ichabod crane

Seems simple enough to me. Here goes.

1. The law died when Christ died. Hence our "husband" the law is dead. This is clear if chapters 6 and 7 are read together in context. The law and sin were put to death with Christ when he was crucified.

2. Christ rose in the spirit. Hence we have a new "husband" the risen Christ, in whom we are free from the law.

What's the problem? Isn't it just that you haven't read him very carefully? How is that Paul's fault?

Yes, but at Jerusalem the Sanhedrin had great power and were entrusted by the Romans with most internal affairs. For what? How about for going about saying that someone that the Sanhedrin had condemned and helped engineer the execution of, was really the Messiah. That just might have upset them a tad.

And we won't mention a few atheistic regimes like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam etc. etc. etc. were people are persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Then why *is* it necessary in later writings like Colossians and the Pastorals? You want to talk about silences that speak loudly - this is one!

But I've already advanced a plausible alternative explanation for the lack of detail in the Pauline texts, and although Hebrews is not Pauline, it comes from someone heavily influenced by him. My theory explains much more of the details than does yours and Doherty's. You have picked up one feature of the text, and focussed on that to the exclusion of everything else, just forcing everything else to fit the theory.

Amaleq13, I don't quite know what to say. Frankly, what you are arguing is absurd. It DOES matter how many times he mentions it. Something that he never mentions except once in an ad hoc response to problems in the Corinthian church, and NEVER mentions anywhere else in his extensive theological writing, simply cannot be considered central to his theology. Sorry! There are dozens of things that Paul thinks lead to damnation! For example I Cor. 6:9 "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God". So we can add being irreverant at the communal meal to the list. So what?

Firstly, he doesn't say "hating the church" regarding the communal meal, but I take your general point. But the answer to your question about sleeping with a prostitute is YES, he does think both that it shows contempt for the body of Christ, the church, and that it leads to damnation (see previous quote). I Cor. 6 goes on to say, "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The two shall be one flesh." But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself."

I see you like the good ol' King James Version. You might want to update. Nonetheless, I'll add some "unnecessary emphasis" of my own to the passage:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do SHEW the Lord's death till he come."

Seems to me clearly a symbolic remembrance meal. The body SYMBOLISES what they are remembering. A Greek mystery religion would NEVER say that they were merely remembering something. They were actually partaking in the thing in question.

No, I'm not confused, I'm just saying what the text says. John 6:52:

THE JEWS then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

I rest my case.

This doesn't show that gentiles were "assumed present". In fact it says explicitly that she was a Syrophenician woman, who had presumably travelled to see Jesus. And gentiles "clearly accepted"? Come on! He calls them "dogs"!

You still haven't given any examples.

No it isn't. Read the text. The sequence is:

(a) After 3 years went to Jerusalem and saw only Peter.

(b) Then went to Syria and Cilicia for who knows how long.

(c) People know him by reputation in Jerusalem.

(d) After 14 more years, he returns.

Now the text does not assert that (c) follows straight from (a), as you are reading it. It could be anytime between (b) and (d).

But there is no "observed divergence". The divergence depends on theories about the origins of the canonical gospels and Q. It is a speculative theoretical divergence. See below.

Or it could mean that the writers of the canonical gospels and the writer of Thomas both had access to an original version of Q (or just Q1 in the case of Thomas), which was a collection of Jesus' sayings, but that for various reasons they selected different sayings to include. Or there are half a dozen other possible explanations. The problem with the gospel of Thomas is not that it is intrinsically unimportant; it is. The problem is the difficulty in reliably dating it giving the scarcity of the manuscript evidence. If it's late, then one could say about Thomas what Doherty says about the canonical gospels: that it was "fabricated" to support a particular theological viewpoint.

Huh? I could cite scholars saying any of a half dozen different views about the gospel of Thomas. The possibilities for theoretical speculation are inversely proportional to the data. So you cite some that you like. That doesn't impress me much!

The issue isn't whether Adam actually existed. I don't think he did either. The issue is whether PAUL believed that he actually existed. And if he was Jewish, then I think that is highly likely. The Old Testament was generally regarded uncritically as historically true by 1st century Jews.

Many people today believe that Jesus rose from the dead, many of whom I know personally and like, and would not regard as snake oil salesmen. So if Paul believed that, I don't think we should be too hard on him. There are all sorts of reasons why people might sincerely believe that someone rose from the dead. BUT in any case I don't accept that supernatural activity just can't happen. But that's a philosophical difference, rather than a textual one. It seems to me somewhat unfair to read an ancient text in an environment when most people did believe in the supernatural, and just dismiss it as fabrication because they reflect that belief.

I don't see it as prophesy coming true, so much as Jesus' life having certain parallels with OT prophesy which the early Christians got very excited about. There was huge potential for something like this to happen because of the way in which contemporary Judaism interpreted texts. But I also would not exclude any supernatural element. Maybe God did have some involvement in Jesus' life and cause parallels with OT prophecy. As I say, I don't buy your dogmatic assertions on this issue.

Vorkosigan

It's here.
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.

"Flesh" is clearly allegorical here, and related to Paul's ideas about the law.

No irony there. Only two possible positions here; Paul thinks of Jesus as a human or he doesn't. Naturally everyone will fall one way or the other on that question.

Let's not impute motives, OK?

Ichabod, Communism and Christianity are both authority beliefs. That is why they rack up similar body counts, and have similar attitudes toward freedom of thought, speech, and worship. Communists persecute Christians because they recognize a similar and competing authority belief, as well as a refusal to buy into their own. For similar reasons, the Communists also persecuted atheists who were not Communists.

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

What makes you think the reference to flesh is itself allegorical? When he says that Ishmael was born according to the flesh, he means that he was conceived naturally by the normal method. Then he gets to the allegorical meaning of this: that Ishmael represents the Old Covenant people. The reference to the flesh is the basis of the allegory, it isn't the allegory itself.

