Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 09-21-2011, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

the Pauline gospel was NOT from man.

Well perhaps if one is superstitious, ignorant, and gullible enough to believe such tripe, it is related by 'Paul' that his 'gospel' came about from his secret conversations with an invisible and long dead zombie.

Good grief! its enough to make a Joseph Smith or Marshall Applewhite look like paragons of sanity and integrity in comparison.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

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

You have NO sources for HJ of Nazareth and are engaged in STRAWMAN arguments.

Please, we have MYTHS that were claimed to be on earth. Marcion's Phantom was in Capernaum according to Tertullian.

The Myths Romulus and Remus were claimed to be BROTHERS who lived and died in ROME according to Plutarch.

Now, we have Galatians 1.1.

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)....

What does Galatians 1.1 mean?

It means the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man.

We have Galatians 1.11-12.

Quote:

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ....

What does Galatians 1.11-12 mean.

It means the Pauline gospel was NOT from man.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT HJ of Nazareth.

Please, you have no reliable historical sources for your position.

Sheshbazzar · 09-21-2011, 09:28 PM

That would include just about anyone who asserted just about anything regarding these stupid religious fables.
There are NO reliable historical sources left, the church saw to that.

Toto · 09-21-2011, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Toto, thanks for your time. I'll leave you with Stephan's posts (which I agree are interesting).

Perhaps something has come out of it. But I'm not sure what you point was in raising the meaning of kata sarka yet again.

Quote:

. . . The preposition kata with the accusative literally means "down" or "down to" and often implies motion, usually over or through its object, which would literally read "down through flesh" or "down to flesh" or even "towards flesh." But outside the context of motion, it frequently means "at" or "in the region of," and this is how Doherty reads it. It can also mean "in accordance with" in reference to fitness or conformity, and in this sense kata sarka can mean "by flesh," "for flesh," "concerning flesh," "in conformity with flesh," and the like, meanings that don't relate to the location or origin of the flesh. Presumably this is what biblical translators have in mind with "according to the flesh," but I find it hard to understand what Paul would have meant to emphasize with this, other than what Doherty already has in mind. For example, the word kata can also have a comparative meaning, "corresponding with, after the fashion of," in other words "like flesh." And it has other meanings not relevant here. But the most common, relevant meanings of kata with the accusative do at least fit Doherty's theory that Jesus descended to and took on "the likeness of flesh" (Romans 8:3), in which case kata sarka would mean "in the realm of flesh." Nevertheless, though kata sarka does not entail that Jesus walked the earth, it is still compatible with such an idea. But many other strange details noted by Doherty are used to argue otherwise, and I think he makes a good case for his reading, based on far more than this.

From the archives 2003

Horatio Parker · 09-21-2011, 10:04 PM

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.

I think it means that Christ is God. Christ is "of the flesh of the Father"

archibald · 09-22-2011, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

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.

I think it means that Christ is God. Christ is "of the flesh of the Father"

To rely on a dubious 'Paul was doing theology' argument, which seems as a response to introduce nothing much more than a tautology (one is tempted to say, 'well, duh') doesn't even get close to it, though it does seem to be a favourite attempt by non-historicists. Not sure why.

It doesn't really seem to matter.The phrase clearly says 'someone' was both god and 'man'. As such, it's almost impossible, unless one is willing to do a fair amount of obtuse squirming, to not get the impression that this clearly means described as part man. What is a 'theological man'? Whatever it was, in that passage it seems to include 'Paul'. The point sticks whether he understood it as literal or not. :huh:

Far more important, I think, are Stephan's observations that it may have been an interpolation (or at least was not used by Marcion).

If that is the case, the question, 'what does Paul mean?' might be meaningless. And asking 'what does the passage mean' wouldn't tell us anything about Paul, without which I'm not sure I would be so curious.

At that point, one is only left to scratch one's head at the apparent mindset of those who are willing to bend over backwards pursue the thin 'interpretation' case instead.

Or as well as. Cake appears to be eaten and had, at times.

dog-on · 09-22-2011, 12:58 AM

Perhaps kata sarka means something akin to "per our fleshy understanding" or "understood through the flesh", where as kata pneuma means something like "per our spiritual understanding" or "understood through the spirit".

In other words, the 'flesh' is not referring to the material composition of a subject, but to the way in which one understands it.

Two distinct types of available knowledge? Maybe even a bit Gnostic, I suppose.

Consider 2 Cor 5:16.

archibald · 09-22-2011, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

From Tertullian Against Marcion's section on the Epistle to the Romans....snipped for bandwidth..

Very interesting post, Stephan.

I am tempted to say that a prima facie reading of which seems to provide 'hardish' evidence. :]

So, I need to ask you, are there at least some reputable scholars who think, on this basis, that the whole chapter might be an interpolation? And if not, why do you think not?

I note that Tertullian appears to claim that Marcion chopped text out. I suppose that is a possibility, and I believe there is some debate over this, though it might not be my first choice. I would not know how to weigh the two options. Any evidence, from elsewhere, to suggest that he might have 'edited' in this way?

Tertullian must have had a copy with chapter 9 in, which means that any such interpolation (if that's what it was) would have happened between the two (Marcion's version and T's).

dog-on · 09-22-2011, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

From Tertullian Against Marcion's section on the Epistle to the Romans....snipped for bandwidth..

Very interesting post, Stephan.

I am tempted to say that a prima facie reading of which seems to provide 'hardish' evidence. :]

So, I need to ask you, are there at least some reputable scholars who think, on this basis, that the whole chapter might be an interpolation? And if not, why do you think not?

I note that Tertullian appears to claim that Marcion chopped text out. I suppose that is a possibility, though it might not be my first choice. I would not know how to weigh the two options.

Tertullian must have had a copy with chapter 9 in, which means that any such interpolation (if that's what it was) would have happened between the two (Marcion's version and T's).

Perhaps around the time of Polycarp.

I think that the Pauline corpus was heavily redacted and then brought into the fold, with the Pastorals and Luke/Acts to keep it company.

archibald · 09-22-2011, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think that the Pauline corpus was heavily redacted and then brought into the fold, with the Pastorals and Luke/Acts to keep it company.

It certainly seems to be a possibility. I might even say likely. Though I would also like to hear the other side of the case, or cases (is there ever less than a multitude?) :]

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

09-21-2011, 09:28 PM	#53
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	That would include just about anyone who asserted just about anything regarding these stupid religious fables. There are NO reliable historical sources left, the church saw to that.

09-22-2011, 12:58 AM	#57
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Perhaps kata sarka means something akin to "per our fleshy understanding" or "understood through the flesh", where as kata pneuma means something like "per our spiritual understanding" or "understood through the spirit". In other words, the 'flesh' is not referring to the material composition of a subject, but to the way in which one understands it. Two distinct types of available knowledge? Maybe even a bit Gnostic, I suppose. Consider 2 Cor 5:16.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.