Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-05-2011, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto;

This is a strained reading. Paul thinks that all flesh is sinful.

ok you said this before too but did not provide any evidence. Do you have any evidence or are we supposed to just believe it because you say it is so?

This is a common interpretation of Paul. If you want to dispute it, at least indicate some reason.

For the standard Christian doctrine, see F.F. Bruce

Quote:

But most distinctively, [Paul] uses “flesh” in the sense of “human nature”, in the following ways:

(a) Weak human nature. In Romans 6:19 Paul explains himself by means of an analogy from everyday life “because of the weakness of your flesh” (i.e. your natural understanding). In Romans 8:3 he speaks of the law as unable to produce righteousness because it was “weakened by the flesh” (i.e. by the frail human nature with which it had to work). ...

(b) The human nature of Christ. The humanity of Christ is shared by him with all mankind. But ours is “sinful flesh”, because sin has established a bridgehead in our life by means of which it dominates the human situation. Christ came in real flesh — he lived and died in a “body of flesh” (Colossians 1:22)7 — but he did not come in “sinful flesh”, because sin gained no foothold in his life; he is said therefore to have come “in the likeness of sinful flesh”,8 so that, when he presented his life as a sin-offering, God thus “condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3) — passed the death-sentence on it by virtue of the sinless humanity of Christ.

(c) Unregenerate humanity. Paul at times denotes the sinful propensity which belongs to his heritage “in Adam”9 as “my flesh”. In “my flesh” in this sense nothing good resides; with it, he says (perhaps speaking representatively) “I serve the law of sin” (Romans 7:18, 25).10 Its surviving influence can be traced even in the regenerate: the Corinthian Christians, for example, are addressed as “men of the flesh”, despite their having received the Spirit, because they are still prone to jealousy and strife and judge men according to the standards of worldly wisdom (1 Corinthians 3:1-4). The “works of the flesh”, listed in Galatians 5:19-21 in contrast to the “fruit of the Spirit”, include not only sensual vices like fornication and drunkenness but mental attitudes like jealousy, anger and party spirit. “Those who belong to Christ Jesus”, however, “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24) — a statement similar to that of Romans 6:6, “our old man (NEB ‘the man we once were’) was crucified with him [Christ], so that the sinful body [the sin-dominated nature that was ours ‘in Adam’] might be destroyed”.11 ...

Read more there. Realize that Paul tends to be obscure, possibly because the epistles have been heavily interpolated.

Bruce distinguishes between the flesh of Jesus and sinful flesh because of his theological stance. He is required to say that Jesus was fully human as well as fully god, and that Jesus came "in the flesh." But he still has to maintain that Jesus' flesh was not exactly like the rest of humanity, that it was only the likeness of the flesh of the rest of humanity.

But if Jesus was not sinful, one might wonder whether he was truly human. He came in the flesh for theological reasons, but this flesh was not the sinful, corrupt sort of flesh that real men have. So was he really human? This is the sort of logical pretzel that trinitarian doctrine creates. But I doubt that Paul was a trinitarian.

Quote:

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Is that clear enough?

This says nothing about "flesh," sinful or otherwise.

It contrasts Jesus as a person who Paul seems to say did not sin with the rest of humanity who did sin. Doesn't it?

It contrasts Jesus with Adam. Adam brought sin into the world by his disobedience in the garden of Eden, and Jesus lifted this state by his obedience. Nothing there about the rest of humanity.

judge · 03-05-2011, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizdek

Is that what you want, judge, just to get Earl to admit a mistake...a misquote?

Its useless if this becomes a personal issue. So I think I should avoid that.

What is important is that we should be moved by evidence and try to reason clearly based on evidence.

My own view which ive stated before is that Doherty gets favourable treatment on this forum because his ideas run counter to mainline xtianity, and so I think earl should be ancouraged to abandon anything that is or might be misleading particularly when the misleading or potentially misleading portion helps his case.

judge · 03-05-2011, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Realize that Paul tends to be obscure, possibly because the epistles have been heavily interpolated.

.

Its poor form when the text doesn't suit you to say it was possibly interpolated,dont you think?

Toto · 03-05-2011, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Realize that Paul tends to be obscure, possibly because the epistles have been heavily interpolated.

.

Its poor form when the text doesn't suit you to say it was possibly interpolated,dont you think?

It is poor form to assume that is the only reason for inferring interpolation.

