DCHindley

I am not sure why the statement in Gal 6:12 is being interpreted against the natural sense. Assuming that the book of Galatians is Jim-dandy authentic as it has been preserved:

RSV Galatians 6:12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, [and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ].

The middle term here is circumcision, not the cross of Christ. It looks like Paul is implying that his followers do not (have to?) get circumcised on account of the "cross of Christ" but that Paul also thinks that to give in and get circumcised does nothing for the believer but only appeases the vanity of those who so require it of his followers.

*Paul's followers (presumably Christian) are not circumcised (probably the Jewish ritual to enter the covenant people)

*Paul thinks his followers do not have to get circumcised on account of the "cross of Christ"

*There is a faction (not necessarily Christian) that wants his followers to become circumcised.

*Paul accuses that faction of requiring this ritual act of his followers for reasons that Paul finds superficial ("to make a good showing in the flesh").

The natural thing to make of this is that Paul felt that "the cross of Christ" made his non-Jewish followers part of the covenant people of Israel. The rival party apparently believed that his followers could not claim to be part of the covenant people unless they submitted to the signal ritual that made one a part of that covenant, circumcision.

What this phrase "cross of Christ" meant must be determined from 6:13-17:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"-- 14a But far be it from me to glory 14b [except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world]. 15a For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, 15b [but a new creation (does)]. 16 Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, even upon the Israel of God. 17 [Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.]

There is nothing in those two passages which requires us assume the act of hanging on a tree, which "redeems us from the curse of the law," is a literal hanging and not a symbolic hanging. It's all those other passages in Galatians and other "genuine" books believed to have been written by Paul that makes most folks believe that it was a literal hanging.

DCH

PS: The portion of the passages above that I have bracketed are those which I think are interpolated, according to my wholly erroneous and must-be-wrong theory that writings of a non-Christian Paul were edited by one or more members of a Christ movement. I have what I feel are valid reasons for bracketing these passages, but by doing so Paul comes across as a strong proponent of the idea that faithful gentiles are a part of the children of Abraham on the basis of their faith in God alone.

12a It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, 12b [...]. 13 For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. 14a But far be it from me to glory 14b [...]. 15a For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, 15b [...]. 16 Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, even upon the Israel of God. 17 [...]

spin

This is actually a good point to clarify. Still, "historical" doesn't help. The issue here is that Clement believed that it was a real crucifixion in his mundane world. He didn't have any historical evidence for the crucifixion. He accepted the tradition (which had by then entered the written phase).


spin

aa5874

But, why would NON-CHRISTIANS be telling Christians or NON-christians to become circumcised?

It is MOST OBVIOUS that MOST likely it was CHRISTIANS that were circumcised and wanted the Pauline Christians to be circumcised.

Why would the Pauline writer be ADDRESSING a non-christian FACTION?

How could there be a NON-Christian FACTION in the Church?

It is MOST obvious that the Pauline writings are about the theology of Christians of which some were CIRCUMCISED, even the PAULINE writer claimed some were circumcised.

But, EXAMINE a most CONTRADICTORY and disastrous position for a Pauline writer. This Pauline writer has INADVERTENTLY destroyed his own theology.

Ga 2:3 - Ga 5:2 - Ga 5:3 - Christ is of NO benefit to TITUS and Titus is a DEBTOR to the WHOLE Law based on the Pauline writer's doctrine.

spamandham

You know, reading about all this circumcision and crosses and hanging from a tree makes me wonder if the crucifixion is a metaphor for circumcision, and the cross is a phallus....and that which "hangs from a tree" is a foreskin.

I know this seems distasteful to modern sensibilities, but much of ancient religion really did center around things like this.

aa5874

But, how in the world can a person who has been POSTING here for YEARS with thousands of post do NOT yet even understand the difference between the "historical Jesus " and the "belief"
that the NT Jesus, born of a Holy Ghost, did exist?

How long is it going to take for people to understand that the "historical Jesus" is NOT the Jesus of the NT or about Jesus of the NT?

The "historical Jesus" did virtually NOTHING found in the NT.

It is NOT known or cannot be verified, at least up to now, who was the "historical Jesus" or when he actually lived and what he actually did.

They are STILL LOOKING for evidence. I don't know where.

The "historical Jesus" did NOT walk on water.

I don't know if he COULD even walk, talk, see or hear.

Who knows?

Not even the ancient CITY of Nazareth has been found.