jakejonesiv

You know, if you read the Pauline Epistles literally (esp. the macionite layer), instead of how you think they should be interpreted (figuratively, according to preconceived perceptions), you would be shocked, maybe even appalled.

For example, Gal. 2:20, the author says he was crucified. I bet you don't believe that worth spit.

Jake Jones IV.

Gamera

Hyberbole is a common classic trope, which Paul was particularly fond of. So was Jesus by the way.

Paul said he evangelized the entire world, by which he meant, a lot of places.

Jesus told the apostles to preach to every creature, by which he meant, do a lot of preaching.

Jesus said to pluck your right eye out if it offends you, by which he meant avoid temptation seriously.

It's rather humorous that the detractors of Paul poke fun at the Christian literalists (and so do I), but they seem unable to read Paul in any other way but literally. It suggest an incredible tin ear. People write figurative all the time -- most of the time. You just have to understand the context to know the hyberbolic intent.

Steven Carr

Out of curiosity, where does Paul say that he had
evangelised the world, rather than the world having been
evangelised?

The question is why would Paul deliberately make out the
recalcitrant nature of the flesh to be worse than it
really is?

Why did he play up the fact that there was nothing good
in his flesh, rather than try to play it down?

Please feel free to quote all these statements from
the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas. You have had ample opportunity to do so.

And , as I pointed out, Paul does not claim that flesh , in itself, is good, when he says that our bodies are a Temple of the spirit.

What is good is having God's spirit inside us. Spirit good, flesh bad. And Paul does say that he punishes his body.

As for your quote about 'redemption' of the body, the word means more like 'liberation'.

Paul thinks we have to be rescued from our body of death - (Romans 7)

When we are rescued from our body of death, we will; be liberated.

But I did like your equating God with death.

When Paul writes that God will destroy both stomach and food, it is a stretch to claim that Paul thinks that death will do that process.

Especially when Paul is adamant that not all will die. How can death destroy both stomach and food, when Paul tells the Corinthians that not all will die?

But that is Christian apologetics for you.

The results are fixed, and the texts have to be subjected to a Procrustean fitting into the predefined results.

Steven Carr

But surely if flesh is good, then living according to the flesh is also good.

Or does Paul regard flesh as no more than dead, worthless matter, if there is no Spirit?

Probably why Paul says the opposite.

Paul mocks the Corinthians for their naive idea that resurrection involes the re-forming of a decayed corpse.

Paul says flat-out that Jesus became a life-giving spirit, and denies that resurrected people will be formed from the dust of the ground as Adam was.

All Gamera can do is change the words of Paul.

Gamera writes ' For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.'

Simply change the words of Paul, putting in 'nature' where needed, and lo and behold, Paul supports you!

jakejonesiv

Hi Gamera,

Thanks for the reply. My post was poorly worded and in bad taste. Profuse apologies.

Jake Jones IV

guy_683930

There are pro-flesh statements in gnostic texts as well.

Gospel of Phillip 24-25
24. There are some made fearful lest they arise naked. Therefore they desire to arise in the flesh, and they do not know that those who wear the flesh are the denuded. These who are made [into light] (by) divesting themselves (of the flesh), are they who are not naked.¹

25. ‘flesh [and blood will not be able] to inherit the Sovereignty [of God].’ ) What is this which shall not inherit? This which is upon every one of us? Yet this is rather what will inherit— that which belongs to Yeshua with his blood. Therefore he says: He who eats not my flesh and drinks not my blood, has no life within him. (Jn 6:53) What is his flesh? It is the Logos; and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and drink and clothing. I myself rebuke those others who say that (the flesh) shall not arise. (For) both of these are in error: thou say that the flesh shall not arise, but tell me what will arise so that I may honor thee; thou say it is the spirit in the flesh and this other light in the flesh, (but¹) this also is an incarnate saying. Whatever thou will say, thou do not say anything apart from the flesh! It is necessary to arise in this flesh, (as¹) everything exists within it.

This is somewhat similar to statements made by "Paul" in Ephesians:

Ephesians 1:10,22-23
10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;
even in him:

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

So pro-flesh statements exist in gnostic texts as well, though flesh seems to be a somewhat metaphor for the everything, just as for the writer of Ephesians the body of Christ represented everything.

Doug Shaver

You mean, like all Christians nowadays believe?

You have a dogma. You are convinced that it is consistent with scripture, all scripture. Therefore, whatever Paul wrote must be interpreted so as to be consistent with your dogma.

Gamera

Surely that's sophisty of the worse kind. Surely water is good, so living under water must be good. That's the level of your quibble.

Nope, since Paul is clear, like all Christians were, that body and soul are resurrected and live on.


Too bad you have no citations to back up any of this simplistic nonsense.

I didn't change any word, just quoted what the man said, and that is humans are made up of bodies and souls, and will be in the resurrection, and that living according to the flesh (which isn't coterminous with the body) is bad, if to the exclusion of the spirit. That's what he says. Spin it anyway you like. Whatever it is, it isn't gnostic.

Gamera

You've got it backward. My "dogma" comes from what Paul says. You can disagree with the dogma, but not that Paul said it.

Gamera

This isnt' very convincing. Clearly, the term "flesh" used in these works is not coterminous what how Paul uses it. Indeed, they appear to be polar opposites. When Jesus refers to his "flesh" here, it clearly is not his physical flesh at all, but flesh used as a metaphor for internalizing his spirit.