Can you seriously maintain that anything in the Pauline epistles is coherent? consistent? Theologians write books on what Paul really meant.

judge · 03-05-2011, 03:08 AM

I think one of the problems here is still the claim that Paul says "all flesh is sinful" . Paul never says this tjough he does indicate that I'm men there is a battle between flesh and spirit, and even that flesh is sinful. But I think there might be subtle differences between saying "all flesh" and "the flesh".
But let's leave that aside fir the moment.
Secondly I'm not sure why we need evagelical scholars to help us (mis) understand these texts. After all didn't Toto just start a thread about how it is they who least understand the teachings of Jesus?
What I see clearly in Romans (and we haven't seen anyone argue for any particular interpolations mind you) is
1. Paul tells us Jesus was a man.
2. Paul contrasts this man with Adam and by direct inference those needing tje salvation Jesus provided.
3.Paul telling us all men were made sinners.
4.Paul telling us Jesus came in tje likeness not of flesh but of sinful flesh .

There is only one way all these can fit together and make sense and that in no way is helpful to the idea Jesus existed in some non earthly mythical realm.

Paul is pethaps or probably our earliest witness and he tells us
1. Jesus was a man
2.he died
3 he is to be contrasted with sinners
4.he came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Toto is right about one thing . To argue againt this we must
1. Speculate about interpolations ( god knows how many)
2. Start off assuming we will never make any sense or find consistency.

Doug Shaver · 03-05-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

There is a lot of Paul's thinking that I'm not sure about, but on this particular point, he could not have made his opinion any clearer. He believed flesh was sinful, period. Not a word that he wrote suggests that he thought there ever were or ever would be any exceptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Thats an interesting thought, but without evidence it is merely an assertion.

It is not merely an assertion. It is an observation. It could be a mistaken observation. If it is, you can prove it by producing a quotation in which Paul asserted, or unambiguously implied, that some flesh is not sinful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

If all we do is make assertions what differentiates us from religious fundies?

I don't know how you think you differ from them. One way in which I think I differ is that I don't believe anyone has to be either an ignorant fool or a moral reprobate in order to disagree with me.

TedM · 03-05-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

1. Since a rotten apple is still an apple, I don't see how 'likeness of sinful flesh' is different from 'likeness of flesh' in principle.

1.If Jesus was said to be "in the likeness of flesh" then it seems clear he was not seen to be flesh. This would massively help Doherty's theory.

Not sure I agree. 'Likeness of flesh' still could be used to apply to a man who lived on earth who looked like a man, suffered like a man, was tempted like a man, but was not sinful like a man.

'Likeness of sinful flesh' could still be applied to a perfect being who lived in another sphere and looked like a man, suffered like a man, was tempted like a man.

Therefore, I don't see how the removal of 'sinful' 'massively' helps Earl, esp when one thinks Paul regards all flesh as naturally sinful.

But, thanks much for your answers.

yalla · 03-05-2011, 07:59 AM

In Romans 8.9 the author, let's call him Paul, says that his readers are "not in the flesh ..."

What does that mean?

That his readers are non-corporeal, not physically human, not 'born of woman", unable to be felt by a doubting Tom?
God[s]? Angels?

No, it doesn't because here, in this context at least, 'flesh' does not mean 'flesh' as in body tissue and bone and stuff but is the dichotomous opposite to .....

His readers are [Romans 8.9] "...in the Spirit".

Which is good.
They got to be ''in the Spirit" by having the "Spirit of Christ", by having the "Spirit of God" in them, by having faith and thus are free from sin and death.

Not only sin and death but also a whole stack of bad things such as :
"immorality, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy and ...lots more..."
All of which are part and parcel of "the desires of the flesh" and which can be avoided by 'walk[ing] by the Spirit". Galatians 5.16ff

So its pretty straightforward really.

-"Flesh" is being without God, not being "in Christ", not having faith and being "in the Spirit" and therefore being condemned to death and experiencing and doing all sorts of nasties.
That's bad.

-'Spirit", on the other hand, is the opposite of all of the above.

It is being with God, in Christ, having faith and therefore not experiencing death because "[God] .. will give life to your mortal bodies ... [Romans 8.11] and .... you will live ..and ..all who live by the Spirit are sons of God" [Romans 8.13ff].1.

That's good.

The word and the concept 'flesh', as used in these bits of Romans and Galatians, does not denote an earthly, physical body.
It denotes being without God/Christ/faith and therefore doomed to all the sorts of nasties we associate with fleshy bodies such as 'drunkenness, carousing and the like." Gal 5.21.

It is the opposite of being "In the Spirit" ie with God/Christ/faith and enjoying all sorts of goodies eg life.

And just like Paul's readers and fellow believers and 'brethren' [well 'brethren' in a collegiate sense not actual siblings of a common parent or two] are not "in the flesh" [flashback to Rom. 8.9] does not mean that they don't have earthly bodies, that they are ethereal beings, then being 'in the flesh' does not mean being physical.
It just means being without God etc.

