Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 09-30-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I think I understand your argument, and will respond to it in the form below:-

First of all, the notion that Jews were persecuting other Jews for ... well, for what? For believing that some bloke called "Jesus" had been crucified? Lolwhut? It just doesn't make much sense. Either it's an anachronistic retrojection of later Christian persecution back into the Paul letters, or it means something else.

I can't help if it does not make much sense to you. The point is that Gal 6:12 claims just that.

Quote:

I think the passage is not an interpolation but is mistranslated, partly because of the whole "Paul = formerly persecuted Christians" idea that comes from Acts - i.e. there are other passages in the Epistles, where Paul says something like "formerly I persecuted" - those are interpolations, but this passage I think is being mistranslated based on reading the passage through those spectacles (to the effect that at that time Christians had been persecuted).

Mistranslated from what ? What did the passage say originally and how do you support your argument ? If the other "Paul-as-persecutor" verses were interpolated, why not this one ?

Quote:

The passage is not talking about a persecution on account of belief in the cross, but "persecution" BY THE CROSS, by the symbolism of the cross and what it represents ("I am crucified to the world and the world to me").

You are really confused here. Paul was the one who accepted the cross as the symbol of Messiahship, and became an imitator of Christ, by desiring to suffer privation, indignity and persecution like (he imagined) Jesus did on earth. That's Paul and those whom he converted ! The problem of course was that that is not what those who were said to know Jesus were telling about him. Their Jesus was a happy-go-lucky guy who saw the heavenly Father look after his entourage the way he looked after the birds who do not gather into barns. That Jesus' yoke was 'easy' and his burden 'light'. The Christ of Paul was considerably less laissez-faire because he carried the world on his shoulders. To avoid doctrinal trouble, Paul simply proscribed the Jesus "of the flesh" (1 Cr 2:2, 2 Cr 5:16) and credited only the postmortem communications from the risen Lord which he screened for compliance to his theology of the cross.

The cross was real and historical. If it were not so, verses like Gal 3:1 do not make sense. The Galatians can be made to feel "foolish" only if the crucifixion was an undeniable fact. Only then the reminder of Paul's teaching would have the force to sustain the insult he lobs at them.

The same with 6:12: if there was no historical "cross of Christ", Paul's impeachment of the judaizers would be nonsense. If Jesus was a myth, everyone knew it was a myth: whether there was a cross in it would have made no difference to anyone capable of rational thought. That the judaizers would be preaching law to avoid being persecuted for an event which did not take place on earth, would have been idiot's drool. If OTOH Jesus was real - that is historical - and was executed for breaking the law, then idolizing him publicly naturally carried risks with it - and the hypocrisy of Jesus' followers with respect to Jewish law could be counted on to make a big impact.

Quote:

IOW, I think the passage is correctly interpreted in the spiritual sense you mention, but the halakhah observance is not a "remedy" but rather an avoidance mechanism. There is a new covenant, but some of these people are sticking to the old ways, unwilling to make the leap of faith into the world of spirit. That seems to me the plain intention of the whole Gal 6 section (what's required is a "new creature").

There is no new covenant preached except for Paul at the time of his writing. It seems clear that the Jerusalem missions stayed within the traditional Judaic religious framework and did not think Jesus broke with that tradition. Paul exploits the paradox of their insistence on Judaic law under which Jesus was condemned and executed.

Quote:

At any rate, even with your interpretation, the passage does not necessarily show that the crucifixion was an event that happened in the lifetime and living memory of some of the people involved, that they witnessed and knew about (which is what would be required to support an HJ scenario). It could also fit a scenario in which the event was an event believed to have happened before the lifetimes of any of the people involved, or in "yea time". If they are being persecuted, they are being persecuted on account of a belief, not on account of a fact's sheerly being the case.

I do not claim that my interpretation is "necessarily" the only explanation. I am asking you to show me in a concrete set of steps a reading of Paul which makes the a-historic (or pre-historic) scenario fit better than the interpretation of some key passages I am putting forward.

So far: nada. :huh:

Anyone can come up and say, "naaaw, this does not work, because something else could work". Christians were not persecuted or were persecuted for believing a different version of a fairytale. Paul did not write the letters considered genuine or did not actually write this or that verse. A clerical error occured. A verse was mistranslated to fit with possible forgeries, etc, etc. Anyone can make those kinds of claims. But I am not interested in finding out what else Gal 6:12 could mean. I want to know what it means and if it is not a literal meaning I want to know how you arrived at that meaning in preference to some other. And trust me, that's a different kind of endeavour than sitting down at the keyboard and letting your fancy fly.

Quote:

IMHO the scenario is thus: both the Jerusalem people and "Paul" thought that Scripture and their own visions told them that The Messiah had been and gone at some indeterminate time in the past, that he had come obscurely and not with fanfare (in order to fool the Archons, who were waiting for the fanfare guy), that his victory was spiritual and not military (as everyone had expected), and that the victory was a done deal (hence "gospel" = good news of a won victory), that the world was transformed spiritually on account of it.

