Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 01-02-2011, 12:18 AM

Not sure what all the kerfuffle is about re this passage and of course it has everthting to do with Jesus because he is the one who must make it all happen from 'persecuter of the spiritual child to defender of the spiritual child, now as a spiritual child and so are they brothers of Christ.

First it removed the historical value from Jesus since Paul is telling us here that [once] they all were persecutors of Christ (sic) and now are becoming a Christ themselves and find that they are persecuted for that (it is just a mindset that emphasizes metanoia in going from Eden to the end of their world and there do a 180 and go back to Eden again).

This is a normal sequence of events in that one must 'run away from God' much like Jonah, or be a carpenter/sinner that Joseph was to reach the end of 'the world' and there stand convicted as sinner as per Gal.2:17 (= born under the law and convicted as sinner -- see also Romans 8:8-10), wherefore then the law is good for the conviction of sin but not as an end in itself.

So these 'brothers' were all Jesus' in their own kind of way but no less than Jesus was and Paul was just urging them to do it right and become fully man = Christ (in short; get their ass out of purgatory).

Sure he mentions Isaac and his 2 sons but that is just to show the difference between 'Jerusalem in slavery to sin' and 'Jerusalem on high' in freedom from slavery and sin in being freeborn . . . and they should have the labor pains to see them thru to the end. Hence my notion that 'we each have our own virgin' to feel those pains. The above is all a mindset and an inward journey for each one of them just as it was for the Joseph of the Gospels.

Steven Carr · 01-02-2011, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Once the entire passage is read, then I don't think an explanation for the meaning of verse 29 is necessary, but I will explain anyway. When Paul says, "child who was born according to the flesh," he was referring to Esau, in contrast to "the child who was born according to the Spirit," which is Isaac. He was drawing an allegory, and he explicitly links "my friends" with Isaac, and he implicitly drew a connection between Esau and those who ridicule or persecute the church. Jesus doesn't even have a place in the allegory, nor should it be expected that Paul uses the phrase, "according to the flesh," in the same sense in all his writing.

This is very basic and obvious interpretation. I suggest that you had best not continue the pattern of scrounging around for any passage that you hope would reinforce your current conclusions, though that is the way of so many millions of ideologues of champions of unlikely conclusions.

Oh please.

We have been told millions of times that 'born according to the flesh' can only ever be taken literally.

In Galatians 4, Jesus was 'born of a woman' and now 'the basic and obvious intepretation' of talk about births in Galatians 4 turns out to be allegory. Even Paul describes himself as in childbirth.

And yet we are told ad nauseum that 'born of a woman' in Galatians 4 can only ever be taken literally.....

It is not mythicists who scrounge around, wrenching verses out of all context.

The context of Galatians 4 is allegory as is obvious, and yet historicists cling on to 'born of a woman' as if it was a birth certificate from a hospital.

GakuseiDon · 01-02-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

"We" are the children of promise, the ones born according to the spirit.

....
Paul is no more denying that Jesus was born 'according to the flesh' than he is denying 'we' were born 'according to the flesh'. From where do you get that reading by Paul?

From you, when you claimed 2 sentences ago that 'we' were born according to the spirit.

I see.

Chili · 01-02-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Once the entire passage is read, then I don't think an explanation for the meaning of verse 29 is necessary, but I will explain anyway. When Paul says, "child who was born according to the flesh," he was referring to Esau, in contrast to "the child who was born according to the Spirit," which is Isaac. He was drawing an allegory, and he explicitly links "my friends" with Isaac, and he implicitly drew a connection between Esau and those who ridicule or persecute the church. Jesus doesn't even have a place in the allegory, nor should it be expected that Paul uses the phrase, "according to the flesh," in the same sense in all his writing.

This is very basic and obvious interpretation. I suggest that you had best not continue the pattern of scrounging around for any passage that you hope would reinforce your current conclusions, though that is the way of so many millions of ideologues of champions of unlikely conclusions.

Oh please.

We have been told millions of times that 'born according to the flesh' can only ever be taken literally.

In Galatians 4, Jesus was 'born of a woman' and now 'the basic and obvious intepretation' of talk about births in Galatians 4 turns out to be allegory. Even Paul describes himself as in childbirth.

And yet we are told ad nauseum that 'born of a woman' in Galatians 4 can only ever be taken literally.....

It is not mythicists who scrounge around, wrenching verses out of all context.

