Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Gakuseidon,

It's so simple really. Just try to think of a parsimonious answer. It's as easy as falling off a desert.

Like, for example, he obviously means different things by kata sarka, even though he uses the phrase twice in a row.

Yep. Or "I've already answered your question" or "lack of imagination!" or "who knows how people thought back then? (unless it agrees with a mythicist position!)" or "But why didn't Paul put in Gospel details there?" Or people just wait around for the Modern Day Galileo to make his usual fly-by.

I think it is a good exercise, because you can see how people react here to a fairly basic question. You can see the same kind of reactions on apologetics boards. Vague unconnected responses, shifting of goalposts, etc. Like trying to pin jello to a wall.

Of course, a prima facie reading doesn't mean the correct reading. It may well be that Paul is using "kata sarka" differently within the one passage. So further analysis may support a mythicist position. But it doesn't stop us looking at what the various obvious prima facie readings may be.

Toto · 09-21-2011, 02:33 PM

GDon - why did you leave "God" out of your original quote? What translation was that?

The prima facie reading of this is that "Christ" is both God and Man. This passage seems designed to support trinitarian dogma.

The clear meaning of Rom 9:3 is that the Jews are not saved.

I haven't looked into whether this is considered an interpolation by any commentator, but are you sure that this passage supports a historical Jesus?

eta: I don't find any need to assume that Paul uses the term kata sarka in two different senses. I think both uses are theological - kata sarka as opposed to kata pneuma.

archibald · 09-21-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yep. Or "I've already answered your question" or "lack of imagination!" or "who knows how people thought back then? (unless it agrees with a mythicist position!)" or "But why didn't Paul put in Gospel details there?" Or people just wait around for the Modern Day Galileo to make his usual fly-by.

I think it is a good exercise, because you can see how people react here to a fairly basic question. You can see the same kind of reactions on apologetics boards. Vague unconnected responses, shifting of goalposts, etc. Like trying to pin jello to a wall.

Of course, a prima facie reading doesn't mean the correct reading. It may well be that Paul is using "kata sarka" differently within the one passage. So further analysis may support a mythicist position. But it doesn't stop us looking at what the various obvious prima facie readings may be.

Yes. It is, as you say, fascinating to see the lengths some will go to in order not to read it a certain way.

And as I've tried to say at the thread from which this one was born, if it was just one short set of verses, and not part of a context of an extensive pattern of similar items............both in Paul, and elsewhere......

:huh:

archibald · 09-21-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The prima facie reading of this is that "Christ" is both God and Man.

I might be persuaded to settle for something like this. :]

Juststeve · 09-21-2011, 03:30 PM

GDon:

You ignore the two most important principles of mytherism.

1. A passage that seems to describe Jesus as an historical earthly being doesn't mean what it seems to mean; and,

2. If it incontestably means what it seems to mean, it is an interpolation.

We know that one of these is true in every case see we know a priori that there was no historical Jesus.

Steve

Toto · 09-21-2011, 03:33 PM

Juststeve: Do you contend that this passage describes a historical Jesus? A theological statement that claims "Christ" is both man and god?

If so, please support that. If not, please keep your sarcasm to yourself.

stephan huller · 09-21-2011, 03:51 PM

From memory almost all of Romans 9 - 11 didn't appear in the Marcionite text which means it can be ignored

Sheshbazzar · 09-21-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Whether that is true or not, we can still look at the prima facie meaning of certain passages by 'Paul'.

What are the possible prima facie meaning of the following passage from 'Paul'?:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is [GOD over all

Obviously Paul believed... (or someone writing, claiming to be 'Paul' wanted us to believe that this was what 'Paul' said..... debatable)
As 'Paul' admits that he had never met or laid eyes upon any Jebus the Christ as a living breathing person on earth, he is no actual witness to the existence any such individual as a living, breathing person.
At most he is here recounting some hearsay and putting his own particular religious spin on what he thinks was a person from the recent past.
That does not make anything he claims here valid. He has no first hand personal knowledge that any Christ has 'came' or is 'over all'. These are only expression of his religious interpretations and convictions and are founded solely upon his (and possibly others) -thoughts- relevant to what he has heard from unidentified outside sources, not from any personal real-world contact with this claimed Christ.

