Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 10-03-2011, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Ok, but why don't you just tell me what a Christian means by 'in the spirit'. Apart from anything else, I'm not entirely familiar with going to church, and can't say as I've heard a Christian saying this.

But....

The issue here is that 'Paul' uses the phrase twice, in short succession, and I really think we should be addressing the text, rather than asking what Christians might mean when referring to something else. It's one thing to suggest that it's a way of looking/thinking about something, but given the way it's used in the text here.......

Btw, I qoted 2 Cor 5 in it's entirety. I think both phrases are there, but I still don't see any reference to a non-earthly realm.

I made no comment regarding a non-earthly realm, so I am not sure why you keep using that reference.

I'll try to explain again, maybe this will be clearer.

We once understood the messiah to be an earthly ruler, we understand him thus no longer.

What a Christian means is that there are two ways to read scripture (in the flesh, with our earthly eyes, versus in the spirit, with our spiritual eyes), but only one way to truely understand it (with our spiritual eyes). Of course, this is something that Paul alludes to throughout his writings. It also applies to ears and everything else. Think about speaking in tongues.

dog-on · 10-03-2011, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I understand the first passage to mean something like the following:

They are Israelites … (to them belong the patriarchs), - known through their writings

and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh - the Messiah, based on a worldly understanding of their writings.

Thank you. What does "based on a worldly understanding of their writings" mean, in your view?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The second:

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh; - we regard no one from a worldly viewpoint any longer

even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer - Just as the messiah was once understood from a worldly viewpoint, we now understand him in the spirit.

Do you mean: we once understood the prophetic writings as indicating there would be an earthly Messiah, but now we understand he would be a spiritual Messiah?

Yes, pretty much that. The messiah is no longer to be thought of as an earthly king, but instead as a heavenly one, based on the revelation of the mystery hidden in the sacred writings by God.

Something to that effect.

archibald · 10-03-2011, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I made no comment regarding a non-earthly realm, so I am not sure why you keep using that reference.

Ok, but....surely your explanation must imply the same?

Where do you think Jesus is a 'non-earthly ruler'?

In heaven?

Sure. But that's entirely non-controversial, given that he's dead, for 'Paul'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

We once understood the messiah to be an earthly ruler, we understand him thus no longer.

The only way I can square this with the text in question is if we both agree that the text is referring to a post-crucifixion Jesus.

If not, then it still doesn't seem to relate to use of the phrase 'in the flesh' in either Romans or 2 Cor.

Iow, if I am to take your reading, I need to see how the text in question does not indicate a different meaning.

In saying that Israelis are his countrymen according to the flesh and that Jesus came from them according to the flesh......you see my problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

What a Christian means is that there are two ways to read scripture (in the flesh, with our earthly eyes, versus in the spirit, with our spiritual eyes), but only one way to truely understand it (with our spiritual eyes). Of course, this is something that Paul alludes to throughout his writings. It also applies to ears and everything else. Think about speaking in tongues.

This is very interesting, but again, Modern Christians are referring to a post-crucifixion Jesus.

I am not sure about the temptation to see Paul as only writing in metaphors. Someone, anyone, may use metaphors, but, if we simply say his references to earthly Jesus are metaphorical, well then, yes, that gets us out from under all possible HJ arguments. Neatly.

As I keep saying, there are a heck of a lot of metaphors in that case. Including the word 'man'.

aa5874 · 10-03-2011, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

.... I'm suggesting that Paul's writing sound much more like he believed Jesus had actually lived and died on earth than that he didn't believe this....

HJ of Nazareth is NOT about BELIEF. You need to SHOW us that YOUR HJ of NAZARETH was WITNESSED to have existed.

You MUST provide a WITNESS LIST, a Credible Source, for HJ of NAZARETH before the resurrection.

It is NOT Doherty who DECIDES the Nature of Jesus it is the WRITTEN evidence from antiquity.

Myths are claimed to have lived on earth and come from heaven

The Pauline Jesus Christ was PURE MYTH from heaven that was BELIEVED to have lived on earth.

1Cor 15:47 -

Quote:

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

The Pauline Jesus Christ is NOT a man.

Galatians 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)...

The Pauline Jesus Christ was the SENT SON of God.

Galatians 4.4

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...

The Pauline Jesus Christ was the REVEALED Son of God.

Galatians 1.15-16

Quote:

15 But when it pleased God....... To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood...

The Pauline Jesus Christ was NOT a CREATURE but the Creator.

Romans 1.25

Quote:

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness ....... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

The Pauline writer did NOT get his gospel from man.

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.

The Pauline Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

1 Cor. 15.3-4

Quote:

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ.... rose again the third day according to the scriptures...

The written evidence of the Pauline Myth Jesus is PRISTINE and well-documented.

dog-on · 10-03-2011, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I made no comment regarding a non-earthly realm, so I am not sure why you keep using that reference.

Ok, but....surely your explanation must imply the same?

Where do you think Jesus is a 'non-earthly ruler'?

In heaven?

Sure. But that's entirely non-controversial, given that he's dead, for 'Paul'.

Actually, he is very much alive for Paul. That is kinda Paul's point.

