Amaleq13

The sacrifice of Christ is the central theme of Paul's theology.

The eucharist commemorates the sacrifice of Christ.

Therefore, the eucharist commemorates the central theme of Paul's theology.

It is utterly absurd to claim otherwise.

Untrue. My position on Paul's eucharist is entirely independent of whether a historical Jesus existed. Paul clearly describes this eucharist tradition as something revealed by the risen Christ whether or not a historical figure existed.

Every example of Paul emphasizing the sacrifice of Christ is evidence of the importance of the ceremony directly revealed by the risen Christ and intended to commemorate that sacrifice.

Next time a pedantic urge strikes you, identify it as such so I can ignore it.

Even a symbolic eucharist was antithetical to Jewish beliefs.

Actually, it is the responsibility of the claimant (ie you: "A Greek mystery religion would NEVER say that they were merely remembering something.") to support their claim. I'm not sure whether there are any pagan inscriptions depicting, for example, Mithras directly revealing how believers were to conduct their "communion" ceremony that involved "eating" the god. but this alleged requirement is actually irrelevant to my claim. The greater similarity to pagan beliefs/practices than Jewish beliefs/practices is not based on the commemorative nature of the ceremony. It is the flesh/bread and blood/wine connection that is relevant. The Fourth Gospel clearly shows that this concept was problematic for Jewish sensibilities whether taken literally or figuratively.

It is difficult to understand why anyone could be faulted for taking Jesus literally when he is depicted as having said: "for my flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink" (YLT, 6:55)

You continue to miss the point, however. I don't consider this scene to be historical and neither do most scholars. The author has taken Paul's revealed eucharist and placed it in the mouth of a living Jesus. The important point you persist in avoiding is the fact that the author clearly portrays Jews and disciples as reacting negatively to the concept. The Jews are portrayed as interpreting it literally and reacting negatively but the disciples are portrayed as still reacting negatively even after Jesus provides more explanation including telling them that "the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life".

Are you seriously trying to argue that a symbolic eucharist would have been consistent with Jewish beliefs?

Taken with his unfavorable comparison of Jews with believing gentiles and the healing of the centurion's servant, one can only conclude that gentiles were included from the beginning and expected to continue to be part of the movement until The End. One must also conclude, therefore, that any subsequent portrayal of Jesus initially focusing exclusively on Jews is an example of myth-making in the face of existing conditions (ie Jewish rejection/persecution).

Nonsense. It is portraying a gentile besting Jesus in an exchange of snappy remarks. How can that be considered anything except positive? Her belief is rewarded with a healing. Her faith is clearly identified as worthy rather than "lowly". The only difference between this story and the depiction of gentile involvement in Q is the initial, exclusionary, statement. If this initial exclusionary stance is historical, why don't we find it in Q? No, this is myth-making in progress. The existing Jewish rejection is retrojected into the narrative construction by making gentile inclusion a later development. The historical reality behind the evidence is more consistent with a Hellenistic-Jewish origin that obtained growing rejection from orthodox Judaism. This is the pattern seen in Q. The enemies of the Q prophets are strict adherents to Jewish Law and the later apocalyptic content reflects an ever-increasing rejection.

How does pointing to a single scholar who differs from the consensus change the existence of that consensus?

Regarding Robinson's attempts to redate the Gospels prior to 70CE, Meier (Jesus the Marginal Jew, p 50 (8)) writes:

"The result is a dazzling tour de force that fails to convince. The thesis has been largely rejected by New Testament scholars; for a telling review, see Robert M. Grant in JBL 97 (1978) 294-96."

How Doherty dates the Gospels is irrelevant to your denial of the existence of an "observed divergence" in the earliest evidence since I have clearly stated I am not relying on his dates.

Since the dates used for the texs in question are apparently not relevant, do you have any substantive arguments against the existence of an "observed divergence" in the earliest evidence? There is a focus on the life/teachings of Jesus or there is a focus on the death/resurrection of Jesus.

rlogan

Thank you Amaleq13 and Magdlyn for carrying the water on the Gentile and gnostic stuff.

I can't add to that.

As far as the contest between Vork and Gak + Ich -

I am still waiting for one explicit reference to human quality. All of the "human" references provided are still interpretations as opposed to explicitly human references.

We also never see "Mary, mother of jesus, according to the flesh" because people just do not speak that way about reality. And the gospels are alleging a reality of birth and death.


When they put on their ecclesiastical garb and start talking mumbo-jumbo about nebulous mixed spirit world/earthly world concepts - then you get this "according to the flesh" business.

ichabod crane

Paul has certain proto-gnostic themes, but he clearly identifies God the father who sent his Son with Yahweh throughout his works, which means that he cannot be classified as gnostic in the true sense. I think the statement that gnosticism did not get going until the 2nd century is pretty uncontroversial in scholarly circles; but if you have other evidence, I'm happy to hear it.