May as well have old Jake tell me how it went down, or what it all means.

All the above may be true, but it doesn't answer the question: When we look at the passage, what are the various prima facie readings that are possible? What is YOUR take? What is 'Paul' saying here?

Cheese and rice Gak! It wasn't plain enough for your comprehension?
What do you think it was that I was stating as; "Obviously...."???
Sure, 'Paul' (or some pseudo 'Paul') made the claim that a 'Christ' (one who was really the Almighty God of the Jews himself

) was a descendant of The Patriarchs. Whether he (or others, or latter writers, or Christians today believe it, is irrelevant to the question of whether such a figure did ever indeed live in human form.)
Again, to repeat the above, such a claim by such a person as the texts describe is of absolutely no value at all in establishing whether such a 'Christ' had ever existed as a natural born human, much less as the incarnate GOD of the Jews.
'Paul' (nor the Pauline ghost writer) never met the man, no, never even so much as laid eyes upon the man that he called 'Christ'.
He is not expressing and actual account of history, but a theological belief and claim, one bound up in reams of religious superstition, and utterly bogus stories.
Basically all you have within these texts are evidences of the beliefs and theology of the orthodox Christian church as its texts came to be standardized in the 2rd through 4th centuries CE.
This collection of literature in itself is no evidence that any such actual 'Christ' ever lived or walked the earth. Not one single person contributing to these texts ever saw, met, or conversed with any actual living flesh and blood human Jebus the 'Christ'. All of the NTs dialog and presented 'Christ' scenarios are completely fabricated.
Not one NT writer ever set eye upon any actual flesh and blood Jebus the Christ, the entire story is a religious propaganda construct fashioned entirely out of the imaginations of theological writers.

stephan huller · 09-21-2011, 04:09 PM

From Tertullian Against Marcion's section on the Epistle to the Romans:

Quote:

For he proceeds: He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies. In this way he confirms the resurrection of the flesh, since apart from flesh nothing else can be described as body, nor anything else be taken for mortal: and he has also given proof of Christ's corporal substance, in that our mortal bodies are to be quickened on the same terms on which he too was raised up again, and on the same terms can only mean in the body. I overleap here an immense chasm left by scripture carved away: though I take note of the apostle giving evidence for Israel that they have a zeal of God, their own God of course, though not by means of knowledge. For they, he says, being ignorant of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God: for Christ is the end of the law in righteousness to every one that believeth.

In other words ALL OF CHAPTER 9 WAS LIKELY HELD BY THE MARCIONITES TO HAVE BEEN AN INTERPOLATION. It is worth noting that Epiphanius's reporting about Marcionite readings in the New Testament skips the same section of text - i.e. the same chasm appears there (Epiphanius goes from Romans 8:4 to 10:4 which is very unusual for him to skip such a large portion of text). The underlying point is that Romans 9:3 was almost certainly an interpolation.

Moreover it is worth noting that Clement of Alexandria cites from a variant edition of the Epistle to the Romans quite intensively but notice how most of Romans chapter 9 is never referenced (and especially 9:3). From Schaff's list of scriptural references in Book Two of his edition of the Church Fathers (where it must be recognized that a very small portion of these references are NOT Clement i.e. most are):

Quote:

8:2 8:2-4 8:5-7 8:7-8 8:8 8:9 8:9 8:9 8:10 8:10 8:10-11 8:12 8:13 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:15 8:17 8:17 8:18 8:22 8:22-24 8:26 8:28 8:28-29 8:29 8:30 8:35 8:36-37 8:38 8:38-39 9:14 9:15 10:2-3 10:4 10:4 10:8 10:9 10:10 10:10 10:10-11 10:10-11 10:14 10:15 10:17 10:17 10:18 10:19 10:20-21

I have long argued that Clement's Alexandrian tradition was 'neo-Marcionite' this certainly helps support the idea that most of chapter 9 was unknown to traditions outside of Rome.