Or to put it another way:
'flesh' doesn't mean body type stuff and 'not flesh' doesn't mean not body stuff.

That is not what Paul is talking about.

As F.F. Bruce pointed out.

1. Note that this makes all the readers of Paul who 'walk in the Spirit" sons of God, just like Jesus [remember he is the son of God also] so that makes all of these Spirit walkers 'brothers of the Lord [where the "Lord" in this case is Jesus]

Toto · 03-05-2011, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

....
Secondly I'm not sure why we need evagelical scholars to help us (mis) understand these texts. After all didn't Toto just start a thread about how it is they who least understand the teachings of Jesus?

Nope. That was about lay evangelicals following the teachings of Jesus. This is a case of a scholar interpreting Paul.

Quote:

What I see clearly in Romans (and we haven't seen anyone argue for any particular interpolations mind you) is
1. Paul tells us Jesus was a man.
2. Paul contrasts this man with Adam and by direct inference those needing tje salvation Jesus provided.
3.Paul telling us all men were made sinners.
4.Paul telling us Jesus came in tje likeness not of flesh but of sinful flesh .

There is only one way all these can fit together and make sense and that in no way is helpful to the idea Jesus existed in some non earthly mythical realm.

Paul is pethaps or probably our earliest witness and he tells us
1. Jesus was a man
2.he died
3 he is to be contrasted with sinners
4.he came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Doherty's arguments seem to have not made an impact on you. But you won't get anywhere by pretending he never made them. Jesus was a man in the same way Adam was a man, and died at some indeterminate time and place. This is our earliest witness, indeed.

Quote:

Toto is right about one thing . To argue again[s]t this we must
1. Speculate about interpolations ( god knows how many)
2. Start off assuming we will never make any sense or find consistency.

These are my conclusions. Doherty does not rely on them

yalla · 03-05-2011, 08:41 AM

So, continuing my post above, how did Paul's readers get to be 'in the Spirit" and not "In the flesh'?

Well they have faith, like Paul, in God and God's son.

And they are free from death etc because God destroyed death, he [I suppose that should be 'He'] 'condemned sin in the flesh" [Romans 8.3].

How?
"By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sin offering"

The result?
According to Paul, he Paul, has been 'set free" from:
1. the law
2. sin
3. death"
Romans 8.2.

As have all those who, like Paul, are 'in the spirit', 'not in the flesh', 'with Christ', 'sons of God', 'have faith' etc and so forth.

So it is necessary, in Paul's construction here, to have Jesus be 'of the flesh'.

If Jesus is not 'of the flesh' then those 'fleshy' things, like 1.the law 2. sin 3. death can't be 'condemned' by God can they?
If Jesus was 'in the Spirit" then he would not have been able to die so that the law and sin and death could be made obsolete.

But that creates a problem.
Doesn't it?

Jesus, as the 'son of God", can't be all those nasty things that go with being 'fleshy' eg lust, envy, drunkenness etc.
That is an unthinkable thought.

So Paul solves the problem by having Jesus sent 'in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sin offering' [Romans 8.3].

Jesus only appears to be in sinful flesh.

He is not really either, sin or flesh. He doesn't need to be.
Remember flesh doesn't mean flesh necessarily and only, because if it did then all of Paul's followers who are "not in the flesh' [Romans 8.9] would be on a par with Jesus.
Which actually they are a bit because they are 'in Christ' and like Jesus, "sons of God" [Romans 8.13] if they have faith etc.

Remember 'flesh' doesn't mean 'flesh' as in just having a physical body.
It's really the opposite of 'Spirit' [with God and so on].

Its all just an extended metaphor and does not mean there was an earthly, physical Jesus any more than it means Paul's followers were not earthly, physical brethren even when Paul expressly states they are not 'in the flesh'.

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

03-05-2011, 03:08 AM	#35
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	I think one of the problems here is still the claim that Paul says "all flesh is sinful" . Paul never says this tjough he does indicate that I'm men there is a battle between flesh and spirit, and even that flesh is sinful. But I think there might be subtle differences between saying "all flesh" and "the flesh". But let's leave that aside fir the moment. Secondly I'm not sure why we need evagelical scholars to help us (mis) understand these texts. After all didn't Toto just start a thread about how it is they who least understand the teachings of Jesus? What I see clearly in Romans (and we haven't seen anyone argue for any particular interpolations mind you) is 1. Paul tells us Jesus was a man. 2. Paul contrasts this man with Adam and by direct inference those needing tje salvation Jesus provided. 3.Paul telling us all men were made sinners. 4.Paul telling us Jesus came in tje likeness not of flesh but of sinful flesh . There is only one way all these can fit together and make sense and that in no way is helpful to the idea Jesus existed in some non earthly mythical realm. Paul is pethaps or probably our earliest witness and he tells us 1. Jesus was a man 2.he died 3 he is to be contrasted with sinners 4.he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Toto is right about one thing . To argue againt this we must 1. Speculate about interpolations ( god knows how many) 2. Start off assuming we will never make any sense or find consistency.