The context of Galatians 4 is allegory as is obvious, and yet historicists cling on to 'born of a woman' as if it was a birth certificate from a hospital.

Yes, and the 'born of woman' here (not of 'a woman', sic) means to be born of the woman who never left Eden untill called upon to meet 'her man' [in betrothal by way of Nazareth] at the gates of purgatory in Galilee, and this is where the Galatians are at now and Paul urges them to remain true to their inspirations [from her].

And sorry about my Isaac error in my previous post.

I made the distinction between 'woman' and 'a woman' to show that this woman was not a female in the flesh but the woman as created by God and the epitome of purity in females that gives beauty worth its weight in gold.

storytime · 01-02-2011, 12:42 PM

Doesn't it seem to read as more of an inheritance factor? "Salvation is of the Jews". Why? Going back to Genesis, the story is told as to why Ishmael could not inherit with his half brother Isaac. Nor could the sons of Kenturah, Abraham's other wife, inherit with Isaac. The one seed from Isaac, called Jacob, was in line to inherit. No others. Ishmael didn't need a promise as God had already blessed him. Esau the brother of Jacob then lost his birthright due to marrying outside the clan of Isaac, leaving only the one seed called Jacob which became known as Israel. (Jacob-Israel). Did Paul change the promise meant only for sons of Jacob? "Born of a woman, under the law", showed Jesus the Jew as having legal right to the inheritance of Jews. So what was the inheritance specified? Was it called the Blessing? This seems to be the point of contention, the so-called covenant of promise. Did any other sons of Abraham need this covenant? Why would they since God had already blessed them in their own inheritance that was separate from Jacob-Israel?

So, I read it as Ishmael having already been blessed by God and when Isaac was born that same promise of blessing would also go to his seed which was Jacob.

So, why did God say he loved Jacob and hated Esau? It was all about clan loyalty?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2011, 12:18 AM	#11
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Not sure what all the kerfuffle is about re this passage and of course it has everthting to do with Jesus because he is the one who must make it all happen from 'persecuter of the spiritual child to defender of the spiritual child, now as a spiritual child and so are they brothers of Christ. First it removed the historical value from Jesus since Paul is telling us here that [once] they all were persecutors of Christ (sic) and now are becoming a Christ themselves and find that they are persecuted for that (it is just a mindset that emphasizes metanoia in going from Eden to the end of their world and there do a 180 and go back to Eden again). This is a normal sequence of events in that one must 'run away from God' much like Jonah, or be a carpenter/sinner that Joseph was to reach the end of 'the world' and there stand convicted as sinner as per Gal.2:17 (= born under the law and convicted as sinner -- see also Romans 8:8-10), wherefore then the law is good for the conviction of sin but not as an end in itself. So these 'brothers' were all Jesus' in their own kind of way but no less than Jesus was and Paul was just urging them to do it right and become fully man = Christ (in short; get their ass out of purgatory). Sure he mentions Isaac and his 2 sons but that is just to show the difference between 'Jerusalem in slavery to sin' and 'Jerusalem on high' in freedom from slavery and sin in being freeborn . . . and they should have the labor pains to see them thru to the end. Hence my notion that 'we each have our own virgin' to feel those pains. The above is all a mindset and an inward journey for each one of them just as it was for the Joseph of the Gospels.

01-02-2011, 12:42 PM	#15
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	Doesn't it seem to read as more of an inheritance factor? "Salvation is of the Jews". Why? Going back to Genesis, the story is told as to why Ishmael could not inherit with his half brother Isaac. Nor could the sons of Kenturah, Abraham's other wife, inherit with Isaac. The one seed from Isaac, called Jacob, was in line to inherit. No others. Ishmael didn't need a promise as God had already blessed him. Esau the brother of Jacob then lost his birthright due to marrying outside the clan of Isaac, leaving only the one seed called Jacob which became known as Israel. (Jacob-Israel). Did Paul change the promise meant only for sons of Jacob? "Born of a woman, under the law", showed Jesus the Jew as having legal right to the inheritance of Jews. So what was the inheritance specified? Was it called the Blessing? This seems to be the point of contention, the so-called covenant of promise. Did any other sons of Abraham need this covenant? Why would they since God had already blessed them in their own inheritance that was separate from Jacob-Israel? So, I read it as Ishmael having already been blessed by God and when Isaac was born that same promise of blessing would also go to his seed which was Jacob. So, why did God say he loved Jacob and hated Esau? It was all about clan loyalty?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.