I think they thought there was indeed a fleshly crucifixion, and that Scripture in some codified form told them of this event, but that the fleshly fact was a symbol of a far greater cosmic transformation, and that that cosmic transformation is what put the burden on believers of making the leap into the world of Spirit, and abandoning the old fleshly symbols, the old covenant - which is precisely what the "Judaizers" were unwilling to do (they were hanging on to pride in the fleshly symbols). The "stumbling block" is of course the idea that the Messiah had been and gone (and wasn't to be expected any more) and that he had died, to all appearances, ignominiously.

What are "fleshy symbols", gg ?

Best,
Jiri

Kapyong · 09-30-2010, 02:17 PM

Gday all,

Regarding the meaning of "the cross",
I have always been fascinated by this odd comment in ClementA :

“For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure makes waxen,” according to Plato; since “each pleasure and pain nails to the body the soul” of the man, that does not sever and crucify himself from the passions. “He that loses his life,” says the Lord, “shall save it;” either giving it up by exposing it to danger for the Lord’s sake, as He did for us, or loosing it from fellowship with its habitual life. For if you would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-N..._II/Chapter_XX.

To Clement, the cross apparently means :
to loose, and withdraw, and separate your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, so you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope.

Did this come from Paul's various bizarre comments that do not sound like a crucificon event at all :

Phil. 3:18 : "For many walk, of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, as the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who think about earthly things. 3:20For our citizenship is in heaven, from where we also wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will change the body of our humiliation to be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working by which he is able even to subject all things to himself. "

"enemies of the cross of Christ" ?

"we wait for our saviour, LJC" ?

"For the Pleroma was pleased to dwell in him; and through him to reconcile all things to himself, by him, whether things on the earth, or things in the heavens, having made peace through the blood of his cross.”"

"The blood of the cross"?

How can that be referring to a historical event?
I think it's all symbolic, and we have lost the key.

K.

Solo · 09-30-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It is not the Galatians that Paul said would be persecuted, it was those who proselytized them. If they proclaimed Jesus who they knew was condemned as a lawbreaker (Gal 3:13), they would have been persecuted by other Jews.

Best,
Jiri

Gal. 3:13 neither states nor implies that Jesus was a lawbreaker.

Gal 3:13 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"--

Quote:

But even if it did, why would Jews care if some group of kooky gentiles wanted to play Jew and worship a lawbreaker? ....

The persecution mention in 6:12 concerns the judaizing missionaries, not their converts.

Jiri

spamandham · 09-30-2010, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Gal. 3:13 neither states nor implies that Jesus was a lawbreaker.

Gal 3:13 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"--

Exactly. Nothing there about being a law breaker.

Quote:

But even if it did, why would Jews care if some group of kooky gentiles wanted to play Jew and worship a lawbreaker? ....

The persecution mention in 6:12 concerns the judaizing missionaries, not their converts.

Jiri

This doesn't really address the issue.

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh.

Can you not understand that the persecution has nothing to do with the cross, but is instead all about Jewish law? How can "persecuted for the cross of Christ" in this context not mean "persecuted for failure to show outward signs of following the law"? It has nothing to do with a real cross - it's a euphemism.

Quote:

The cross was real and historical. If it were not so, verses like Gal 3:1 do not make sense. The Galatians can be made to feel "foolish" only if the crucifixion was an undeniable fact.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

Are you really claiming that Paul's Galatian church that he founded - consisting of people he converted to Christianity - consisted of members who nonetheless personally witnessed a crucifixion? If so, then how is it that Paul had to previously tell them about it?

aa5874 · 09-30-2010, 11:43 PM

The Pauline writings are NOT corroborative sources for a City of Nazareth.

Not once did the Pauline writings mention a CITY called Nazareth or that the Pauline Jesus Christ lived in a CITY called Nazareth.

The Pauline writers made claims about a Jesus Christ that LIVED after he was dead for three days.

It matters not what CITY the Pauline Jesus lived ONLY that he was resurrected to save mankind from sins.

Solo · 10-01-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It is not the Galatians that Paul said would be persecuted, it was those who proselytized them. If they proclaimed Jesus who they knew was condemned as a lawbreaker (Gal 3:13), they would have been persecuted by other Jews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Gal. 3:13 neither states nor implies that Jesus was a lawbreaker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Gal 3:13 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"--

Exactly. Nothing there about being a law breaker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

But even if it did, why would Jews care if some group of kooky gentiles wanted to play Jew and worship a lawbreaker? ....

The persecution mention in 6:12 concerns the judaizing missionaries, not their converts.

Jiri

This doesn't really address the issue.