As for the gnostic influence on the gospel, if you're referring to the gospel of John, which is what we were discussing, then I agree with you that there are proto-gnostic elements there, specifically, the gospel is strongly docetic in its presentation of Jesus (unlike the synoptics). There does indeed seem to be a "hidden meaning" in what Jesus says and does, although I think we should understand that meaning in light of how the author develops his own theology of the logos. But, there is an important issue that all this raises. It's one thing to say there is a hidden meaning to something. It's another thing to say that the hidden meaning is valid. Now if the gospel of John is essentially a fraud and fiction, then the writer was a blatant liar. Why should we look to a blatant liar for religious guidance? On the other hand, it Jesus himself existed and taught "hidden meanings", then there is some basis for saying that Jesus was sent by God and reveals something true. So I guess it comes down to whether you see the evidence as leading to gnosticism or atheism.

Maybe a good way to look at it in crude terms would be to say that the gospel of John is the "esoteric" gospel, but the three synoptic gospels are "exoteric" gospels.

You're an advocate of "realized eschatology", which is fair enough; various NT scholars such as Bultmann have held a similar position (incidentally, Bultmann also had gnostic sympathies). But I do not see it in quite so clear terms. There is a strong element of realized eschatology in Paul, but there is also a strong sense of a coming eschaton, which he expects to be soon, probably in his lifetime. The two are not mutually exclusive, but are connected in his thought.

Not if the gospels are from the 1st century. But if, as Doherty claims, they're from the 2nd century, then the battle lines had been drawn and my argument is relevant.

Out of interest, how would you then interpret Old Testament examples of resurrection from the dead, such as Elijah raising the widow's son in 1 Kings 17? There clearly is a Hebrew background, not just a pagan background, for such accounts.

You're now contradicting yourself! When I raised the issue of anti-gnostic rhetoric in the synoptics, you said they were written before the battle lines had been drawn. Now you're putting them "much later" than Paul. You can't have it both ways! I'm disputing that they are much later than Paul, that's what my arguments have been directed against. So you can't just assert it as fact.

I mean the Pharisaic tradition, from which Paul himself claims to have come.

It's not so simple. On some issues, Jesus is far out beyond what Hillel would think. On others, he's extremely conservative.

Different groups can have common interests. But in any case the Saducees play little role in the gospels; they crop up occasionally to object to Jesus' teaching, but that's about it. They were aristocratic and probably didn't care too much about what the hoi polloi were doing.

That is true. However, orthodoxy from the time of the exile on was defined by the tradition of Ezra, whom the Jews view as virtually equal to Moses in stature. Ezra re-instituted the strict observance of the law. The Pharisees were the descendents of the tradition that Ezra commenced. But they certainly incorporated Persian beliefs into their understanding of the Old Testament.

Yes, but don't you think there is irony involved in how these kings responded, compared to the "king of the Jews", Herod? With regard to the shepherds, the point wasn't so much that they were in the same narratives, as they served a similar literary function.

The eucharist might commemorate the central theme of Paul's theology, but that's not the same thing as saying that Paul thought of it as important theologically. If it wasn't for I Cor. 11, we might conclude that he didn't even know about the practice at all, but it would still be true that it commemorated the central theme of his theology. I'm sorry Amaleq13, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree over this issue. The eucharist just wasn't important theologically to Paul.

Yes, Paul received it from the risen Lord, but the risen Lord told him what happened before he was risen. It says, "the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed, did such and such". Clearly that is asserting something about what Jesus did prior to his resurrection. It also, incidentally, calls Jesus Jesus before his resurrection (as per our debate on the other thread).

No it isn't. Only if Paul makes that connection, is what you're saying valid. We have to accept Paul's theology as stated by Paul, not inject our own theological connections and theories into the text. And you still haven't given me even a slightly plausible explanation as to why Paul doesn't mention the eucharist anywhere in his theology if it was so important to him.

Maybe, but all that shows is a development of belief from Judaism. The idea that gentiles could be included in the people of God, or that the law had passed away, were also antithetical to Jewish beliefs. Christianity was a new religion. But the issue is what the roots of the religion were. It is possible to develop a particular school of thought in an antithetical way, reacting against it and therefore being defined in opposition to it.