Quote:

The only way I can square this with the text in question is if we both agree that the text is referring to a post-crucifixion Jesus.

If not, then it still doesn't seem to relate to use of the phrase 'in the flesh' in either Romans or 2 Cor.

Iow, if I am to take your reading, I need to see how the text in question does not indicate a different meaning.

In saying that Israelis are his countrymen according to the flesh and that Jesus came from them according to the flesh......you see my problem?

You are being selective simply, it seems, to reinforce your preconception. Paul is not using the term in the way that you wish him to as he also says that he regards no man in the flesh...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

What a Christian means is that there are two ways to read scripture (in the flesh, with our earthly eyes, versus in the spirit, with our spiritual eyes), but only one way to truely understand it (with our spiritual eyes). Of course, this is something that Paul alludes to throughout his writings. It also applies to ears and everything else. Think about speaking in tongues.

This is very interesting, but again, Modern Christians are referring to a post-crucifixion Jesus.

The understanding derives from Paul.

archibald · 10-03-2011, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Actually, he is very much alive for Paul. That is kinda Paul's point.

That's fine by me. I'm only interested in what Paul thought he once was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You are being selective simply, it seems, to reinforce your preconception. Paul is not using the term in the way that you wish him to as he also says that he regards no man in the flesh...

I agree this is not as straightforward, but does he not say 'now' regard no man in the flesh, and that Jesus 'was' thought of in the flesh.

And again, I'm not sure how you have addressed what the text in Romans says. It seems you really want to look elsewhere for examples with less ambiguity?

Israelis are his countrymen according to the flesh and Jesus came from them according to the flesh......this is the text Don is asking about.

It would be entirely possible to take your point, and still ask what the text means here.

Seems to me the fact that the text uses the phrase twice close together is a boon to understanding something that might elsewhere be less clear cut (seeming).

dog-on · 10-03-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Actually, he is very much alive for Paul. That is kinda Paul's point.

That's fine by me. I'm only interested in what Paul thought he once was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You are being selective simply, it seems, to reinforce your preconception. Paul is not using the term in the way that you wish him to as he also says that he regards no man in the flesh...

I agree this is not as straightforward, but does he not say 'now' regard no man in the flesh, and that Jesus 'was' thought of in the flesh.

And again, I'm not sure how you have addressed what the text in Romans says. It seems you really want to look elsewhere for examples with less ambiguity?

Israelis are his countrymen according to the flesh and Jesus came from them according to the flesh......this is the text Don is asking about.

It would be entirely possible to take your point, and still ask what the text means here.

Seems to me the fact that the text uses the phrase twice close together is a boon to understanding something that might elsewhere be less clear cut (seeming).

Though, as I said, such an understanding makes other areas incoherent, whereas the understanding I have suggested does not.

Regarding Romans 9, specifically, it is, of course, true that the understanding of the Messiah comes from the Israelites, through the Patriarchs, which is how scripture, such as Isaiah, was known.

aa5874 · 10-03-2011, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Actually, he is very much alive for Paul. That is kinda Paul's point.

That's fine by me. I'm only interested in what Paul thought he once was...

Paul thought Jesus was GOD in the FLESH. See Galatians 4.4

But, again that is what he THOUGHT not what he WITNESSED.

You NEED a WITNESS LIST, a SOURCE, to EXPLAIN YOUR HJ of Nazareth.

Please, PRESENT your WITNESS.

Please, PRESENT your SOURCES

You have NO WITNESSES and NO sources.

You have NO EXPLANATION for HJ of Nazareth.

jakejonesiv · 10-03-2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Maybe this will help.

If you read Isaiah "according to the flesh", it means one thing. However, if you read Isaiah "according to the spirit", it means something else entirely.

Get it?

Or think about it in the context of what Paul meant when he talked about the mystery, hidden for ages past.

The passages are:

“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).

Rather than dropping hints about it, just tell us what you think the passages mean. Thanks

2 Corinthians 5:16 has nothing to do with the purported flesh of Christ (or lack thereof) but with the way of knowing him, i.e. worldly knowledge vs. a more advanced spiritual knowledge.

The NIV catches the drift of this passge.

Jake

jakejonesiv · 10-03-2011, 08:24 AM

Could someone fill me in on which Jews at the time were not descended from the patriarchs (Romans 9:5)? Which were not born of a woman (Gal 4:4)? And couldn't a claim be manufuactured for almost any Jew to be descended from David, as the contradictory and spurious geneologies of Matthew and Luke demonstrate?

Why belabor the obvious? The answer is quite simple. Someone was teaching
just the opposite, that Jesus was not born, that Jesus was not a Jew, and that Jesus had only illusory flesh.

Jake

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

10-03-2011, 08:24 AM	#350
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Could someone fill me in on which Jews at the time were not descended from the patriarchs (Romans 9:5)? Which were not born of a woman (Gal 4:4)? And couldn't a claim be manufuactured for almost any Jew to be descended from David, as the contradictory and spurious geneologies of Matthew and Luke demonstrate? Why belabor the obvious? The answer is quite simple. Someone was teaching just the opposite, that Jesus was not born, that Jesus was not a Jew, and that Jesus had only illusory flesh. Jake

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.