Again on its own this doesn't prove that ALL of chapter 9 was unknown to either the Marcionites or the early Alexandrian tradition (assuming of course they were different which I don't). Nevertheless it makes the case most of it was unknown. Nevertheless when we dig deeper we find that in fact Schaff has been rather careless in his assignment of either 9:14 or 9:15 to Clement.

When I look at the actual references in Clement I have serious doubts about some of the claims of a citation of the text by Clement. For instance for Schaff has determined that 9:14 is cited here:

Quote:

For there is no unrighteousness with God, [Rom. ix. 14] according to the apostle. [Clement, Strom 4.23]

This is a highly dubious reference. One could even make a stronger case for Romans 3:5 or another passage. But let's let it stand as a reference. It will be impossible for us to do the same for 9:15

Indeed Romans 9:15 is plainly not cited in the place Schaff claims when we actually look at it:

Quote:

He is, in truth, “the bag that waxeth not old,” the provisions of eternal life, “the treasure that faileth not in heaven.” [Luke xii. 33]. “For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” [Rom. ix. 15] saith the Lord. [Clement, Strom. 4.5]

This is plainly a citation of the Pentateuch or Jesus but cannot possibly be attributed to Romans.
As such there are no references to Romans chapter 9 in Clement no less than Marcion. This strengthens the argument that chapter 9 is an interpolation.

Notice also that the one section which MIGHT HAVE BEEN witnessed by Clement sounds a lot like the rhetorical question and answer which continues in chapter 10.

I am in a bit of hurry but emboldened here are THE SECTIONS cited by Clement. I have had time to narrow it down to check whether it is Clement citing the material (aside from 9:14) or some other Church Father in book 2 or how much of the text he cites:

Quote:

1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.
God’s Sovereign Choice

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”[c]
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i]

26 and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”[j]

27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[k]

29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”[l]

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”[a] 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”[b] (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”[h] 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”[i]

19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,

“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”[j]

20 And Isaiah boldly says,

“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”[k]

21 But concerning Israel he says,

“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

GDon - why did you leave "God" out of your original quote? What translation was that?

The KJV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The prima facie reading of this is that "Christ" is both God and Man. This passage seems designed to support trinitarian dogma.

The clear meaning of Rom 9:3 is that the Jews are not saved.

I haven't looked into whether this is considered an interpolation by any commentator, but are you sure that this passage supports a historical Jesus?

No, and that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about what the prima facie reading of this passage tells us with regards to Paul's attitude towards Jesus. I've given one: the prima-facie reading is that Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

What other prima-facie readings are there?

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

09-21-2011, 02:33 PM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	GDon - why did you leave "God" out of your original quote? What translation was that? The prima facie reading of this is that "Christ" is both God and Man. This passage seems designed to support trinitarian dogma. The clear meaning of Rom 9:3 is that the Jews are not saved. I haven't looked into whether this is considered an interpolation by any commentator, but are you sure that this passage supports a historical Jesus? eta: I don't find any need to assume that Paul uses the term kata sarka in two different senses. I think both uses are theological - kata sarka as opposed to kata pneuma.

09-21-2011, 03:30 PM	#25
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	GDon: You ignore the two most important principles of mytherism. 1. A passage that seems to describe Jesus as an historical earthly being doesn't mean what it seems to mean; and, 2. If it incontestably means what it seems to mean, it is an interpolation. We know that one of these is true in every case see we know a priori that there was no historical Jesus. Steve

09-21-2011, 03:33 PM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Juststeve: Do you contend that this passage describes a historical Jesus? A theological statement that claims "Christ" is both man and god? If so, please support that. If not, please keep your sarcasm to yourself.

09-21-2011, 03:51 PM	#27
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	From memory almost all of Romans 9 - 11 didn't appear in the Marcionite text which means it can be ignored

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.