The issue isn't historicity. The issue is the literary purpose of the portrayel. The narrative portrays the Jewish disciples as reacting negatively to the concept because they interpreted it literally, as it does over and over again in other contexts. The presentation is of a Jesus who speaks mysterious figurative enigmas, and Jews who keep on misunderstanding him by taking him literally. Underlying this is a negative view of the Jews as people who adhere to the letter of things but miss the deeper spirit. Even after Jesus' statement about what he says being spirit and life, the disciples are still portrayed as dummies who don't get it.

Incidentally, there is another very significant problem with your argument here. You connect Jesus' statements about eating his flesh with the eucharist. But not only is this not stated in the text, there is a huge argument against it. That is, the statements you are referring to are in the gospel of John, but the gospel of John entirely omits any mention of the eucharist at the last supper. Now if the writer had in mind the eucharist, why would he omit it from the narrative? This is a huge problem with your interpretation.

No, see previous comment about antithetical nature of much Christian belief.

I can't agree. The gentile instances are exceptions where gentiles specifically came to Jesus. Show me any text where gentiles are portrayed as his disciples, or where Jesus is portrayed as going to the gentiles. There aren't any. The picture is consistent. And why would gentiles later insert anti-gentile elements which I quoted a few posts ago, when they could easily portray Jesus as going only to the Jews without this? It isn't human nature to run yourself down.

Yes, her faith is commendable, but you can't get around Jesus' description of her as a dog or his reluctance to help her at first. He only helps her when she really pushes him.

A lot of recent scholarship would agree with Robinson on John, if not that it was first written, that it was written early.

How does the opinion of a single scholar (or two) affect anything ? In any case, you don't have to accept Robinson's whole thesis in order to accept a certain validity to what he is arguing. Robinson, like most scholars who make a name for themselves, was arguing an extreme case against the convention. He was pushing the envelope in the opposite direction to the concensus. Usually, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. And, incidentally, no-one can dispute Robinson's credentials as a NT scholar. He is also no conservative; his infamous book "Honest to God" stirred a huge controversy which you may be familiar with and which led for calls for him to be booted out of the Anglican church.

It seems that I have misunderstood what you meant by "observed divergence". I thought you meant a divergence in the accounts of Jesus' life and teaching. But you were going back to the "life/teaching" versus "death/resurrection" divergence. Then I return to the explanation which I gave previously about Paul, which is emminently reasonable and fits the data much better then the Doherty theory.

Yes, but haven't I addressed this? The lack of human references is a Pauline phenomenon. Paul came along and took the emphasis off the human Jesus for good reason. So what remains unexplained?

I think I'd be fortunate if I could find a church that would let me put on their ecclesiastical garb . But I didn't say anything along the lines of what you say here, so I'm somewhat puzzled about the whole thing.

GakuseiDon

Does the "according to the flesh" pretty much lay the issue to rest? AFAIK, Doherty doesn't examine other cases of where it is used, only on Jesus. Yet in other cases, it only seems to refer to real-life people.

This is the example I gave before:

2Cr 1:16 And to pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again out of Macedonia unto you, and of you to be brought on my way toward Judaea.
2Cr 1:17 When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?

Compare it to:

2Cr 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Cr 5:15 And [that] he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
2Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.

Both examples come from the same epistle. There doesn't seem to be anyway to say that the reference to Christ refers to anything other than a physical Christ - in the same way that Paul is physical - without assuming it in the first place.

Vorkosigan

We've already been through this, Don, and the two cases you brought up simply reinforce my point. In Gal 4 "Paul" uses it to describe the relationship between two people to two covenants, and describes it as allegorical. He uses that very word. Here. let's read it again:

23 But he [that was] of the maid servant was born according to flesh, and he [that was] of the free woman through the promise.
24 Which things have an allegorical sense; for these are two covenants: one from mount Sinai, gendering to bondage, which is Hagar.

The first maidservant's child was born "according to the flesh." Paul then says:

"Which things have an allegorical sense."

Read that carefully: "an ALLEGORICAL sense." (the meaning of which Paul goes on to define.

Now, you then pick 2 Cor, which is quite remarkable, considering that AGAIN Paul uses "flesh" in a metaphorical manner, to stand for the world. The NIV translation makes that clear; it simply gets rid of "flesh" entirely and uses "worldly" as opposed to "Godly."

NIV
16I planned to visit you on my way to Macedonia and to come back to you from Macedonia, and then to have you send me on my way to Judea. 17When I planned this, did I do it lightly? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say, "Yes, yes" and "No, no"?
18But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not "Yes" and "No."

The other passage the NIV does the same thing with:

14For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

So, thanks for finding TWO MORE passages that illustrate the depth of meaning that Paul could pack into that simple word, "FLESH."

