Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 10-03-2011, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The answer is contained in the first half:

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor. 5:16).

Clearly "according to the flesh" does not refer to "being alive on earth" as you are wont to claim, since the first half of 2 Cor 5:16 can't possibly mean that everyone on earth is no longer to be regarded as alive on earth. Rather, it clearly means that "according to the flesh" has some meaning for Paul that is figurative rather than what you call literal. Perhaps if you read Galatians 4:23 further light could be shed on what Paul means by "according to the flesh".

So in your view what did Paul mean in saying "even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer", after telling us that Christ was from the Israelites according to the flesh, was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and so on?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The idea of christ being obedient to the death could refer to life on earth or to the cosmic drama that Doherty-style mythicism argues for. Nothing probative about it either way.

Toto is asking about Jesus' life before resurrection, and why they considered someone worthy of resurrection. Paul is clear: obedience unto death. Agreed on it not impacting on HJ/MJ debates directly. It's just a common theme that runs through early Christianity. Justin Martyr suggests that the Jews were expecting such a Christ.

Don, I recently explained this to you.

According to the Flesh regards how something is considered, juxtaposed with According to the Spirit.

In other words, you can know something from a worldly viewpoint, or you can know something from a spiritual viewpoint.

Some Christians continue to make the distinction, to this day.

GakuseiDon · 10-03-2011, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So in your view what did Paul mean in saying "even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer", after telling us that Christ was from the Israelites according to the flesh, was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and so on?

Toto is asking about Jesus' life before resurrection, and why they considered someone worthy of resurrection. Paul is clear: obedience unto death. Agreed on it not impacting on HJ/MJ debates directly. It's just a common theme that runs through early Christianity. Justin Martyr suggests that the Jews were expecting such a Christ.

Don, I recently explained this to you.

According to the Flesh regards how something is considered, juxtaposed with According to the Spirit.

In other words, you can know something from a worldly viewpoint, or you can know something from a spiritual viewpoint.

So what does "even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer" mean, in your view? Who used to regard Christ according to the flesh, and what did that mean? Who now regards Christ no longer according to the flesh, and what does that mean?

It may mean nothing at all to the HJ/MJ debate, but Paul meant SOMETHING by that phrase. I believe Paul is talking about those who were impressed by Jesus' activities in life, but Paul thinks that is meaningless. But what do you think it all means?

archibald · 10-03-2011, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Don, I recently explained this to you.

According to the Flesh regards how something is considered, juxtaposed with According to the Spirit.

In other words, you can know something from a worldly viewpoint, or you can know something from a spiritual viewpoint.

Some Christians continue to make the distinction, to this day.

I also remember you saying this, but I don't rememnber finding it particularly convincing, as a way of explaining eithr Don's orignal verse, or the one Vorkosigan cited also.

Hey, what is all this doing in my heresies thread?

I'm going to repost this, and add to it, at the other thread, rather than here. This one was meant to be somewhere people could post evidence of early myther heresies.

ph2ter · 10-03-2011, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

“They are Israelites … to them belong the patriarchs, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5).

and

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor. 5:16).

It seems Paul wasn't interested in Jesus "according to the flesh". It isn't what we would expect, but that is what he writes.

This looks like Marcion in Antitheses:
The Jewish Christ was designated by the Creator solely to restore the Jewish people from the Diaspora; but our Christ was comissioned by the good God to liberate all mankind.

It is possible that Paul here preaches the two Christs. Firstly, he believed in Christ according to flesh who was ordained by the Creator God for the restoration of the Jewish state, but after that to him was revealed a different being, the second Christ for the salvation of all nations.
So for Paul these Christs are two distinct concepts, but not based on the same person. One person has not yet come (according to flesh), but the other one has already come.

dog-on · 10-03-2011, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Don, I recently explained this to you.

According to the Flesh regards how something is considered, juxtaposed with According to the Spirit.

In other words, you can know something from a worldly viewpoint, or you can know something from a spiritual viewpoint.

Some Christians continue to make the distinction, to this day.

I also remember you saying this, but I don't rememnber finding it particularly convincing, as a way of explaining eithr Don's orignal verse, or the one Vorkosigan cited also.

Hey, what is all this doing in my heresies thread?

I'm going to repost this, and add to it, at the other thread, rather than here. This one was meant to be somewhere people could post evidence of early myther heresies.

Not convincing? Why, specifically?

jakejonesiv · 10-03-2011, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

The heresy of mythicism seems to be 'a missing link'.

I am referring to an early version, not the contemporary one. :]

Am I wrong? What is the evidence?

Hi Archibald,

Could you explain to me what you are looking for?

Do you expect to find a heretical sect that clearly stated that Jesus Christ did not exist? That would be an odd sect that disbelieved in its own divine entity. I think any sect worthy of being labeled "Christian" would believe that Christ existed in some plane of existence, in some manner or another.

Anyway, it is hard to answer the question unless I know what type of evidence you would find acceptable.

Jake

archibald · 10-03-2011, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

The heresy of mythicism seems to be 'a missing link'.

I am referring to an early version, not the contemporary one. :]

Am I wrong? What is the evidence?

Hi Archibald,

Could you explain to me what you are looking for?

Do you expect to find a heretical sect that clearly stated that Jesus Christ did not exist? That would be an odd sect that disbelieved in its own divine entity. I think any sect worthy of being labeled "Christian" would believe that Christ existed in some plane of existence, in some manner or another.

Anyway, it is hard to answer the question unless I know what type of evidence you would find acceptable.

Jake

I'm looking for 'Non-earthly', or 'spiritual only' heresies.

jakejonesiv · 10-03-2011, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

“They are Israelites … to them belong the patriarchs, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5).

and

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor. 5:16).

It seems Paul wasn't interested in Jesus "according to the flesh". It isn't what we would expect, but that is what he writes.

This looks like Marcion in Antitheses:
The Jewish Christ was designated by the Creator solely to restore the Jewish people from the Diaspora; but our Christ was comissioned by the good God to liberate all mankind.

It is possible that Paul here preaches the two Christs. Firstly, he believed in Christ according to flesh who was ordained by the Creator God for the restoration of the Jewish state, but after that to him was revealed a different being, the second Christ for the salvation of all nations.
So for Paul these Christs are two distinct concepts, but not based on the same person. One person has not yet come (according to flesh), but the other one has already come.

Hi ph2ter,

I had not thought of that?

But I think if we read 2 Cor. 5:16 carefully, it is not the nature of Christ that is in view "according to the flesh", but the nature of the Pauline author's knowing Christ, carnal vs. spiritual.

GakuseiDon · 10-03-2011, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Do you expect to find a heretical sect that clearly stated that Jesus Christ did not exist? That would be an odd sect that disbelieved in its own divine entity. I think any sect worthy of being labeled "Christian" would believe that Christ existed in some plane of existence, in some manner or another.

Doherty believes that all the major extant Second Century apologists, with the exception of Justin Martyr, were self-described "Christians" who nevertheless didn't believe in a Christ, either earthly or mythical. Instead, they believed in an apparently unknown Logos figure.

archibald · 10-03-2011, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

But I think if we read 2 Cor. 5:16 carefully, it is not the nature of Christ that is in view "according to the flesh", but the nature of the Pauline author's knowing Christ, carnal vs. spiritual.

There is an excellent, ongoing thread on this elsewhere. :]

So, though I am curious to ask you what you mean by Pauline author's view', I will wait until you post in that thread.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.