Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-21-2011, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
And that Paul believes that he himself has the same human fleshly aspect as Christ when it comes to the connection to the Jewish patriarchs?

...

In a theological sense. Of course, Paul does not claim to be descended from David.

stephan huller · 09-21-2011, 06:21 PM

This conversation is so useless. It is filled with countless assumptions about what the early Christians believed was flesh. Sharing the same flesh with the messiah could well mean sharing special magic flesh with the messiah. The Samaritans believe that about Moses. Various early Muslim sects believed Mohammed had special flesh and some hadiths still reflect the idea that his urine had magical properties. I don't know where any of this is going.

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
And that Paul believes that he himself has the same human fleshly aspect as Christ when it comes to the connection to the Jewish patriarchs?

...

In a theological sense.

Well, that's something I suppose. Thanks. Let's move on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Of course, Paul does not claim to be descended from David.

:huh: Why would he? What is the implication of that, in your view?

Anyway, Paul does claim to be a descendent of Abraham, though:

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ

What is the prima facie reading of these passages? Let's look at the various prima facie readings that are available. I'll go first. To me, Paul appears to be saying that both he and Christ, as well as the Israelites more generally, were descendants of Abraham.

What about you, Toto? What is your prima facie reading of those passages, with regards to Paul view of himself and Christ as seeds of Abraham?

Toto · 09-21-2011, 06:45 PM

What's the point of moving on to more references to "kata sarka?" We still don't know what it means.

And why do you use the KJV?

Gal 3:16 involves Paul misinterpreting Genesis 22:17-18, by claiming that sperma (seed) only refers to a single descendant, the Christ (still no reference to Jesus.)

But I want to hear more about magical flesh.

stephan huller · 09-21-2011, 06:54 PM

I cited the Samaritan material from Marqe in another post. John MacDonald from Leeds does a whole thing on Moses's flesh, how the Samaritans thought it had magical properties. It is worth noting that the rabbinic literature has almost no speculation on the person of Moses which is very odd in itself.

Sorry but as an undisciplined thinker I am at present distracted by Clement's citation of material before and after chapter 9. Look at the form that his material from chapter 8 takes. I am telling you, it has to be related to Marcionite text:

Quote:

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God,” explains the apostle: “for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, can be. And they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” And in further explanation continues, that no one may, like Marcion regard the creature as evil. “But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” And again: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us. If we suffer with Him, that we also may be glorified together as joint-heirs of Christ. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to the purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified

Schaff lists it as Rom. viii. 7, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 28, 29, 30 but it is clearly the form the material took in Clement's Alexandrian New Testament. Here is the parallel section of text from Romans 8: 7 - 30 in the corrupt Catholic canon:

Quote:

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.

12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba,[g] Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Am I the only person who gets excited about these things? I am telling you once you see that Clement had a Marcionite-like Apostolikon ('collection of Pauline letters') the idea that he had a 'secret' or 'mystic' text of a canonical gospel (Mark) is hardly incredible given what is said about the Marcionite gospel being Mark in Phil. 7,18.

stephan huller · 09-21-2011, 07:31 PM

I have discovered something no one has noticed before. Clement's whole text of Romans 8 is very different and ultimately known to us. Have to put it together but it is amazing

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What's the point of moving on to more references to "kata sarka?" We still don't know what it means.

What does the prima facie reading suggest it means, in your view? Let's go through the various prima facie options. I'll start.

When Paul says "Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh", he means "Abraham was our physical ancestor". What do you see as the prima facie reading there, Toto?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And why do you use the KJV?

I'll use which ever one you recommend. Which one should I use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gal 3:16 involves Paul misinterpreting Genesis 22:17-18, by claiming that sperma (seed) only refers to a single descendant, the Christ (still no reference to Jesus.)

And so??? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But I want to hear more about magical flesh.

:huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Of course, Paul does not claim to be descended from David.

Toto, what is the implication? Why did you throw this in??? :shrug:

Toto · 09-21-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

..

When Paul says "Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh", he means "Abraham was our physical ancestor". What do you see as the prima facie reading there, Toto?

I don't see an easy interpretation. I don't know what kata sarka means to Paul. The more I read, the murkier it seems.

Quote:

I'll use which ever one you recommend. Which one should I use?

NIV is clearer, or at times Young's literal is useful.

Quote:

And so??? :huh:

So - no Jesus.

Quote:

:huh:

Stephan's posts are more interesting than your questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Of course, Paul does not claim to be descended from David.

Toto, what is the implication? Why did you throw this in??? :shrug:

It was an aside. Forget it.

Is this just going to be your going through Paul's letters looking for kata sarka? Why do you feel that that phrase is clear? Or that anything in Paul's letters is clear?

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 08:48 PM

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.

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 08:54 PM

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

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

09-21-2011, 06:21 PM	#42
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This conversation is so useless. It is filled with countless assumptions about what the early Christians believed was flesh. Sharing the same flesh with the messiah could well mean sharing special magic flesh with the messiah. The Samaritans believe that about Moses. Various early Muslim sects believed Mohammed had special flesh and some hadiths still reflect the idea that his urine had magical properties. I don't know where any of this is going.

09-21-2011, 06:45 PM	#44
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	What's the point of moving on to more references to "kata sarka?" We still don't know what it means. And why do you use the KJV? Gal 3:16 involves Paul misinterpreting Genesis 22:17-18, by claiming that sperma (seed) only refers to a single descendant, the Christ (still no reference to Jesus.) But I want to hear more about magical flesh.

09-21-2011, 07:31 PM	#46
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have discovered something no one has noticed before. Clement's whole text of Romans 8 is very different and ultimately known to us. Have to put it together but it is amazing

09-21-2011, 08:54 PM	#50
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Toto, thanks for your time. I'll leave you with Stephan's posts (which I agree are interesting).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.