Who says Christianity is an authority belief? There is as much diversity amongst Christians as there are amongst atheists. SOME Christians have behaved like you describe. In so doing, however, they persecuted other CHRISTIANS, as well as everybody else. So the analogy holds true. Atheists in communist regimes persecuted other religions and non-complying atheists. Christians in other regimes persecuted other religions and non-complying Christians. What's the difference?

I should point out that some Christians, such as the Anabaptists and Socinians, maintained consistent pacifist beliefs in a time when doing so led them to be brutally persecuted all over Europe. So there is good as well as bad. Let me give you just one true example. An Anabaptist who was a baker was tipped off that the Roman Catholic authorities were about to raid his workplace. He fled but didn't have time to put on warm clothes; it was mid-winter. His pursuers chased him on horseback, but found that he had scrambled across the frozen river. They didn't want to take their horses across in case the ice broke. One of them ventured across, but halfway across the ice cracked and he fell in. So what happened? Did his friends help him? No. The Anabaptist turned around, went back onto the ice, and pulled him out. What did he get as a reward? He was burned at the stake a couple of days later. That's the life that some people have lived in attempting to follow Christ.

Vorkosigan

Well, Paul says it is an allegory. I think this is basically a quibble, Ichabod. Paul uses the idea of Flesh in an allegorical way throughout that passage. it's very clear, and he himself states that it is an allegory. Therefore, there is indeed a use of the word "flesh" in Paul in an allegory, and further, it is in reference to the Law.

God does.

There isn't one. That...ummmm...was my point. Authority believers, whatever they call themselves, all behave the same way. Communists, Christians, Muslims, Nazis, Facists, all the same, Ichabod. Those individuals who locate the source of their ethical motivations outside their own minds all behave the same way: controlling.

We are straying from the topic here.

Vorkosian

GakuseiDon

Ichabod, you aren't the first to try to explain this to Vork.

Hey Vork, since Doherty believes that Paul uses "according to the flesh" to refer to a lower celestial realm where supernatural creatures can take on fleshly attributes, then, if "according to the flesh" is used in an analogy, wouldn't that mean it refers to actual flesh?

BTW, ichabod, here is Doherty's 'analysis' of that passage for your consideration: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp08.htm

ichabod crane

If I write a story in which sheep are an allegory for mindless followers of somebody-or-other, does that mean that I think the word "sheep" has some other meaning than a four-legged wooly animal? I don't think so. Neither does Paul think of flesh as meaning anything else other than flesh. But it allegorically represents something else.

Um, how do you know? Do you have his phone number?

Sarah

what, "paul" isn't as good a nom de plume as any? it seems like a nice, if not kind of weak, word. kind of rolls off the tongue...

rlogan

There are two separate laws he is conflating.

1) If you die your debts are discharged.

2) If your spouse dies you can remarry.


which is re-confirmed by:

Paul is tryoing to make us dead without us dying. So he can have us escape our debt to the law. Therefore we become "identified" (become one with) the dead Christ.

But Ich you are either dead or not. You do not escape your debts when someone else dies.

he does not say that the law has died

So how does that bring us to:

It was not the law that died. It was we who died. To escape the law. But now he has switched principles. It is instead the law that has died so that we (the spouse) can remarry.

It is inelegant bungling. A good lawyer would not mix up these principles.


I need to know what Paul's position was. Sergeant at arms for the Sanhedrin? It is not good enough to wave hands. What histoprical position would this be?

The "trial" story does not come until later, and you are well read enough to know that it has holes big enough to drive a chariot through.


Issues of separation of powers, representation, limited terms, etc.


Forgive me. Insufficient knowledge of Colossians to address you intelligently here.


Ouch!

actually I have quite a few things shaping my thinking that we have not discussed. Chief among these textually is the lack of a date for the most important event in all of Christianity.


The Greeks as well had gods marrying humans, having children, and moving between worlds. I need explicit and unambiguous references to a human.


I apologize for rudeness. We each have our own snake oil department.

It is loudly proclaimed and central to the faith that jesus is the messiah by virtue of fulfilling HB prophesy.

No problem

Vorkosigan

We are not arguing about what the passage means, Don. Ichabod claims that the word "flesh" is not used allegorically in Paul, but in Galatians it clearly is. So the question remains open what Paul meant by Jesus being born "kata sarka."

I am glad to know what Doherty thinks, but that is not relevant to whether the word "flesh" here is literal or figurative. The passage in question refers to two women giving natural birth. So Paul's use of "flesh" here must have an other-than-literal meaning. That was what Ichabod and I were discussing. Again, as Darby translates it:

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.

Now, Paul says that these have an allegorical sense, which Paul then explains:

25 For Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which [is] now, for she is in bondage with her children;
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother.

I assume that you wouldn't argue that "mother" used here is literal, so why do you argue that "flesh" is, when it is so clearly allegorical, as Paul carefully explains. Paul neatly ties up his allegory:

29 But as then he that was born according to flesh persecuted him [that was born] according to Spirit, so also [it is] now.

I assume you take "Spirit" and "Flesh" here to be allegorical. Unless you can explain how they are literal.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Of course it allegorically represents something else! You argued that such allegory did not exist; to wit:

The only time the phrase "born under the law" occurs in Galations is 4:4. The nearest occurrence of the word sarx is 4:13 where it clearly refers to the physical body. I've had a look through every occurrence of sarx in Galations, and I can't find anywhere that it doesn't plausibly refer to the physical body.

Obviously, in Gal 4 it does not refer to a physical body, but to a relationship to a particular covenant. As Paul notes.

No. His believers assure me that is the case, though.

Vorkosigan