In other words, the word "flesh" was often used by Paul to designate things of this world (as opposed to the heavenly one) in a very abstract way, metaphorically. So when he says Jesus was "according to the flesh" is he describing the mundane birth of Jesus, or some more complex relationship between the law, the world, and God? The NIV answers that question by getting rid of the whole problem of the meaning of the word "flesh" and simply calling it "his human nature." LOL.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

Yes. It doesn't at all show Jesus is historical.

In order to advance that, you have to demonstrate that this is the wording reserved for something historical.

It is used in the sense of or "physical" and not "spiritual". But not in the sense you are wishing.

Of course people have such references. But they also have references about "the spirit", do they not? And would you conclude that these very historical people are now not historical because Paul applies the word "spirit" to them?

Is Paul not historical because he learned of Christ through the spirit?


Lets look at the text:

OK - what do the words "according to the flesh" mean here? What is it applied to?


pass you by "according to the flesh" ? no.

out of Macedonia "according to the flesh"? no.

These are certainly historical events, but they need no such qualifier.

do I purpose according to the flesh? ahhh...

Does this mean his purpose was historical? As opposed to myth?


Wouldn't that be an absurd reading? He is speaking about intentions. We do not think of intentions as historical events.

The only things in that passage that are historical events are the passing by and the out of Macedonia. But they do not have this "in the flesh" applied to them.

He is using it to speak of emotions or motivations.


Compare it to:

Cool.

Henceforward we know no man historically?

Though we have known Christ historically, from now on we do not know him historically?

Once again, the application is to a concept, not an event. Not a thing.

To "know" is a state of mind. How we view something. Our love for something.


I have a certain "of the flesh" way of thinking about <insert hot movie star>. It is not history, unfortunately. Paul does not want me to think of her in that way.


So in these passages the terminilogy "according to the flesh" is not a mechanism to tell us he is moving to a historical event as opposed to a mythical story. It is a way of differentiating between motivations, feelings, and such.

It is a way of separating base emotions from spiritual yearning.

We therefore do not use such passages to advance Jesus as being historical.

GakuseiDon

Heh? How does that answer the question? Let's look at that second passage again:
So, Christ dies, and they no longer regard Him from a wordly point of view. The plain reading of this passage is that they (the "we" in the passage) regarded Christ from a worldly point of view, until after His death.

Wouldn't you agree that "from now on" implies that previously, they DID regard Christ from a worldly point of view? How could they have regarded Christ from a worldly point of view before He died??? Or did they regard Christ from a worldly point of view at some stage after He died?

Vork, I can't see how this helps you.

GakuseiDon

I cannot make heads or tails of this, I'm afraid. If you mean that "according to the flesh" means "carnally", then yes, I've already said that.

Perhaps the NIV version that Vork used might be easier:

16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

"Though we once regarded Christ from a worldly point of view" - what does this mean, IYO?

ichabod crane

Sorry for butting in ...

Yes, so the "according to the flesh" begetting of Ishmael is the concrete, literal thing on which the allegory is built.

Yes, because the NIV is a conservative evangelical/fundamentalist translation and they are guilty of inserting their own theological biases into the text. Conservatives hate the idea that "flesh" in Paul refers to the physical flesh, because they see that as a nasty gnostic idea. So the NIV frequently substitutes something else for flesh, such as "sinful nature". But that doesn't change the fact that the text reads "flesh".

Often? A word which is used in the Pauline and psuedo-Pauline epistles 77 times by my count, and you give 3 dubious examples, and say "often"? Even if we accept your examples, they all involve the preposition kata. You haven't given any example at all where "flesh" standing alone means anything other than flesh.

Your first statement is spot on. "Flesh" refers to physicality. If someone has flesh or is born according to the flesh, then they have a physical nature. Obviously, people also have a spiritual nature. Paul holds to a dualistic anthropology in my view. Show me somewhere where either flesh or "according to the flesh" is used to mean "something which is spiritual but appears amongst other things that are fleshly".

Paul is talking about purposing in the way which people who are dominated by their fleshly desires purpose. But that still requires the standard meaning of "flesh". The same is true of your second example. "Know after the flesh" means know in the manner of people who are dominated by their fleshly desires.

ichabod crane

The issue might be helped if I clarify something about how Paul thinks of humans. He sees them composed of two warring parties: the flesh and the spirit. He regards the "mind" as being the field of battle between these two opposing forces. Thus you can be either "fleshly minded" or "spiritually minded", depending upon which of these two opposing forces you align yourself with in terms of your volutary decision-making. The flesh is the physical nature; thus he regards all evil desires and lusts as coming from the physical nature, and refers to them as the "lusts of the body".

I hope this clarifies the issue of mental phenomena such as knowledge being described as "according to the flesh" or "according to the spirit".