The missionaries were Jews, not 'kooky gentiles' as you stated, so my answer very much addresses the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Jiri

spamandham · 10-01-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It is not the Galatians that Paul said would be persecuted, it was those who proselytized them. If they proclaimed Jesus who they knew was condemned as a lawbreaker (Gal 3:13), they would have been persecuted by other Jews.

The missionaries were Jews, not 'kooky gentiles' as you stated, so my answer very much addresses the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Jiri

I posted scripture, highlighted why your interpretation is wrong, asked you valid questions about it, and you dismiss that as a rant? How pathetic.

andrewcriddle · 10-02-2010, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday all,

Regarding the meaning of "the cross",
I have always been fascinated by this odd comment in ClementA :

“For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure makes waxen,” according to Plato; since “each pleasure and pain nails to the body the soul” of the man, that does not sever and crucify himself from the passions. “He that loses his life,” says the Lord, “shall save it;” either giving it up by exposing it to danger for the Lord’s sake, as He did for us, or loosing it from fellowship with its habitual life. For if you would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-N..._II/Chapter_XX.

To Clement, the cross apparently means :
to loose, and withdraw, and separate your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, so you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope.

Clement CLEMENT_OF_ALEXANDRIA/Stromata/Book_II/Chapter_XX. (corrected link) is commenting on Galatians 6 v.14 see his earlier comment

Quote:

Dwelling with the Lord he will continue his familiar friend, sharing the same hearth according to the Spirit; pure in the flesh, pure in heart, sanctified in word. “The world,” it is said, “is crucified to him, and he to the world.” He, bearing about the cross of the Saviour, will follow the Lord’s footsteps, as God, having become holy of holies.

It is certain that Clement did believe in a historical crucifixion, see for example his discussion of the chronology of Jesus' life and death in Book I of the Stromateis.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 10-02-2010, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It is certain that Clement did believe in a historical crucifixion,

No, he did not. He believed that it was real.

This is one of the reasons that people make so many confused posts. There is a clear difference between "real" and "historical". Yet, we get the same wrongheaded notions intruding into a discussion about a supposedly historical Jesus. A "historical Jesus" is a modern construct. By using "historical" in a colloquial manner, one doesn't get to the concepts behind the term "historical Jesus".

Part of the problem with the discussion is that people aren't talking to each other, but past them, continuing to use terms that don't me an the same thing for the speaker and the listener.

spin

andrewcriddle · 10-02-2010, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It is certain that Clement did believe in a historical crucifixion,

No, he did not. He believed that it was real.

This is one of the reasons that people make so many confused posts. There is a clear difference between "real" and "historical". Yet, we get the same wrongheaded notions intruding into a discussion about a supposedly historical Jesus. A "historical Jesus" is a modern construct. By using "historical" in a colloquial manner, one doesn't get to the concepts behind the term "historical Jesus".

Part of the problem with the discussion is that people aren't talking to each other, but past them, continuing to use terms that don't me an the same thing for the speaker and the listener.

spin

Hi Spin

I sympathize with your desire to clarify the terms used on this forum, but I'm not sure that real is an improvement here on historical.

IIUC Earl Doherty would agree with me that Paul believed in a real crucifixion, but we would mean very different things by the same words.

I meant to say that Clement believed in a crucifixion happening in this world at a definite place and time.

Andrew Criddle

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

09-30-2010, 02:17 PM	#472
Kapyong Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Perth Posts: 1,779	Gday all, Regarding the meaning of "the cross", I have always been fascinated by this odd comment in ClementA : “For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure makes waxen,” according to Plato; since “each pleasure and pain nails to the body the soul” of the man, that does not sever and crucify himself from the passions. “He that loses his life,” says the Lord, “shall save it;” either giving it up by exposing it to danger for the Lord’s sake, as He did for us, or loosing it from fellowship with its habitual life. For if you would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-N..._II/Chapter_XX. To Clement, the cross apparently means : to loose, and withdraw, and separate your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, so you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope. Did this come from Paul's various bizarre comments that do not sound like a crucificon event at all : Phil. 3:18 : "For many walk, of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, as the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who think about earthly things. 3:20For our citizenship is in heaven, from where we also wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will change the body of our humiliation to be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working by which he is able even to subject all things to himself. " "enemies of the cross of Christ" ? "we wait for our saviour, LJC" ? "For the Pleroma was pleased to dwell in him; and through him to reconcile all things to himself, by him, whether things on the earth, or things in the heavens, having made peace through the blood of his cross.”" "The blood of the cross"? How can that be referring to a historical event? I think it's all symbolic, and we have lost the key. K.

09-30-2010, 11:43 PM	#475
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The Pauline writings are NOT corroborative sources for a City of Nazareth. Not once did the Pauline writings mention a CITY called Nazareth or that the Pauline Jesus Christ lived in a CITY called Nazareth. The Pauline writers made claims about a Jesus Christ that LIVED after he was dead for three days. It matters not what CITY the Pauline Jesus lived ONLY that he was resurrected to save mankind from sins.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.