Abraham and from Jesse. These are your inferences, not of Paul. Mithra comes from Persia just as Jesus comes from Israel.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

it is no evidence of historicity. Jesus doesn't descend from Abraham and from Jesse. These are your inferences, not of Paul. Mithra comes from Persia just as Jesus comes from Israel.

Whose who are said to descend from Abraham or Jesse are earthly human beings, and not angels.
Even it is far from certain Jesus would descend from Abraham and Jesse, that does not change anything.
And how do you know Jesus could not be a descendant of Abraham or Jesse?
In the quote, Jesus is said to be from Israelites, Whose were earthly human beings.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

to Giuseppe,

it is no evidence of historicity. Jesus doesn't descend from Abraham and from Jesse. These are your inferences, not of Paul. Mithra comes from Persia just as Jesus comes from Israel.

Whose who are said to descend from Abraham or Jesse are earthly human beings, and not angels.

Again, the provenance of a deity from a historical country was rather common in the ancient world. For example, Celsus talks en passant about a deity from the Tracians. When John says that ''the salvation comes from the Jews'' in the Samaritane woman episode, he doesn't mean a historical person.