03-05-2011, 07:59 AM	#38
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	In Romans 8.9 the author, let's call him Paul, says that his readers are "not in the flesh ..." What does that mean? That his readers are non-corporeal, not physically human, not 'born of woman", unable to be felt by a doubting Tom? God[s]? Angels? No, it doesn't because here, in this context at least, 'flesh' does not mean 'flesh' as in body tissue and bone and stuff but is the dichotomous opposite to ..... His readers are [Romans 8.9] "...in the Spirit". Which is good. They got to be ''in the Spirit" by having the "Spirit of Christ", by having the "Spirit of God" in them, by having faith and thus are free from sin and death. Not only sin and death but also a whole stack of bad things such as : "immorality, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy and ...lots more..." All of which are part and parcel of "the desires of the flesh" and which can be avoided by 'walk[ing] by the Spirit". Galatians 5.16ff So its pretty straightforward really. -"Flesh" is being without God, not being "in Christ", not having faith and being "in the Spirit" and therefore being condemned to death and experiencing and doing all sorts of nasties. That's bad. -'Spirit", on the other hand, is the opposite of all of the above. It is being with God, in Christ, having faith and therefore not experiencing death because "[God] .. will give life to your mortal bodies ... [Romans 8.11] and .... you will live ..and ..all who live by the Spirit are sons of God" [Romans 8.13ff].1. That's good. The word and the concept 'flesh', as used in these bits of Romans and Galatians, does not denote an earthly, physical body. It denotes being without God/Christ/faith and therefore doomed to all the sorts of nasties we associate with fleshy bodies such as 'drunkenness, carousing and the like." Gal 5.21. It is the opposite of being "In the Spirit" ie with God/Christ/faith and enjoying all sorts of goodies eg life. And just like Paul's readers and fellow believers and 'brethren' [well 'brethren' in a collegiate sense not actual siblings of a common parent or two] are not "in the flesh" [flashback to Rom. 8.9] does not mean that they don't have earthly bodies, that they are ethereal beings, then being 'in the flesh' does not mean being physical. It just means being without God etc. Or to put it another way: 'flesh' doesn't mean body type stuff and 'not flesh' doesn't mean not body stuff. That is not what Paul is talking about. As F.F. Bruce pointed out. 1. Note that this makes all the readers of Paul who 'walk in the Spirit" sons of God, just like Jesus [remember he is the son of God also] so that makes all of these Spirit walkers 'brothers of the Lord [where the "Lord" in this case is Jesus]

03-05-2011, 08:41 AM	#40
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	So, continuing my post above, how did Paul's readers get to be 'in the Spirit" and not "In the flesh'? Well they have faith, like Paul, in God and God's son. And they are free from death etc because God destroyed death, he [I suppose that should be 'He'] 'condemned sin in the flesh" [Romans 8.3]. How? "By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sin offering" The result? According to Paul, he Paul, has been 'set free" from: 1. the law 2. sin 3. death" Romans 8.2. As have all those who, like Paul, are 'in the spirit', 'not in the flesh', 'with Christ', 'sons of God', 'have faith' etc and so forth. So it is necessary, in Paul's construction here, to have Jesus be 'of the flesh'. If Jesus is not 'of the flesh' then those 'fleshy' things, like 1.the law 2. sin 3. death can't be 'condemned' by God can they? If Jesus was 'in the Spirit" then he would not have been able to die so that the law and sin and death could be made obsolete. But that creates a problem. Doesn't it? Jesus, as the 'son of God", can't be all those nasty things that go with being 'fleshy' eg lust, envy, drunkenness etc. That is an unthinkable thought. So Paul solves the problem by having Jesus sent 'in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sin offering' [Romans 8.3]. Jesus only appears to be in sinful flesh. He is not really either, sin or flesh. He doesn't need to be. Remember flesh doesn't mean flesh necessarily and only, because if it did then all of Paul's followers who are "not in the flesh' [Romans 8.9] would be on a par with Jesus. Which actually they are a bit because they are 'in Christ' and like Jesus, "sons of God" [Romans 8.13] if they have faith etc. Remember 'flesh' doesn't mean 'flesh' as in just having a physical body. It's really the opposite of 'Spirit' [with God and so on]. Its all just an extended metaphor and does not mean there was an earthly, physical Jesus any more than it means Paul's followers were not earthly, physical brethren even when Paul expressly states they are not 'in the flesh'.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.